It was an extremely weak and niche unit, locked behind a Imperial unique tech. It played no part in how the Tatars played for a very long time, and still arguably doesn’t. It does not do any “harm” being in their tech tree, meanwhile the heroes do, as they lock out trebuchets.
The general premise of Dynasty Warriors is one hero sweeping away many soldiers. Which these heroes also do. Not to the same extent, but they still do it.
Cao Cao has 475 HP. That’s still more than the basic War Elephant. Which is…an elephant. A man is not tougher to kill in combat than an elephant.
First of all heroes do not “lock out trebuchets.” It’s the traction trebuchet that locks them out and the hero just so happens to take their spot.
Second of all, these heroes are Dog Water. They are worse than an elite War elephant which you can train multiple of, and they not only don’t do it to the same extent, they don’t do it at all. A group of arbalesters in imp can 2 shot a hero for example.
Thirdly, would have to double check but I believe single Elite Teutonic Knight can handle the castle age war elephant your talking about so we already have a case in point of a man being stronger than an elephant.
I still don’t understand why the so-called “hard-cored pvp” folks would defend heroes by repeating “they are VERY weak you’ll never see them”.
If it was any other case, you guys would call it bad balancing and ask for fixing.
And that was what the devs would eventually do. If something is in the game and underused, they’d try to make it more useful. I am expecting your new excuses after that.
If it was just a fun and niche unit for non-hard-cored players and “new Chinese audience”, why do they have to force it onto ranked? Why not put it in its own casual mode?
First of all. You make the mistake of believing that all excuses are wrong. An excuse is something that justifies an action. Of course it is whether the justification is correct that’s the problem, not the justification in of itself.
With that out of the way the reason they can be in ranked is that first of all, they don’t change the essence of the game. No one is going imp, making a hero, and having their opponent cal, the gg. No, you’re still starting with three villagers and building your civilization “from the ground up.” Neither does aoe2 copy other games with weird leveling up mechanics and having the hero be the center of each game. It takes a very aoe2 like spin on hero units. And honestly, heroes probably should have been around since start of aoe2. They are in nearly every campaign and have been a core part of aoe2 for 20 years so they should also be in ranked.
Now, I agree with “these” heroes being bad for the game but on different grounds. I hate the period choice of which they were added from. Now, if they added heroes to every civ and then changed 3k civs, I would be completely fine with that. Idc about you but playing with Genghis Khan in ranked gets me exited. However, they would have to make sure they keep the heroes in an aoe2 style. They shouldn’t be a unit that makes or breaks the game, just one that is kind of cool and makes games more unique. Not every hero even needs an area of effect bonus for nearby units, just reduce the cost and make it a unit.
This is the thing that bothers me the most about them. Why even add heroes if they’re so underpowered? Surely it pleases no one. They would be much better off in a separate game mode, with heroes available to every civ, and better integrated into the game rather than just being available in Imperial Age. In their current implementation they seem pointless, as if they only exist to annoy purists.
Well, if it can be allowed and tolerated, you can technically create flaming camels even in the 21th century. If there was a 8th century strategist that also suggested his lord, who was clearly not Tamerlane, to ignite camels for terrifying enemy, then there could be possible to have another historical battle using flaming camels.
You can’t have any battle led by Cao Cao after 220. Even hypothetically, there could not have been a battle led by Cao Cao in the 14th century, for example. It’s just impossible. But yeah, similarly there could not have been a battle involving Shu, Wei or Wu in the 14th century. The heroes as well as their “civs” have been just out of the definition, or the world view, of the game from the beginning.
Same here. Haven’t even opened the game since 3K released. And to be honest, it’s a blessing in disguise. I love AoE2, but playing ranked is highly addictive. I enjoy having more time for other games.
It will be interesting to see if the devs will eventually give in to the community before the game will be completely destroyed. But how would they do it without upsetting the folks who paid for the DLC in part because they can play the new “civs” in ranked? They can’t just take away something people have paid for.
They really screwed up by holding on to the original design and release date of the DLC. I reckon there were financial and political factors that made it hard to postpone the release and do a rework. But they could still have fixed this mess and save the long-term support by the community. Now they are stuck in a dead end.
Ranked battles are clearly unhistorical. By this same logic, the Mayans who will never have the same civilization again, should not be fighting the Spanish who arrived in the Americas much later. There could never be historical battle between the Spanish in 1400 AD and the Mayans 900 AD at latest because they existed in different time periods.
The best argument against the new civs though is that they existed only for around 60 years at best and between 220 AD and 280 AD. This is in my opinion the only valid argument against new civs. Representing a 60 year period where there could be civilizations which spanned 100s of years added to the game sets a terrible precedent. What else are we going to add, the Pohnpei?
The Japanese have been fighting Vikings in this game since 1999, the very beginning. It can be said that when people are willing to buy and play this game, it means that people accept such a world view setting of this game. However, for the people who have accepted that setting for over 25 years, having specific historical figures in ranked game is not in agreement, so you see there are some saying they quit or are going to quit the game, because the thing is changed.
Sounds like people are being unreasonable then. If you accept one thing in a certain category you should also be willing to accept something else in the same category.
That’s silly.
We are completely entitled to comment on this game and the community we engaged with over the years. As long as we don’t break the forum rules.
But that’s not in the same category. I accept to make ethnic groups that haven’t met each other in the history fight in ranked game, which doesn’t mean I want to see a specific historical figure there. The former is in the “agreement” between players and the devs from the beginning, but the latter is not in. This doesn’t mean that players have to accept all because the things are all ahistorical.
In the way you described it, it was in the same category. You said that the reason heroes shouldn’t be in the game is that they can never fight a future battle against future civs. The same could be said of the Mayans. Accepting either are both very similar. The problem is the 3k civs not fitting the game rather than the heroes per se.