It’s clear there are many, many “strategic nodes” or points of very specific economic and political strategy involved in skilled Age of Empires 2 play. Getting 3 town centers instead of 2. Rushing to knights, rushing with militia, when to get loom, how to maximize your early economy, getting the first couple of knights out, how to attack and pressure your opponent without being able to actually defeat them, building on success with economic or military followup, ect.
With Age 3? Oh, here’s literally a pile of herdable animals. Did you get the first cavalry out? Congratulations on a skilled game, good job, gg.
Age 3 has little in the way of defenses, even much less in the development of your bases, formations are almost nonexistent, micro is much harder, economics is just spam, ect.
To be fair, you can sort of “ruin” Age 2, and much of the “high level” of Age 2 play depends on lot of very well balanced maps and starting position. If you dropped 40 deer on your starting town center in Age 2, you’d have much of the same problem as Age 3. And when you let players just sit back and build for 30 minutes or an hour you can have games where the entire map is covered in military buildings, dozens and dozens, constantly spamming out units in a kind of endless flood.
But generally speaking, a random game of Age 2 is going to be much more satisfying to me in its game scope and strategic space than Age 3. Age 3 isn’t without merit, it’s not a complete disaster or whatever, but it just feels significantly pared backward.
And just to be clear, this seems to be the overall consensus of history, not just my own personal foibles. Virtually all high level and mid level players consider Age 3 inferior to Age 2 as a competitive RTS multiplayer game. This doesn’t mean you can’t play it and have a good time, but a mediocre player at Age 3 is likely going to have a very hard time in Age 2; meanwhile, a mediocre Age 2 player is likely going to be pretty good at Age 3.