Bring Kaesong (936) into the game?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Hi there,

The Three Kingdom DLC will be out soon,
Is there a chance the devs could add the scenario Kaesong (936) to the game ? It was an hidden scenario on the Forgotten
For a reminder : https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Kaesong

With the changes made to Koreans, a refined version of the scenario would fit. Rocket Carts can be great against the large number of units enemies send to the player, the twist with the Chinese can also be an oportunity to see Lou Chuans in a campaign (other than Lake Poyang)
Getting a complex Korean playable scenario could also be great, as Noyang Point, the only one till now is not the most exciting.

What do you think about this opportunity ?

(we could have the same for The Saxon Revolt, another secret scenario that could be added, with some refinements - i even thought it would be “Charlemagne” from Victors and Vainquished)

10 Likes
2

The removed amazon campaign is also a fine addition to the game.

3 Likes
3

The Eldorado campaign was a bit buggy but maybe with some refinements it would be great.
It was an opportunity of a Spanish campaign in conquistador times. Gunpowder doesn’t fit much to El Cid
We already have some campaigns where we can play as the bad guys, with the Burgundy one or the British one, a Pedro de Alvarado one could be done then🤗

5 Likes
4

We have campaigns for Genghis Khan and Tamerlane so the bar is already set as high as it can be :upside_down_face:

2 Likes
5

Genghis Khan slaughtered up to 70% of Chinese population and up to 90% (!!) of Persian population. What happened in ww2, proportionally speaking, was meak compared to Genghis Khan…so agree. Additionally, we play as Attila, Vlad the Impaler, Rajendra Chola…basically almost all of the protagonists in the game…bar a few exceptions… were warmongering, arrogant, terrible people…who were the ones that actually wrote the history and presented themselves as saviors and the vanquished as bad people.

1 Like
6

If you can compare the Austrian Painter to Timur & Genghis in raw numbers, in a time when the world’s population was but a fraction of the mid 20th century, it’s fairly clear they had a devastating impact.

About the devastation in Persia and Mesopotamia, some areas wouldn’t recover their 1200 population until the late 1800s. Though it was not only by butchering the population but also ravaging ancient irrigation systems that had been maintained since the Bronze Age, this decreased how much population the land could naturally sustain.

2 Likes
7

That is completely untrue - a repeated lie stemming from anti-communist western propaganda from the height of the cold war. One thing is bringing out facts and points about a terrible regime, the other is making up exaggerations and fake stories in order to push someone’s perspective. Check out excess mortality under Stalin - about 10 million people had died thanks to his policies, wars he started (such as Winter war or invasion of Poland in 1939), and as well holodomor (which takes up about 7 million out of those 10) - a final non-war relaed famine in the USSR - which some countries, again politically, call a genocide..even though the grain procurement from Stalin’s regime was definitely criminal (evident especially in Ukraine or agricultural parts of Russia/Kazakhstan), there is no resemblance to genocide, especially since the USSR had been through the destructive world war 1, the subsequent civil war, a terrible harvest, as well as several other famines both in the USSR, and in the world - up to and around that period of time - even e.g. Iranian famine (a bit later) cost millions of lives, despite not being war related. So it’s even viable not to include it as Stalin’s fault…more like his regime tried to contain it and solve the recurring famine problem in the USSR. The dekulakization is definitely included in his kill count.

This is also untrue. the Austrian painter caused at least 40 million deaths thanks to the wars he started, as well as holocaust. Just to put things into perspective, from 1939 to 1945 (during ww2), about 6.6 to 8 million Germans died (due to war related causes, of course), 20-30 (around 26, most likely) million Soviets died (again, war related causes and holocaust…I only include these deaths) - including 3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million total captured) murdered by Germans (how come these do not count in Holocaust? Weird…), Germans caused the deaths of about 5 million Poles (if not more), and then the rest of Europe, also in millions (such as France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and other countries)…and then the rest of Holocaust.

Genghis Khan, on the other hand, caused UP TO 40 million deaths, which is below Austrian painter’s minimum. Some estimates about Timur go to 17 million deaths. However, both Genghis and Timur are most likely exaggerated by a few million. I’m all for history and justice, but as long as it’s the TRUTH.

