First impressions of Chronicles: Battle for Greece

Some positives first.

  1. Innovative mechanics and lots of scenarios.

I don’t think there’s much to say about these. They try new things within this sandbox without offending competitive players. I’m personally a bit interested in the potential new mechanics of water combat. If their experiments yield desirable results, the mechanism may be imported back into AoE2 itself. Hopefully one day the Fire Ship may become a Byzantine UU and there may be a new boarding warship to serve other civs.

I saw that the interface of campaigns is very different from the traditional one, so I guess there must be something different. Perhaps, the results of the previous scenario would affect subsequent scenarios, for example, if you complete certain objectives in this scenario, you may have unique advantages in the next scenario, etc. If this is true, the replay value will be greatly improved, and the large number of achievements is not surprising.

  1. “Chronicles” may become a new series itself.

The title of this DLC is “Chronicles: Battle for Greece”. Chronicles is the main title, and Battle for Greece is the subtitle. This means that if the response is good, there may be new sub-games also with Chronicles as the main title in the future, making it a series. Battle for Greece makes two Greek city-states into playable civs, which may also mean that the Chronicles series will be more suitable to focus on wars within the same culture than the AoE2 itself. For example, “Chronicles: the Three Kingdoms” would bring at least 3 new civs such as Wei, Shu, and Wu; “Chronicles: the Daimyos” would allow the samurai clans to present the Sengoku Period by their respective own civs; “Chronicles: the Heptarchy” brings the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as various civs to present pre-Norman history.

Then, a few negatives.

  1. Sub-games that are not consistent with the theme of the main game.

Chronicles, like RoR, focuses on antiquity. These sub-games conflict with the main theme of AoE2 that emphasizes the Middle Ages, which puts games in the franchise that emphasize the same era as them may be in an awkward position. Apparently people were discussing AoE1DE’s situation when RoR was launched. We see this happening again.

(At least some) people feel that these sub-games do not belong in AoE2. In fact, they exist in AoE2DE just to take advantage of its engine, some graphical assets, and market size. They are borrowing the kitchen equipment and ingredients from a French restaurant to serve Chinese cuisine instead of opening another Chinese restaurant. Or, imagine that Nintendo introduces Pokémon sub-games as DLCs in The Legend of Zelda (Breath of the Wild & Tears of the Kingdom) because the engine is so amazing.

Like opening a jar of worms. Perhaps one day we may see the Dutch Revolt, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolution in AoE2DE. Who knows.

  1. The embarrassment of Return of Rome.

Now, RoR looks like a crude copy of AoE1DE based on AoE2DE’s engine. Despite the addition of Lac Viet and new campaigns, RoR lacks a large number of old campaigns and cannot establish more distinct differences and uniqueness from AoE1DE. In comparison, through innovative mechanics, Chronicles has the antiquity theme of AoE1 (RoR) and the gameplay and structure based on AoE2, but is different enough from them to bring its own flavor.

In my opinion, the existence of sub-games is already embarrassing. Ironically, RoR embarrassed AoE1DE, while Chronicles embarrasses RoR. If possible, the thing should be to bring engine upgrades to AoE1DE (even though this is arduous work, but it is good for long-term operation), so that AoE2DE does not have to have an antiquity-themed sub-game, and then develop an independent game like “Age of Chronicles”, using the same or better engine than AoE2.

  1. No real extensions for AoE2.

People have believed for months that AoE2 would be getting a big expansion, yet this DLC doesn’t seem to actually expand anything beyond graphics for the main game of AoE2. In comparison, RoR at least brings the Romans to AoE2 players.

I’m not sure yet if the Chronicles civs will only exist in the sub-game like the RoR civs, or if they will also be available in casual rooms in the main game. I personally hope it’s the former, because the Chronicles civs are structurally different from AoE2 civilizations, and thematically very inappropriate. (One can tentatively argue for the Romans in the early Middle Ages, but not at all for the Athenians, Spartans, and Achaemenids.) If it is the latter, it means that the developers would rather introduce 3 new antiquity civs that do not fit the AoE2 theme, rather than 3 generally expected new medieval civs from East Asia, Africa, or the Americas.

