Yeah, both are just two successive Magadhi dynasties, but did Alexander interacted with either, I think an Indian civ that could be introduced in an Alexander dlc would be the Pauravas, since Poros might very well have been their king. The third civ might be the Thebans so the campaign could bridge the gap between the Peloponnesian wars and Alexander by covering the Boeotian war and the Theban hegemony.
It is said that Alexander talked with Sandrokutus (Chandragupta) to help him usurp the throne.
It could work then. I still think the Pauravas might work better and the Maurya could be added in a game entirely focused on them, their conquests and their enemies.
Don’t know anything about the Pauravas
As I said, they seem to have been Poros’ people (though apparently historians are still uncertain about it?) and he’s Alexander’s best known enemy in India.
1 Like
There is also another king called Omphius of Taxles/Ambhi, he allied with Alexander to fight Porus at Hydaspes. Maybe he was defeated earlier.
1 Like
My only concern about these kind of practice (launch sub-games, as OP said) is the feel that is a wasted oportunity to merge all these civs in one big game. Of course, the segmentation could be done on different ladders for AOE2 civs, but the potential for scenarions, campaings, content, etc would be huge.
1 Like
I would wait a bit for more contents. But I wonder why ancient greece instead of east asian DLC.
5 Likes
My opinion:
- The DLC itself seems high effort with a lot of content and the regional price is very cheap here (6 Euros)
- I really hate how the devs don’t communicate to us. Major disappointments could’ve been prevented if the devs told us it won’t be a classic DLC. People hyped up a Chinese DLC for 4 months for nothing.
- I just hope I won’t see these civs on my selection screen nor lobby games because they’re immersion breaking. 21th century USA and China are closer to the game’s timeframe than 500BC Spartans and Persians.
- I don’t oppose such DLC-s as spin-offs if we get classic DLC-s regularly.
13 Likes
Correct. In fact, the colony of Jamestown, the very start of America as we know it, was only 9 years removed from the latest event in the AoE2 timeline, that being the Battle of Noryang Point.
1 Like
I don’t think those civs can co-exist with other civs given they don’t seem to have any of the regular units, type of economy, custom tc and so on. This is the worst part about this DLC, its just some RTS content for campaign players but its not aoe 2 at all. Too far from the core game.
2 Likes
Imo there should be a switch everywhere where aoe2 civs can be selected that will make these 3 civs dont show up
Wow is there any beta testing for this? Im a diehard fan and modder and this seems like next level!!
I knew something was going on, the last DLC with just a campaign felt like a filler item to me, so this is what they have been working on. nice!!
Given that Chronicles is a seperate tab, if you make a game in the “base” game tab then I would imagine the Chronicles civs won’t show up.
1 Like
I have read a comment in a Taiwanese forum. It said, if they brought us this DLC rather than RoR at the time and then brought us an East Asian DLC rather than V&V, the thing would be better. I agree with it, and I would even said, the AoE1DE should have updates, including ones for its engine, to make the contents of RoR implemented in there, where they were supposed to be.
In that forum, I saw people feel confused that why the dev keep trying to stuff antiquity things into such a Medieval-themed 25-year-old classic game, and feel confused that why they get introduced by sub-games, a strange design that is separated from the main game. The dev have had AoE1DE, a complete game exclusive for antiquity theme, but they did not bring any updates for it and abandoned it to introduce RoR in the another game, while now they seem to abandon RoR for introducing Chronicles, and between RoR and Chronicles they sold us disappointing V&V. The contents of Chronicles itself could be very fun and amazing, but from a macro perspective the entire thing is stupid, IMHO.
I predict that the sales of this DLC will be worse than RoR and only better than V&V. The point that there is no new civ for competition in the main game may let people ignore it instead of buying it like buying RoR. Additionally, players who are interested in the theme of antiquity times may not necessarily buy the main of AoE2DE just for this. The thing would be better if it was just a brand new game independent of AoE2DE but using the same engine and graphics.
9 Likes
Exactly. This content should have been developed for AOE 1 not 2.
In fact, a lot of QoL changes that brought RoR should have been done for AOE 1 DE in the first place. And this new Greek Narrative Content should have been delivered as a DLC for that game, too.
That would definitively help made AOE 1 DE not a failure but a success and could have helped not to bring us the AOE 2 client mess we currently have, with 3 game variants (I would say games) in one so far.
Maybe in the future AOE 3 and AOM would be added as tabs in AOE 2 client as well hahahah 
4 Likes
Great post. I think the positives are more than the negatives. IMO, RoR was an attempt to bring the Vietnamese crowd to the game (which didn’t happen and I don’t think it will).
This DLC bring a door full of possibilities which I like. I am still thinking that another Forgotten DLC is coming, but the devs can take their time to make a great DLC without any commitment with the hard fans.
Chronicles for the old ages, middle ages, conquer ages, whatever. I like the potential that is coming and, overall, I like that the real modders outer have their chance to prove themselves like The Forgotten did in the past.
Forget about the SP or MP contnent. This game, after The Conqueror’s, is a mod game and its following that path.
2 Likes
It seems to me that the developers have really wanted to apply the Ancient World on the AoE2 frame. Their first attempt with RoR was a flop because it still resembled a port of AoE1: DE. This will give them another chance by allowing the developers to start from scratch and make an ancient setting starting out with AoE2’s framework.
I mean i’ll be honest, i’d rather they put Chronicles in the same game than make a new game for it or something just for the sake of it taking up a smaller storage footprint on my computer, because Chronicles is pulling a lot of the same back-end data as AoE 2 is.
2 Likes
I think i’m taking crazy pills, but why a lot of people expected RoR to be something it never intended or pretended to be…?
RoR was always the port of Age of Empires 1 to the AoE2 engine and they did exactly that and that’s it. It never intended to be nothing more than this. Excluding the point that it does not have the classic campaigns, and this is a massive fuck up, there is nothing lacking in it.
Why you want that…?? There is no way to ‘bring engine upgrades to AoE1DE’, they would need to do what they did with Age of Mythology, remade the entire game in a new engine, and they basically did this, they remade the game in the AoE 2 engine without excluding AoE1 from existence.
They already fucked up by not doing a “Age of empires 1 Retold” and noticed they could not go back anymore.
Age of Mythology they did the right thing.
Whats the difference…???
5 Likes