It’s the original image of the Fire Archer. Now, take a look at the interface; South East Asian. Well…I went and had a look at gameplay of the Wu (civ this unit belongs to) and…it’s the East Asian one.
In fact, none of the new civs use the South East Asian interface.
So what was this then? A deliberate misdirect to pull us away from thinking it was going to be the Three Kingdoms? A mistake/simple oversight in the editor? Or were there originally plans for a different civ for this unit that got scrapped? Potentially one actually from the Middle Ages.
I am now starting to build up a bit of a picture of the third outcome. Mostly because the Khitan-Tangut chimera is pretty much impossible to do by accident. There’s no way for the Khara-Khoto fort to pop up if you look for Khitan fortifications. And if you have looked up Khara-Khoto, you’re looking for Tangut architecture, not Khitan.
Not to mention that any title and descriptions of this fort describe it as Tangut/Xi Xia. So I cannot see how anyone could accidentally mix this up. Same for the Poxi (Mounted Trebuchet).
But of course, we don’t know what the real answer is here. But it is unusual…
Its weird, but I dont think it point to a recent change on plans in that aspect
Making campaigns takes a long time, and theres no way they were doing three Three Kingdoms campaigns without the new civs.
I can imagine the graphics could have been made before the Three Kingdoms was chosen as the theme of the DLC, but the stuff in the tease is way past that point
I think the “two different DLCs mixed together in the middle of the road” is the best theory. They might have done that to avoid postponing it again and having nothing to release this semester.
Even though the DotD DLC had connected stories, it was a merchandise point from Chronicles. I didnt check if there is any video about the new campaign, but I understood the scenarios are somewhat connected.
It could mean they are really, really, really having trouble to deal with all the games at the same time, as this DLC had been delayed, AOE3 got shut down, Immortal Pilalrs was delayed and AOE4 got a lackluster DLC. Is it managing failure? Not enough workers? Money?
AoE4 is a whole diferent problem managed by diferent people
I reckon the management of AoE2 fell into disarray as soon as they fully committed to AoM
And they really felt like they needed to release a DLC soon after such a messy period since Dynasties of India and lacking a normal DLC since The Mountain Royals (who also had the whole Turkmen civ weirdness)
Cysion said during his GL interview that there were multiple things being worked on at once, and a situation where they were all brought together under one project, and he talked about it from the point of view that from a development perspective it’s better to have everything in the same build/codebase.
What I think he was trying to damage control about here was the fact that they were forced to combine multiple projects together - that clearly being the Three Kingdoms and the Medieval Asian civs. The words that he said may have been true, but they were definitely not the whole truth - he was cherry-picking one positive and not saying anything about the other negative stuff.
Same with his Chinese aren’t being split comment. True in the sense that the OG Chinese was staying, but also cherry-picking a technical truth when overall what he was saying was also a lie, or an untruth in general. Really disappointed in him after listening to that. Shameful.
Someone might just have placed the Elite Fire Archer in a blank map with players in the Dark Age, note the lack of upgraded stats despite being an Imperial Age unit. When the scenario was tested to take the screenshot of the new feature, player 1 was randomly assigned a Southeast Asian civ. My assumption.
Potentially. In that case, they were sloppy. As the line “there are secrets hidden here” when combined with a unit with a very South East Asian design is misleading.
You seem to forget that they are just humans.
They didn’t spend days to make the perfect hints in a changelog they just grabbed a few smaller things and threw them in there as hints.
We spend 100x as much time thinking about all those details then they took at choosing what details to include.
If they just want to showcase a unit without context, and have no time thinking it over, then the natural thing to do is to use the default civ, instead of scrolling all the way down the civ list and find a SEA one.
Yes, but they seem to have made a lot of cockups here.
The Tangut stuff…I honestly just cannot fathom. Like, I cannot understand how that kind of mistake could have been made. Like, nothing would lead anyone down that path of thinking that those elements were anything else. Especially given how some of the Three Kingdoms units are pretty deep cuts, so research somewhere was done.
Saying the Tanguts player would be replaced…and then suddenly rolling back on it, despite the same thing being implemented elsewhere with no issues.
Then there’s the choice of making 3K civs and not just a campaign. I have never seen anyone ask for this. A Three Kingdoms campaign for the Chinese? That I have seen. But to get this so wrong…I just wonder what is going on?
It’s not JUST that they used the wrong regional UI. It isn’t even that they used just the right wrong one either. It’s that, AND everything else.
One coincidence/mis-understand is a random event. There’s like 5 with each V&V and V&V2, none with BfG and just one with RoR (Isgreen’s statement all the campaigns would be ported).
So 10 of the last 11 coincidences/mis-understandings have been the two most controversial dlcs.
“Right wrong” is indeed the most accurate word here.
Imagine someone digging into Chinese websites and source materials to find the camel catapults and the Khara-Khoto…only to mistake them as a Khitan thing, but in the meantime showcasing them NOT like they are from a Khitan civ in the screenshots.
Imagine someone taking a random screenshot with the scenario editor about the fire archer, spinning a roulette to decide which random civ to use, which landed on a SEA civ.
