People hate the 3 Kingdoms because they are forced to encounter them in ranked while most people have no issue with Chronicles because it’s separate and easy to ignore.
Or why do you think extending the timeline would be an issue? Macedonians are in AoE1 and in Chronicles and represent the same thing.
Yeah that is kinda strange. They renamed some technologies but not all. Not sure why they left those out.
There are still chances that they will do that in the next Chronicles, like how the reskinned all the siege units this time.
I think this is true. One thing I dislike is that recently we’ve had three separate ancient/pre-medieval additions that have all been executed in different ways – it’s one of several things that have made AoE2 feel like a real mess recently. The devs seem to be just throwing in any ideas they come up with, with no concern for quality or consistency. Really, RoR should have just been the original state of AoE1DE (or a major update to AoE1DE), and Three Kingdoms should have been implemented in the same way as Chronicles.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes.
I think it’s valid for someone to object to your suggestion on the grounds that it significantly extends the timeline. I don’t think the existence of Chronicles civs in the AoE2 dataset makes such an objection invalid, because AoE1 civs extend the timeline further – and, in any case, no one is obliged to accept the timeline stretching already done by Chronicles anyway.
I wasn’t saying that I personally object on those grounds. Mostly I was correcting something false that you’d said – and you’re still saying something similar:
No. Macedonians in Chronicles correspond to something like late/post-Iron Age Macedonians in AoE1. Anything from the Bronze Age or earlier – and even the main part of the Iron Age – is outside the scope of Chronicles. (Although the original AoE1 devs did mess up quite a few things in the Bronze Age – e.g. hoplites, cavalry, stone throwers.)