It’s better to make regional DLC.
Because a DLC like The Conquerors and the Forgotten has a big problems, lack of asset and opponent.
The original game was good but now it’s better because in the campaign there is more accurate civilization who were replaced when the corresponding DLC come. One of the first thing I do when they release a new DLC is to go to the old campaigns, enter the cheat code marco polo and watch what they modify (changing the player civilization, changing the unit on the map, searching for new decorations). I can’t wait to check scenarios were they put new civilizations in replacement of the Vikings and Saxons.
There was also bad thing like the middle eastern architectural set for the Byzantine with a mosque skin for a christian civilization.
The Conquerors was a mesoamerican pack + their spanish ennemy + one spanish campaign + Attila.
There was enemy of spanish for the Cid campaign (Saracen). For the Attila campaign the only accurate enemy were the Goths, Franks and the Byzantine.
On top of this there was the phone-call from Microsoft who ad the Korean.
This was mostly a semi regional DLC.
The Forgotten ad five civilizations. But one of them was the Inca, a good civilization but the thing that this was at that time the most isolate civilization of the game mean that their campaign was inca vs themselves.
The Eldorado campaign was also mostly inca vs themselves. If one day they remade an official port with The Last Chieftains assets this will be awesome.
Pritviraj was mostly Indian vs themselves until the Dynasty of India. Also a bad thing it’s there was no indian architectural set at this time they use the middle eastern architectural set. Later I replayed this campaign when Dynasty of India was released and I say : “Know I am in India !”
The African Kingdoms ad four civilizations and the campaign of two of them (Malians and Ethiopian) are mostly vs themselves. This was the first regional DLC and they made this well in term of assets (architectural set, fauna, flora, decoration). But this will be better if they swap some player in the scenarios in a future african DLC where they will ad more civilizations.
Rise of the raja ad four civilizations with many regional asset. Four campaigns where they fought against other civilizations in the region. Also some civilizations in the previous DLC were present : Portuguese, Chinese, Mongols, Indians.
The same trend continue from The Last Khan until the Mountain Royal The best DLC in term of narration was Dawn of the Dukes, three related campaigns, three characters who overlap.
The Pachacuti campaign was the worst because at this time the Inca was the most isolate civilization of the game mean that their campaign was inca vs themselves with aztec and maya units and an out of place maya architectural set. This was the worst campaign of the game before the last Chieftains in term of immersion.
Return of Rome fail because the gameplay is not as good as AoE2 but at least it’s a game mod who doesn’t impact on the main game. It content neither the player of AoE1 or those of AoE2.
Chronicles also ad two “regional” in term of time and history. One core (Battle of Greece) and then expanding very well with Alexander. He achieve that return of Rome failed because it’s simply AoE2 gameplay in Antiquity and with cross-play on top of this.
The Three Kingdoms was not we expected. I really enjoyed the 3K factions and campaigns but I think almost all of us wanted a DLC that takes place during the Song dynasty with Khitan, Tangut, Jurchen, Tibetan with their respective campaigns + chinese and korean campaign. In the future never release a new civilization without one campaign.They did good at reworking the Chinese and the Korean but fail with the nomadic civilization (why they put pasture for only one civilization ?). The good thing it’s at least we gain a ton of regional unit and assets and two medieval civilizations (without campaign sadly).
The Last Chieftain was good in term of immersion with a lot of asset, the Pachacuti campaign become good because of the new assets, it’s no longer Incas vs themselves. the other campaigns also avoid the new civilization vs themself problem.
The next Viking Sagas DLC seem promising. New assets : architectural set, the viking’s buildings will look like vikings buildings after 27 years. three related civilization who were neighbors. The concept of following the adventures of one character who travel all the viking is good. The concept is also the end of the viking age and it’s perfect because until now all the viking scenarios were either in the first century of the viking age or featuring the viking travel to America.
Regional DLC are good
Regional DLC are good because in most of history when there was a war there was against the neighbors. So it’s better to put civilizations who are next geographically. For example there is Berber in the Cid Campaign and before DE there were played by the Turks. And when they did regional DLC they focus on regional asset and they did many who profit also to old civilizations.
Regional DLC work well, even the Three kingdoms was good in term of assets. In the future follow this trend : new related civilizations + campaigns, regional assets, campaigns for the old civilizations who lacks them. Upgrading the old campaigns with new civilizations and assets.
Here I put a list of 22 potential regional DLC
The only other thing who can work is campaigns only DLC (and I say real original campaigns not scenario only DLC like Victors and vanquished with mostly recycled workshop content and no news assets) + new assets.
Apart of this another game mode can be added and if with cross-play better. Chronicles will continue with a high probability. Star wars galactic battleground can be added but I think without cross-play because of the aerial unit and the terrain impassable by other than air unit. Another fantasy setting like Lords of the rings can be added but here also I think without cross-play because of the air unit.