I don’t want to talk about region and stuff. We have had 3 DLCs till date, and what we had is very unique mechanics from all UUs. Moreover most new hero units had unique sprites, and even some old hero units got unique sprites.
This all is good, but the hero sprites are not reusable. The graphics designer is working on a sprite for a unit which will be used in 1 or 2 scenarios on an average.
My suggestion for the DLC is that, reuse old mechanics in some new form, like:
Ratha mechanic for infantry (ES Samurai was planned to be this)
Mounted Obuch (Jan Zizka has this property)
Shrivamsha Rider mechanic for infantry (that would be cool)
Ranged melee cavalry (Mamelukes are camels, so they play out a bit differently, but I trust the devs to create a new unit which functions different than Mamelukes)
Self healing foot archers, heavy or light cavalry (so far we had one for infantry, and one for mounted archer and melee camel)
and the list goes on and on
We won’t see Mounted Urumis, since the charge attack + blast attack + speed might be broken.
What I want to see new is an architecture set. It has been long since we practically had a new architecture set. The Mediterranean architecture set was redesigned and the Central Asian Architecture set is also a bit rare.
Completing the list with some reusable stuff, we can have unique castles and accurate monk and monastery sprites for all civs.
Avoid adding new sprites for hero units, since reusability is rare
Avoid adding entirely new mechanics, and mix and match with the old mechanics in different forms (infantry, foot archers, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, camels, elephants, mounted archers, etc) - creating reusability
Create a new Architecture set (high reusability)
Unique sprites castles (high reusability)
Religion accurate monk and monastery sprites for civs (high reusability)
Some of them are very specific, so it’s hard to reuse, like Jan Zizka, but a lot of the more general-looking ones can be reused (renamed, stats changed, etc). I’ve used Cusi Yupanqui, Itzcoatl, Pachacuti, and others as units for new American civs. So I’ll take all the new heroes (and other editor units/objects) I can get.
Would be cool if used for Samurai, otherwise I don’t think they need a new unit.
Would be ideal.
Yeah, the devs skimp enough on Editor content (and quality) as it is, would prefer that they step it up there. The last Xpack only added a few heroes, and half of them are just generic sprites with unique portraits (theres a Urumi and Shrivamsha hero IIRC with ordinary sprites).
No DLC has added more than 1 scenario editor unit (DotD added a crusader knight and DoI added a “Sogdian Cataphract”, which is a nerf to the Savar from a hero unit to a regular one) which things like a mounted crossbowman and a generic/European Genitour are still missing for the scen editor.
I’d love to see a Byz/Black Sea bset and an Incan/Andean bset.
P.S: I’ve made a list of units that could be added from AoE3 to AoE2, could post that somewhere else.
That’s why I am asking for a completely new architecture set. You just jump to conclusions?
I consider scenario editor units and hero units different. Scenario editor units are cool. They can be made balanced, made use of in many custom scenarios. Hero units on the other hand are limited to 1 per scenario and can be OP (since they are hero units).
We are not getting anything like that past DLC’s are proof.even hero skins are going down with doi just 4 skins.
Lets assume we do get a new building set maybe a south african one or north american one,what use does it have outside of that area for campaigns/scenarios? If you have skins for units those can be used for more settings not just that area.
You don’t seem to understand how hero units work in scenarios. First, there are absolutely no restrictions on how many you can have. Second, you can easily use triggers (when they aren’t broken like currently) to rebalance the stats, change the image, and remove the hero glow.
Remember way back in the day, the Conqs expansion was likely harder to make because they were using Stone Age technology to make the game and ergo prices would be higher to make content. Nowadays it should be easier to add civs so I’m hoping we reach 100 by the time this decade ends. Are they struggling with ideas?
I honestly don’t care where but some regional units are only in like 3 or so civs.
I’m not sure that would be a good thing. At their current rate, they add somewhere between two and four civs a year potentially I think. They should therefore be able to add approximately 20ish civs max by the end of the decade. The issue with them going all out on adding civs is that you end up with them focusing on the new civs more than bug fixes and QoL improvements, which are probably more important right now.
I guess the Woad Raider and Ghulam are something like that. Speed is important for sniping siege. Bonus damage is irrelevant if your units die before reaching the siege units. Gbetos, Karambits and Shotels are equally fast, but they have low HP.
Why will you have more than 1 Joan of Arc in the JoA campaign? I know it is not a restriction by game, but by design.
I didnt mean just an architecture set in isolation. I guess that has been the cause of the backlash. I meant that an architecture set + some civs based in that region that use the architecture set (2 new + 1 or 2 old).