Add Wakanda to the list.. I want Wakandans defeating the 3K.
1 Like
Good luck getting Marvel to agree.
Since it realistically fits neither into Chronicles nor the base game, it definitely doesn’t deserve its own separate mode. Conceptually, legends would be much easier to iterate within Mythology. In conclusion, it never should have happened in the first place…
3 Likes
That wouldn’t fix my problem – just move it somewhere else. Of course, you might not agree that it’s a problem…
could do stuff about Anasi etc instead. Wakanda feels more like Sci-Fi than medieval fantasy
Another campaign that could go into “Legends” would be Yodit :v
2 Likes
The distinctiveness of the so-called Wuyue culture has largely been exaggerated by regional centrists from Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Jiangsu. By all means and all measures, it’s a Sinitic or Han subculture with very little difference from the Central Plains culture.
And the reworked OG Chinese civ without the camel line but with the addition of Fire Lancers, Rocket Carts, Louchuans, and Dragon Ship is now doing a great job at representing both the Central Plains and the Jiangnan region, so we no longer need a separate Wuyue civ. The addition of these new regional units as well as the Chinese rework are the only aspects I like about the 3K DLC.
The only part of medieval South China that is yet to be represented in the game is the Southwest (Yunnan and adjacent regions), and I feel that a Bo or Pu civ can cover the region perfectly.
And if I’m gonna be a bit picky then the only regional unit missing would be some sort of unit wearing paper, rattan, or lacquered leather armors, representing the prevalence of such organic armors in medieval South China. In my civ craft concept I envision it as a unique regional upgrade to the Pikeman called Paper Armored Pikeman that replaces the Halberdier, and is available to Chinese and Vietnamese as well as to my concept civs Bo/Pu and Chams. It’s slightly weaker vs cavalry compared to a Halberdier and has 1 less melee attack, but has more bonuses against Shock Infantry and Ship, has 0.8 range, and is a lot more resistant against ranged attacks. Here’re its stats:
Paper Armored Pikeman Stats
HP: 60
Cost: 35 Food 30 Wood
Melee Attack: 5
Attack Bonuses: +30 vs Cavalry; +26 vs War Elephant; +22 vs Camel; +20 vs Ship; +20 vs Fishing Ship; +11 vs Mameluke; +2 vs Shock Infantry; +1 vs Standard Building
Reload Time: 3
Range: 0.8
Melee Armor: 0
Pierce Armor: 1
Armor Classes: Infantry / Spearman
Speed: 1.05
LOS: 7
Special Ability: Would only receive 60% of damage from ranged or pierce attacks
And here’s my Bo/Pu civ concept (covering Nanzhao/Dali as well as adjacent native tribes) if you’re interested:
2 Likes
I agree its current implementation isn’t great for the reason you mentioned (flaming arrows being represented in two different ways) but I do think that the concept of a “siege archer” unit outranging castles is fine in itself.
Also, the lingering fire effect should be given to Elite Tarkans as well 
Hi Tyranno,
You mix my opinions with your own here. I state what I dislike/find annoying because after all thats what the thread is about: Our opinions.
I’m honestly sorry If 3k gives you a bad taste in the mouth - I’m still correct when I state that I do not feel anything about the weird time lines nor heroes nor legends. It’s my opinion, and it might sound bunkers, but I like even very new and unheard changes in the game.
That’s how I have been kept to the fire since AOE 1 in 1998 or so. And in my eyes the huge changes over the last 3-4 years have moved the games several miles above what it was in it’s virginity in 1999, later with HD and the beginning of DE.
And when you suddenly mixes game mechanics into my opinion it gets really wierd. And here I’m actually pretty sure that you are both right and totally wrong. 1) Yes I will lose a game of AOE when not walling up properly due to my horrible skills. But 2) I’m right when stating that a disproportional number of wars is won that way in AOE compared to the real world, and when saying that that kind of unreal feats annoys me because it can ruin otherwise fun games. It just my opinion - so if you think that hidden holes near woodlines is perfect, then you are right too 
I do really not agree. I made no agreement on what to accept 28 years ago and I’m stunned that they have made a game i find more fun than ever. Without huge investments and new ideas it would have died forever long ago.
The game has changed immensely in that time frame and I dont find the Celt castles or these wierd armenian (or is it georgian?) churches with area bonus any different than the changes you mention. Both are new ideas. You could also argue that sicilians and bulgarians suddenly having their own fortresses (even being build by military) is something i did not expect in Age of Kings.
In my eyes all civs should have warlords/generals and they should enforce the army in a given radius. Actually that would make it the most realistic change in the history of the game.
We are all different but for me I would draw a line around dragons or aliens or fictive civs. Otherwise I’m all in
Ps. I have never played a game against the ai or tried a campaign and I reckon that all the players who have that feature as their favourite game play might feel totally different about the game changes.
I think most people, when they order from a pizza place, expect to get a regular pizza with normal toppings. That’s what the shop is there to provide, and there’s kind of an unspoken agreement about that.