But, again, proportions matter. I’d gladly take the Grand Dukes or Edward Longshanks over Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. The former 2 did basically the same thing as most rulers during their time, nothing really spectacularly evil, compared to Genghis, Tamerlane or Vlad the Impaler…

8

One thing I really wish we had is a long-running series about the Hundred Years War, notably showing the Burgundians drifting further and further away from France over time. This would be comparable to Game of Thrones, without the rushed ending (if anything you could end the burgundian story in the 1470s, just after the last failed english attempt to restart the war and being bribed with french wine to return home peacefully, and with Charles the Bold betting it all and losing).

The only reason many see Longshanks as a villain is due to him being the main antagonist in the classic tutorial campaign.

2 Likes
9

The worst part ? It was very close from being even more.

The Mongols wanted to turn northern China into a pasture. They only reconsidered that idea when a bureaucrat convinced them China would bring them more as a tax base than a more pasture lands.

Had they not been convinced, China would probably stop at the Yangtze to this day.

3 Likes
10

Appreciate the edit - the truth prevails! I totally agree with the rest, it’s as it happened. And the reason he did that to Persians was…because they killed his messengers. Revenge like Cao Cao, though Genghis Khan was on another level. It’s also remarkable how the Genghis Khan campaign is presented “hordes of skulls of men, women, babies, animals” in a joyful voice…and then people say that the dukes were the bad guys (because of course, the og protagonist Joan of Arc got betrayed and captured by them…)

2 Likes
11

Not even betrayed as they were at war, Charles VII and Philip the Good would only sign peace some years later. And Joan’s trial is entirely on the English who foolishly gave Charles VII a massive PR victory by making Joan a martyr.

1 Like
12

Oh yeah, I meant it as in the campaign - Burgundians are “allies” in Joan of Arc 5, and then they betray the player. Boom, Burgs are bad guys (as per community)

1 Like
13

The first rule of AOE2 campaigns is : either your allies are useless or they will betray you :upside_down_face:

(And after having them as enemies for the rest of the campaign this isn’t surprising)

6 Likes
14

From what I understand Burgundians switched to the French side by the end of the war (so they should be your allies in Joan 6), but I guess either the old devs didn’t know or they thought keeping them as the designated villain was more interesting.

2 Likes
15

Indeed in 1435 France & Burgundy signed an peace with increased autonomy for Burgundy (who remained a vassal of France in name only), in exchange for an alliance against England. Which allowed Charles VII to retake Paris in 1437, putting him in a strong position to rebuild a modern army and finally beat England after some years. He’d leave the fate of Burgundy to his successor Louis XI the Universal Spider.

I guess them being in Joan 6 was to give some closure to them, making it feel more centered on Joan of Arc.

Still better portrayed than in AOE4 in which Burgundy isn’t even named and only indirectly mentioned as an english ally…

1 Like
16

There’s also the fact that you spend a third of the El Cid campaign as the Saracens, who already got a 6-scenario campaign, so the Spanish got massively robbed when it came to non-anthology campaign representation. El Dorado made up for this by having the first two scenarios be played using the Spanish.

3 Likes
17

Playing a bloodlusty conquistador like Alvarado or Pizarro could be great.
Let’s hope they prepare something in America with those opportunities.
Mayans don’t have a campaign neither (I like Dos Pilas a lot tho), and some empires, earlier than the aoe2 Aztecs (actually Mexicas) from Mexico could be created as civilisations. It could give any more sense to a Spanish campaign, with an important number of civs involved in the campaign
With 4 iterations of Chinese and 2 of Franks, it could be something coming

2 Likes
18

I’ll add to your comment, The Saxon Revolt

1 Like
19

For this one I don’t know if there are author rights involved.
The scenario could use some refinements before getting into the game and as there is an individual involved in the making it could be trickier than a Kaesong or an Eldorado.
General gameplay is OK tho, better than Eldorado 4 in some ways

2 Likes
20

Scythians, Hadrian, Babur, Alaric 4 allies.. these were pretty good to be fair :smiley: Also some allies that could be controlled by flares like in Rajendra or Devapala were alright…at least you could steal their gold and trade with them in the worst case scenario :smiley: