And yet my point is you argue what you want, but ignore everyone else. You also tell those who disagree to leave. Why should I leave when I have what I want? That makes zero sense to me.
Can you point to a single instance of this? Before Accusing me?
I sure can, when you did this:
You told me to âGet lostâ for disagreeing with you, multiple times. This is but one instance of it happening today.
You harm the decorum of the Forum, and prevent discussion on novel ideas.
1 Like
You have what you want i.e. (AoE2 CD/Voobly)
You want a stale RTS, we donât.
Go play it forever. I promise nobody will change anything in it.
1 Like
You told me before that aok 2.0 had what I wanted. The implications there.
And no. This game hasnât been redesigned. New civs added? Absolutely. New units added? Sure. Thry all followed the established rules.
Weâve never seen this game have region specific units for each and every core unit. Weâve never cared about historical accuracy. Weâve never cared about having every unique unit as the core of the civs gameplay.
1 Like
Then stop your game updates for a stable version of your liking.
1 Like
He is right, the game has never been redesigned, only tuned.
Almost everyone wants new stuff added in, not stuff that is already in changed.
So we are also following established rules by asking for Jurchens, Tibetans, Cantonese, Pala, Hindustani, Tamils, Sinhalese, Marathas, etc civilizations.
What rules are we breaking?
And donât forget you are the one who told me to â Get lost â for disagreeing with you, multiple times. I presented the proof above.
1 Like
More campaigns and missions please.
1 Like
What do you want delete all threads on the forums?
No new ideas permitted?
1 Like
Youâre asking to break apart a civ into smaller civs on thd argument of historical accuracy. Now why arent you asking to fix throwing axeman, Mamelukes, goths, slavs, and thr hordes of inaccuracy in campaigns? If your arguments accuracy shouldnât you care about those?
1 Like
And can you guarantee the majority of the people who bought this gams donât want any new civs and big buffs to the unseen UUs?
Who are you to dictate what we should ask or not?
1 Like
FYI Iâm fine with buffing elephant archer and giving indians battle elephants. You guys can have that. Just realize it probably wonât come free.
Yes due to the reasons I told a thousand times. Because it will be better for the game.
Not because I am a history nerd and want to see exact Historical accuracy. This is what you never understand.
You just assume if someone is asking for these changes they are doing it for 100% historical accuracy. That is a cruel way of demeaning the arguments of others.
1 Like
Thatâs hardly true, yes, Indians and Chinese cover a large territory with a lot of different cultures, languages and civilizations inglobated in one big civ, but that applies to the meso civs too, and to the African ones (there are only respectively 3 and 2 civs for 2 big continents).
Onestly, that applies to Europe too, Franks, italians, Britons, teutons, Spanish, slavs (and so on) all train inspiration from a single culture that in the middle ages occupy part of the modern states that we all know, but in reality, in those those territories lived a lot of different civilization with different cultures and languages, thatâs simply AoE.
As for the problem that indians should have elephants, well, when they first release them, BA doesnât exist not even in the concept, so they take the EA from Aoe1, they modify a bit in order to make it more âAoE2-ishâ, and give it to the Indians.
Now I know that there are cases when an new unit were given to a old civ (like SL to mongols) but that was actually balanced. Indians already have powerful stable units, giving them BE would make them OP without solving their real problem, whis is that EA does not have a role in the game.
2 Likes
Thank you for everyone who gave their opinions on adding battle elephants for the Indians. However, this topic has gone too far off-topic and no longer serves the original intent, so Iâm closing it.
9 Likes