But also I wouldn’t be surprised if someone says they don’t really care what the pizza place sends, as long as it tastes good to them, even it’s a pizza with chocolate jelly toppings, or not even a pizza at all.
Everyone’s level of acceptance, or you could say the personal agreeement they form with a shop, is a bit different, with some variation of course. There will always be some people who can accept or even desire dragons, aliens, and fictive civs. Just like a Gaussian distribution, most people’s agreements fall within an average range, and that range becomes the consensus, or the agreement between a community and the developers I mentioned.
I agree that consistency can make civs feel more elegant. In fact, I’ve stated before that if it’s not possible to give every civ trainable heroes, then basically no civ should have them. But when it comes to this issue, I think we all know that removing trainable heroes from the very small number of civs is more practical than adding them to the vast majority of civs, right?
I’ve also suggested renaming the heroes from specific historical figures to a generic title like “Lord,” or replacing the heroes with more generic normal units to provide the auras, for example, Wooden Ox for the healing, Guard Chariot for the attack boost, and Night Raid Cavalry (or Night Raider) for the speed boost. These approaches should effectively address the reasons why people are resistant to heroes in the first place.
2 Likes
I think one way to have heroes in the game without creating a wholly separate “hero mode” would be to move the hero creation from Castle to Wonder, where you’d be able to recruit them for free (as building a Wonder already costs a lot). But even then I’d like all the civs to have a hero, not just the 3K (assuming they’ll still exist in the current form).
2 Likes
I almost always play single (mostly because I’ve only recently started playing AoE for the first time since childhood so I’m replaying the scenarios) and after playing all the 3K campaigns (finished the Sun Clan yesterday) I can say I wouldn’t miss them if they were heavily reworked. I had most fun with the penultimate scenario of each campaign (Cao Cao’s conquest of the north, Liu Bei’s escape, Sun Quan’s naval shenanigans against Liu Biao) and the standalone Xie An scenario.
To be brutally honest, they could just throw most of it out and write a mega-campaign from scratch, covering the story in chronological manner and without blatant althist (some simplification is alright but no “and that’s how Cao Zedong unified the entirety of China”…)
Edit: also, why doesn’t it cover the actual three kingdoms period even partially? Wei waged war against Goguryeo at a later point in the history, it’d be the perfect opportunity for a classic civ (Koreans) to make a cameo. And Zhuge Liang conquered/pacified southern barbarian tribes (I guess they could be represented by the Burmese for now until a proper Bai or Thai civ is introduced) which is way more badass than a made-up weather ritual.
1 Like
Summary of results:
Opinion on the DLC:
- 72% of the voters think that the Three Kingdoms DLC is poor and needs significant changes.
The fundamental problems are:
- 81% the three kingdoms added
- 74% trainable hero units
- 48% the campaign added
Changes that people want to see:
- 71% move the Three Kingdoms to Chronicles
- 70% add ethnic voice lines to Khitans and Jurchen
- 69% split the Khitans to Tanguts and Khitans
- 65% add a historical campaign for China
- 65% reomove trainable hero units
- 62% campaigns for Jurchen and Khitans
- 47% add a Chinese architecture set
- 44% replace the three kingdoms with other medieval civilizations
The civilizations people want to see are:
- 87% Tibetans
- 75% Tanguts
Now Microsoft, you know that there is a problem with this DLC and you know now what you need to do about it!
14 Likes
Microsoft knew there was a problem from the start. They deciptively advertised, by hiding any trace of the 3K in the first teasers, knowing it wouldn’t be received positively. At latest when steam reviews came in at <50% they must have known they fucked up.
The sad truth is: they got their money, so they don’t give even the slightest of shits.
As long as enough people buy this garbage, they’ll keep getting away with selling garbage
6 Likes
You have a point. I did notice that it was their only DLC in which civs were not announced beforehand. For TLC we know all the civs and their UU in advance already.
But hopefully, they will have the decency to fix the DLC.
3 Likes
they didn’t even have the decency to fix V&V, why do you think they would fix 3K?
they have no incentive to fix this game:
- people are still buying up every new bullshit DLC
- pro and casters don’t openly speak out. Ornlu has voiced some criticism in his latest state of the civ, but he’s basically the only one
- steam is doing nothing to force them to respect games preservation and integrity in any way
Actually they did take a crack at it. By doing a ton of updates to the levels to make them less grindy, and adding a free level.
3 Likes
fair. it still contains way too little content for how much it costs + lots of the gameplay is just extremely weird.
Imo a true fix would be to slash the price by 50-75% and advertise it honestly as “experimental scenarios”
1 Like
yeah I can’t prove this but i’m pretty sure V&V was a last minute thing that was created so they’d have something to announce for the 2024 chinese new years aoe2 event when BFG got pushed back to fall.
Had they said “we wanted to show you this super cool thing, but it’s not ready, but instead of completely disappointing you, we were super resourceful and are sprucing up some filthy scenarios and putting them in a pack for $5-7” we’d have thought they were awesome and thoughtful.
But yeah, no no, we’re totally experimenting with campaign…err…single player stuff, it’s the best scenarios you’ll ever play, and we’ll discount you 10%.
1 Like