Allow Chronicles in ranked without mixing AOE2?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

I suggest that when players join ranked games, they have the option to play with AoE2 or Chronicles.

I have looked into some posts about this, and the general opinion seems to be mixed between allowing Chronicles civs to be put in ranked, and that they are too strong/weak compared to AoE2 and would unbalance the game with their unique mechanics. However, as far as I know, the Chronicles civs are roughly equal strength as each other.

The Achaemenids are my favorite civilization, and I play as them 90% of the time in skirmish/custom games. Creating an option to choose from AoE2 or Chronicles would allow the players who have favorite civs in Chronicles to use them in ranked without unbalancing AoE2. Is this possible?

2

I’d just do a separate ranked mode for Chronicles civs and Three Kingdoms

4 Likes
3

I believe the biggest issue with Three Kingdoms is not numerical balance, but the overall direction of its civilization design.

The problem is that the strengths and weaknesses of some civilizations have a noticeable disconnect from their historical identities.

A civilization doesn’t need to have every technology. Age of Empires II has always created civilizations through clear strengths and limitations. However, when a civilization loses important technologies, it should receive corresponding advantages in return.

In other words:

Weaknesses should reinforce a civilization’s identity, not conflict with it.

Wei

Historically, Wei was associated with strong state power, a large population base, effective military administration, and a large standing army.

A reasonable interpretation in Age of Empires II would be:

  1. Strong logistics and economic capability
  2. A reliable infantry core
  3. A versatile imperial army
  4. Support from cavalry and siege weapons

Wei doesn’t need every counter unit, nor does it need to become an all-technology civilization. However, it should have a complete main fighting force.

If players want to recreate a Wei-style army but its main infantry route is not practical, then the civilization fantasy is weakened.

The true identity of Wei should be its “state power and military system”, rather than relying on a single unique unit to represent the entire civilization.

A unique unit can represent certain aspects of Wei, such as elite cavalry, but it should be built on top of a complete military system rather than replacing the core army.

Shu

The issue with Shu is not that it has a unique infantry unit, but that its current design appears to be overly focused on early pressure.

A more natural interpretation would be a civilization that:

Maintains a high-quality army with limited resources, and wins through ranged firepower and elite forces.

Shu could represent:

  1. Strong ranged firepower
  2. Crossbowmen-based armies
  3. Siege support
  4. Efficient but limited elite forces

However, restricting melee attack technologies to only the earliest level reduces many possible designs.

Shu shouldn’t rely only on early Archer-line timing.

If the civilization’s advantages mainly exist through early pressure, it risks becoming a simple rush civilization without a meaningful Imperial Age identity.

A complete Shu should represent the idea of “winning against larger forces through elite quality”, rather than relying only on early aggression.

Crossbowmen and siege weapons should form the core of Shu’s military system, but the entire civilization should not be reduced to a single aggressive strategy.

Wu

Interestingly, Wu’s design philosophy is actually closer to the traditional Age of Empires II civilization design approach.

Its weaknesses feel less strange compared to Wei and Shu.

Reducing some of Wu’s land warfare capability would be understandable, because its historical advantages were not based on northern heavy armies.

A natural gameplay identity would be:

  1. Strong navy
  2. Yangtze River economic advantages
  3. Control over waterways
  4. Defensive and attrition warfare

This follows the traditional Age of Empires II design philosophy:

“Wu doesn’t need to be designed as a weak land warfare civilization, but its land army should have a direction that matches its historical identity.”

However, the most questionable point is:

Wu may actually become the civilization among the Three Kingdoms that is closest to a traditional land warfare civilization.

Historically, Eastern Wu had the least access to horses among the Three Kingdoms and was not famous for northern cavalry or large-scale land armies.

However, if Wu has a complete land technology tree, excellent cavalry defensive capabilities, and fewer traditional land warfare weaknesses, it creates a gap between historical identity and gameplay.

Especially:

The faction with the least access to horses among the Three Kingdoms having extremely defensive cavalry is quite questionable.

Wu does not need to become weaker. Instead, its strengths should be redirected toward a design that better matches its identity.

Hero Mechanics and Civilization Identity

I believe the developers could try a test: temporarily remove hero mechanics and reevaluate these civilizations.

However, this does not mean that hero mechanics have no value.

A well-designed hero can strengthen a civilization’s identity, just like a unique unit or unique technology.

For example, a hero that improves army sustain through healing can reinforce a civilization focused on endurance and attrition warfare.

The real problem appears when a civilization relies too heavily on heroes to compensate for missing core options.

A powerful hero can sometimes hide problems such as:

  1. Technology tree weaknesses
  2. Lack of a main army option
  3. Unclear military direction

However, if a civilization can still create a complete gameplay identity through:

  1. Economy
  2. Technology tree
  3. Main military routes

after removing heroes, then the civilization design is truly working.

Classic Age of Empires II civilizations are usually not built around a single hero or unique unit. They are built around a complete military system.

Heroes should extend a civilization’s identity, not become the foundation that keeps the civilization functional.

Conclusion

The problem with Three Kingdoms is not that it differs from classic Age of Empires II civilizations.

Age of Empires II has always allowed creative interpretations of civilizations.

