By analyzing a civ as an ethno-cultural group…they way it was intended…because they’re named after ethno-cultural groups and not polities…ok.
Huns are actually the best civ to argue against the inclusion of 3k and I created a topic as such.
4 Likes
Funny you want to “analyze” a civ but your analysis stops at the first word.
- Their architecture is european.
- Their leaders were all famous for being active in Europe
- Their campaign is in Europe
- Their wonder is a plundered European victory arch
- Their symbol is representative of their european leader
- They don’t have steppe lancers like other asian nomads
- They have Paladins like European civs.
So … clearly they’re the european huns branch. Moreso, they’re Attila and his Gang. Aka Hunnic Empire…
So do you care or not?
Depends.
So you have no proof.
Religious zeal =/= magic.
2 Likes
On a serious note, I’d say this is funny because even if they did make the changes the people here have asked for.
90% of the Shills would still be clapping their hands and going “look at how great the corporation is! They’re letting us consume twice as much slop!” Along with pretending that they were never against those changes in the first place lol
6 Likes
My personal views on this are clearly different from stating what’s objectively in the game already.
you have no proof
The proof is in Jordanes Getica
Religious zeal
Well then 3K is introducing more of that “religious zeal”, but of the eastern type…
Your personal views are relevant for this discussion. If you don’t care about accuracy then why are you even talking about it in the first place?
You know I meant proof in the game.
Like I said before, the campaign is based on a novel where wizards exist. Said wizard character does magic both in the novel and the game. You can see the effects of his magic, and there’s no holy relics or prayers or whatever, it’s not zeal, it’s magic.
4 Likes
A suitable architecture set doesn’t yet exist and many in the community have advocated for a more suitable yet. Also none of my arguments pertain the to shared architecture sets. So entirely irrelevant.
There are historical arguments suggest they predate what they steppe lancer is intended to represent. Given that I’d err on thematic consistency and give huns steppe lancers. There’s also been many in the community that have asked for Huns to get SL, and have pointed out the devs seem relatively unwilling to give new units to deserving older civs.
I’m not sure why the presence and acknowledgement of areas for improvement for one civ means objective errors for another are beyond criticism.
The rest of your arguments make little sense. How is them being European counter to what I argued. I literally said they were representative of altaic peoples who migrated to the eastern most part of the eurasian steppe.
I never said they’d also represent White Huns. You said that. Beside Huns and White huns are likely entirely different people group. You’re making the same mistake I explain the devs made with Khitanguts and somehow get around to it being a flaw in my argument.
I said they should represent other altaic peoples of the western most eurasion steppe, more or less the pannonian basin. Get to far east and you’re in the pontic caspian steppe, where kazars, pechenegs, and cuman/kipchaks held sway.
Them being from Europe is not a bug, it’s a feature.
2 Likes
In the game, the unit’s Internal Name is called HWITCH.
Which shows what she’s supposed to be according to the devs.
Also the German translation of her is “Furie” which is apparently something like vengeance goddesses…
But you’ll dismiss that anyway just like Sicilian magic, so why even bother
@Quasibrodo I have given you 7 arguments on why the Huns might aswell be called “Attilas Huns”. It’s up to you to convince me what is altaic about them ingame - with 7 different arguments too
“Sicilian magic”? The entire point if that side quest was to grant your men the zeal to crush your enemies. They literally went fanatical after acquiring the Holy Lance, that’s it. When you work yourself into a frenzy, you don’t typically feel the pain or exhaustion during your adrenaline rush, but you do fight a lot faster and stronger…
4 Likes
+1 for C solution.
Most of the work, but the best results - all in the manner of AoE2 staying AoE2 concept, and no civs removed, all stays fine.
3 Kingdoms civs really have their place as chronicles.
If the ending of the chronicles DLC is anything to go by Macedonians will be in the next DLC, fingers crossed.
I think its over. Now that they released it, they will not do anything to change anything. It is what it is and can just be sad forever.
The only proper way to fix it is this.
New DLC for china civs (jurchen, kithans, taguts, etc…), turn 3 kingdom into their ‘legends’ mode and remove the kithans and jurchen from them.
