AoE 2 had one of the most entertaining campaigns I can remember. I remember my Trebuchets on their last health bar before finally sniping the last castle or wonder I had to destroy (or protect from being destroyed) as the last poster stated. Attila and Barbarossa campaigns were SOOO good... And the MP was pretty fun while it lasted. AoE3 was complete ****. Had some good civs and concepts, but it failed miserably, starting with a crappy campaign that progressively worsened.
What I wanted from AoE was basically what I got to an extent in Civ. I didn't want a turn game per say, but I wanted something that could capture RTS without being a total war game. Incorporate something like building a town/colony/city with an actual population, organization and infrastructure... economically and politically. Trading in real time with a system a little more complex than the supply and demand system in the market. Supporting an actual population and their needs economically, politically, and personally. Age of Empires never took it to that extent in any of its renditions. It was basically a "secure all resources and amass an army" RTS in the vein of Blizzard games, C & C, and similar RtS games.
CiV has tried to do this now, giving the game a significant military bias to almost give you a real time strategy feel that is anything but, though nonetheless just as immersing from a combat standpoint. Problem is, the game in unplayable as a multiplayer. And the AI is so piss poor that they have to make it so overpowered to have the slightest chance of competing.
I just think they need to get back to the roots of what civ is supposed to be about. If you want to bias war, then give us an RtS game or something as close to possible as that. Otherwise, add more content and make it a building game, where we have to manage every aspect and variable that affects running an empire in history. So far it has failed on both counts, but there is room for improvement.
)