The real issue is the connection between:

  1. Historical identity
  2. Main military direction
  3. Actual gameplay

is sometimes too weak.

Unique units, unique technologies, and hero mechanics should strengthen a civilization’s core identity, not replace it.

Three Kingdoms still has great potential, but some civilizations may need a redesign of their fundamental roles rather than only numerical balance adjustments.

A good first step would be asking:

After removing heroes, can these civilizations still function through their own technology trees and military systems?

4

I’m not going to engage in a debate with an AI-generated response.

3 Likes
5

I think one important thing about Three Kingdoms discussions is that this topic is not exactly new.

Many AoE2 players have already spent a lot of time thinking about how Wei, Shu, and Wu should be designed. Most long-time players probably already have their own theories and preferred directions.

The value of these discussions is not whether the text is short or long, or whether it looks polished. The important part is whether the ideas come from actual gameplay experience and whether they explain why a civilization should work in a certain way.

For Three Kingdoms especially, there are many design questions that the community has been debating since release.

6

Judging by the winrates, 3K civs are actually balanced, with the Shu in top 10 and the other 2 below.

Putting the 3K in a ranked mode with Chronicles would cause problems; 3K has heroes and Traction Trebuchets, while Chronicles has the tech choice mechanic (ex. Reed Arrows/Sapabaras) and a superpowered navy. It would also raise the question of whether to combine the entire expansion (3K+Jurchens+Khitans) or just 3K.

Putting 3K aside for now, would Chronicles, by itself, in a separate game mode, work for ranked?

7

Whether the Three Kingdoms civs are strong or weak is not my main concern.

My concern is whether the civilization design actually reflects the historical identities of Wei, Shu, and Wu.

I don’t deny that some of them, especially Shu, are naturally suited for aggressive play and can perform very well in the current meta. A civ with a strong rush identity is not automatically a problem.

The bigger question is whether these gameplay concepts came from their historical identities, or whether the gameplay came first and the historical names were added afterward.

Balance can always be adjusted. But the connection between a civilization and its history is what makes Age of Empires what it is.

If you remove the names, the heroes, and other obvious references, I wonder how many players would still recognize these as Wei, Shu, and Wu.

8

Chronicles currently has 6 playable civilizations. That’s not enough to allow for ranked play without having to mix with the AOE2 civilizations. You’d have to wait for another Chronicles expansion focused on Rome, where they’ll add three more civilizations for a total of nine, which would provide a more than acceptable number to play a Chronicles match in Ranked without having to mix with AOE2.

9

Chronicles becoming a standalone Ranked mode is not only about having more civilizations.

The bigger question is whether each civilization and unique unit is designed for competitive play.

The “Battle for Greece” civilizations may still have some competitive potential, but the “Alexander the Great” campaign civilizations feel less suitable for Ranked at the moment.

Some units have strong historical identities, but their gameplay roles are unclear:

Thracians are labeled as an infantry civilization, but their infantry limitations make that role questionable.
Macedonian units such as the Phalangite and Companion Cavalry have historical value, but their costs and effectiveness may not justify choosing them over standard units.
Puru’s Sannāhya costs 2 population, but its battlefield impact may not match that investment.

Chronicles’ branching Unique Technologies are a promising idea because they allow civilizations to develop in different directions.

However, those paths need to create meaningful competitive choices, not just historical flavor.

A unique mechanic alone is not enough.

Special abilities must be supported by proper stats and a clear battlefield role.

For Chronicles Ranked, the key question is not:

“Do we have enough civilizations?”

It is:

“Are these civilizations designed to compete?”

10

I’m not against a ranked mode, I just wouldn’t use it. But please don’t ruin the creativity and freedom of Civ Design just so for the propose of balanced in ranked mode.

the good think is that the chronicles civ can be Design with out a competition view one them. ther are for for fun

2 Likes
11

True. We should have one coming out this November. I’m looking forward to possible Parthians.

Yes, the Sannahyas seem weak for the pop cost–war elephants are better and they only cost 1. True, their rss cost is higher, but I would take that over 2 pop. Also, the Puru have no halberdiers or camels, which leaves them vulnerable to cavalry.

The Thracians are missing key techs such as Thumb Ring.

The Spartans are extremely weak to siege, with no good cavalry units.

Still, with all of the above, I still think that ranked Chronicles with 9+ civs would be great. Especially if the devs fix those problems.

12

I think this is the main issue.

If future Chronicles civilizations are designed with the same standards as the Alexander the Great civilizations, the Battle for Greece civilizations may become the clear winners of the whole pool.

They are not necessarily overpowered, but they were designed closer to complete AoE2 competitive civilizations. Many Alexander civilizations, on the other hand, feel more like campaign-focused designs, prioritizing historical flavor over having all the tools needed for Ranked play.

For example, Sparta is not as weak as it was before after the updates. It has a clear identity and can still be competitive; it is just not as outstanding compared to some Battle for Greece civilizations.

13

I agree with giving the Chronicles civs their own matchmaking/ladder, but there’s nowhere near enough Legends civs to give them a separate one, yet.

Literally the worst part of the whole DLC. Weak, expensive units that make SO MUCH NOISE.

14

I agree the Chronicles should get its own ranked mode separate from AOE2 ranked. I would actually try it out if it had its own ranked mode.