Then give the new DLC for everyone that brought 3 kingdoms until the announcement and offer refund to everyone that wants it.
They can choose any variation of this, but a new DLC to split the 3 kingdoms from the proper China DLC is required.
7 Likes
Yeah it’s very interesting timeframe, better than medieval in my opinion, stakes are higher
1 Like
They changed Indians into a different civ. They can change/swap these three. They have only been out about a week and a half compared to Indians multiple years.
Let’s not lose hope yet.
You can’t make Attila at the castle 
3 Likes
I absolutely agree. Am I mistaken in thinking that not all of the Romance of the Kingdoms was represented? I mean, they’ll have to create a new DLC to conclude the story, won’t they?
1 Like
Do you play ranked? What are your impressions of the civs? do you think theyre too weak?
I don’t know if you’ve been looking for six years, because that’s how long I’ve been posting on the forums, but you’re here to rip at me without actually reading my question verbatim so I’m guessing not. The only critique that was very prominent in all the dozens of threads I scanned, was the timeframe problem and the setting problem, which is why my question was based on seeking critiques that were not based on the superficial aspects of the DLC. Which you failed to interpret despite it being the focus of conversation for twenty posts now. Idk if I’m trying to troll with “quality posts” but I wouldn’t accuse you of it.
You don’t get to tell me what I purposely focus on and purposely ignore, and you absolutely do not get to frame me as someone leaving out pertinent information simply to win an argument just because you ignored parts of my response to get to that conclusion.
The fact that I outlined particularly why I didn’t address the 13th point, in that, I do not give even one thought to the campaigns, so the fact that there is no campaign for someone literally doesn’t register to me as a consideration. I considered the points about quality of rather than existence of and I suggested that a particular motif is not a negative to someone like me who doesn’t see a draw to Campaigns but found that particular aspect enticing.
So let’s be honest here: If a game element falls outside of the AOE2 umbrella as far as you are concerned, and it’s fun to play, you will protest until the dev team rips it out of the game? My point remains, if the game is fun, people will play it. If it’s not, it doesn’t matter how accurate to the period or source material it is.
I want people to draw a hard line in the sand and advocate for setting the entire thing on fire if it crosses that line by an inch regardless of how good the actual product is, or I want the players to assess the product for what it is independent of the source and decide if the quality of the play warrants the bend. I like the product. Nothing you tell me about the timeframe, the source material, or otherwise is going to make me enjoy losing it because it’s fun.
Yeah, this is a productive discussion line. Call those who disagree with you a name and then assert that their argument is so wrong it’ll turn the game to ash. Happy I bumped into you.
Really hard to analyze. I actually think the traction trebuchet makes things really complicated to analyze on balance, and I can’t wait to see them in top play. I’m very high on the Shu, they’re going to have strong rushes and it’ll be backed up with a very efficient midgame army. Generally, It’s still too early to draw hard conclusions with so much new in the mix, some of it not even attached to the new civs with the new Chinese and Korean fun.
2 Likes
Correct. We could have fun with Athenians in AoE2 ranked, but like hell do they belong in there.
If I want to play Iron Age/Antiquity stuff, I play AoE1/Battle for Greece. If I want heroes, I play AoM.
It’s not by an inch though. It’s by 200 years, breaking AoE2’s civ design with poor-quality civs due to two of the civs introduced being unfinished and one has a design from a totally unrelated people because it is pretty obvious they got the names mixed up.
My beef is it should never have gotten to this point in the first place. There are plenty of civ designs within the periphery of China that would have lent themselves to fun civ designs.
7 Likes
Right, but you’re missing the point. The presentation of the inch nomenclature is to prove to you that you will not draw a line in the sand and utterly refuse to budge. You will accept inclusions that are near enough to that line in the sand you’ve drawn if you like it. So now it’s a matter of you think it’s just too far, and I don’t.
And I understand that, but having the opportunity to make something else, and then using the potential of something else to shame what currently is, is inherently fallacious. Why not ask for those things without “oh, and burn that thing that could have been that thing” ?
1 Like