13 Likes

This new DLC is NOT made by Forgotten Empires, it’s made by Capture Age.
Forgotten Empire does not want other Developers to make content for the main AoE2DE.

This DLC does NOT replace a normal AoE2 DLC because the Team is/was busy working on AoMR.

The alternative to this DLC would have been no DLC or a DLC like V&V.

You can use them in Skirimish or multiplayer lobbies.
There is an “Ancient Theme” setting in the lobby that enables a few new features for AoE2 civs too like trading for Wood on water.

9 Likes

I feel people don’t really care who made this.
What people care about is what they waited so long and spent their money for.

1 Like

So you mean this DLC should just not exist and we should get nothing instead?

3 Likes

Don’t put words in my mouth.

No matter which team made this DLC, for those who like the original Rome at War mod or those who like antiquity Greek history, this DLC can satisfy them, but for those who are looking forward to a classic expansion of AoE2, this DLC will not bring much. That’s it.

3 Likes

I think this dlc is the best decision. It adds much more content for people who like it, it doesn’t mess up with ranked, it does NOT keep us from getting the usual DLCs. We have now 2 teams in aoe2 and can expect the double amount of DLCs.

I deeply hope all 31 missing civs from Rome at war will be added into aoe2 as well.
To be honest: this is the best thing that could happen to aoe2.

9 Likes

The issue is that many people think they are missing out on a medieval AoE2 DLC. (The word classic sounds confusing here)
They are angry because they think they “stole” an AoE2 DLC from them.

6 Likes

Personally I’m disappointed with this DLC. Disappointment not because it’s bad (in fact it looks pretty good so far), but because I feel like it does not belong to AoE2 even though I knew it is based on AoE2 structures.

Those sub-games all there for using the AoE2 engine. If it wasn’t a DLC for AoE2 but a new game using the same engine as AoE2, it would already be in my shopping cart.

In this case, they will allow Chronicle to completely satisfy players’ needs for antiquity themes, thereby completely making RoR a failure.

On the other hand, I am also a little disappointed that they divided the Athenians and Spartans into different civs instead of one Greek civ, but treated Han as one civ.

What I’d rather see is Chronicles becoming a series of sub-game. This one, Battle for Greece, features the Athenians and Spartans taking on civil wars in Greece. There may later be other sub-games also titled Chronicles that feature popular civil wars from other cultures which in AoE2 is often represented by only one civilization. In my opinion, this is far more interesting than making Chronicles simply “antiquity AoE2”.

People waited for months, imagining a typical AoE2 DLC expansion with a few normal new civs, but the result was something that did not meet expectations. After waiting for half a year, it turns out that we still have to wait for another half year and who knows whether we will have to wait for the 3rd half year by then? Even if you know there are still opportunities in the future, disappointment is still a normal reaction.

6 Likes

We’ll see Egyptians, Macedonians, Afghans/Indian civs 100% in next series. Since this cover Peloponnesian War.

Afghans in Ancient Age? They didn’t even exist in Medieval Age. LoL

1 Like

Alexander fought in modern day Afghanistan. Probably was called Bactria. Alexander met fierce resistance there.

1 Like

It was not Afghanistan. Use some other term.

2 Likes

Yeah whatever. Atleast a civ is possible there. Had different mountainous culture

Some unique people called Zunbils existed there as far as I know.

Most balanced analysis I read so far.

1 Like

It would have been the Mauryans, so that’s what we would likely see if they added an Alexander campaign.

Honestly don’t know much about that time period of Afghanistan there. Atleast can say Alexander founded many cities there and brought bit of Macedonian/Greek culture there. Probably met some Buddhist Monks. Married their princess Roxana or something.

Anyway covering entire Alexander saga might be too huge. Don’t know if 21 scenarios can cover it completely. You have to cover early Greek conflicts, then Persia, then Egypt, then Persia/Babylon, ending with India.
Next DLC is Diadochi Wars 100%.

Didn’t the Maurya rise to power right after Alexander’s death?

Before Maurya, Nanda Empire already existed.