I’m not even a campaign player but even I am disappointed.
I don’t understand, it’s like whatever is on the forum is antithesis to the devs because it wasn’t their idea.
Forum is split between people who want Europe and people who want non-Europe DLCs. But what is clear from this is that people want civ DLCs. You had a consistently good streak until Dynasties of India.
Then you tried to experiment. Like Return of Rome. Well, nobody asked for Return of Rome. Obviously a lot of people didn’t like it. Mountain Royals was obviously lower in quality: no new architecture, higher price, only 2 civs from the 3 of Dynasties of India.
I mean: Mediterranean: Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians, Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish.
That’s 8 civs for 1 architecture set. Byzantines same architecture set as Spanish, really?
Here is a possible fix:
Eastern European: Bohemians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians).
Mediterranean: Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians, Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish.
- Bohemians moved to Central European Architecture (HRE).
- Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians were under the Byzantine Empire at some point, so their buildings style were influenced by the Byzantines. NEW: Byzantine set.
This will lead to a more reasonable:
Central European: Bohemians, Goths, Huns, Teutons, Vikings.
Eastern European: Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians).
Mediterranean: Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish.
Byzantine: Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians.
And the most recent DLC: Victors and Vanquished.
I’m more of a custom scenario and real world maps fan than campaigns. Cobra Racing Stadium, Lord of the Rings Custom Map, Soldier Store, Alterlast, Roll the Dice, Sheep Soccer, Paintball, Castle Blood Automatic. (would be cool if these got some official custom maps btw)
But even I who wasn’t interested in a campaign-based DLC was dissapointed. I feel sorry for the guys who like campaigns and… didn’t get a campaign.
You kind of outright lied in the promo of this DLC. I have a feeling your intention was to give us a positive surprise? you expected a much different reaction, much like in Return of Rome? The community already tells you what it wants on the forum, what makes you think that giving it something that it didn’t mention it wants will have positive impact?
It’s like your kid tells you he wants an apple, you want to surprise your kid and give him a banana, and then you’re shocked that your kid doesn’t want the banana because he said he wants apples.
I mean, the forum is full with maps like these:
But I know, this is a representation on the forum when talking about what civs should be next:
So maybe to avoid all that fire, the devs decided to go in a new direction. To avoid exactly what happened, dissapointing the fans.
But why not make it a non-reginal DLC to please everyone? Some people will be upset if you make the next DLC in Europe, some people will be upset if you make the new DLC outside of Europe. How about doing something like this:
- Zapotecs
- Romanians
- Nubians
- Slavs rework
And instead of having geography in common, they could have something else in common, in this case being the underdog, fighting a bigger empire. (Zapotecs → Aztects; Romanians → Turks; Nubians → Caliphate).
I’m no economist, but I think both European & non-European fans will like them.
Most people will not like the whole package, but most people will like part of the package.
It’s true that people really like the regional DLCs, but that’s because everyone imagines their favorite region when thinking about a regional DLC.
I’m no expert, but I guess sales will tell you what the community likes better than what I ever could.