- Chronicles of Narnia
- Chronicles of Riddick
Mostly kidding, but Chronicles of Narnia could be pretty cool 
1 Like
Yeah, I like this idea. For the Thracians, the Teres/Sitalces duo seems the best fit. However, for the Illyrians I think playing with Agron/Teuta can be better campaign material, even if they lived much later.
I agree. Although I think it makes much more sense to have the Ptolemaic campaign first and then Seleucus’. Regarding the name, I think the “Fall of Macedon” is a bit negative, especially considering the legacy of those empires. I think it makes more sense to bundle it with an Alexander the Great campaign.
They can still show up in that DLC while having their main campaign in a Indian-themed DLC.
1 Like
Don’t know why people keep saying Picts are an ancient civ. The First mention of them is in 300 AD, they fit aoe2, also they would get the woad raider instead of Celts (renamed to Scots or Gaels at that point). Picts lost their identity towards the 9th/10th century AD at the time of the Kings of Alba that would eventually become Scots. They would fit a dark age themed aoe2 dlc.
The ancient equivalent you’re searching for aoe1/chronicles is Caledonians (among other tribes).
My only hope is that chronicles don’t step on the toes of aoe2 by adding late antiquity civs (like Picts and Vandals) again.
If you want to add Romans again you have everything from 500 BC to the 3rd century AD to use, just not again Christian Romans, please cause they’ve been added in aoe2 for a reason and they still miss their campaign.
I don’t think there’s any point to add again Huns, Franks, Sassanids, goths or any other late antiquity aoe2 civ specially since you can already crossplay.
1 Like
Completely agree, I also don’t think Chronicles should overlap with regular aoe2.
However, I would just slightly expand the timeline a couple of centuries before to include a few civs like the Phoenicians and Assyrians, since 500 BC is a bit arbitrary anyway.
2 Likes
300 AD sounds reasonable.
I think it would make sense to mix Chronicles with normal aoe2 civs in late antiquity setting and I hope that those aoe2 civs can get some new architecture sets through Chronicles.
Goths and Huns just have the completely wrong architecture for example.
How do we make these more than just ideas. Seems like a lot of work for yall
Sure what I mean is to not mix the two things too much since one is a medieval game (and Romans fits in their late incarnation) and the other is ancient.
You can give those dark age civs a new set sure, since the two datasets are shared anyway.
The point of division can be somewhere between 200 and 300 AD (Sassanids begin in 220 circa, late Romans usually in 285, Germanic confederations like goths and Franks formed in the 3rd century etc).
Most units added for chronicles are already outdated for 200 AD anyway.
Probably, but the story has to flow together for the Chronicle to have cohesion.
Wars of the Diadochi, instead.
Considering Seleucus gained the most territory, fought the most wars and had a bigger variety of enemies during the conflicts of the Diadochi, and that the Ptolemies were most succesful militarily under Ptolemy II, I chose the order to be that way.
1 Like
I don’t think that matters considering Spartans are a separate civ in Chronicles. They might be too much like Achaemenids though. I just picked some civs that the Achaemenids fought but who weren’t in AoE1.
1 Like
Well, but we know a whole lot about Sparta. Greece is one the best documented regions of the world at that time.
Maybe, or maybe not. We barely know anything about the Medes. It seems some tribes were more urbanized (so more like the Achaemenids) and others more tribal (more similar to the Scythians if they’re ever added). So, if they show up in scenarios for future campaigns, I think they could be covered by them.
Maybe the Lydians could be an option. We know more about them.
However, I must also admit that the lack of knowledge about a civ has not prevented its inclusion in the game (Huns…).
It’s just that in my opinion there are better candidates. For example, for a second Iranian civ the Parthians could be a great addition.
1 Like
The newest DLC has already extended the AOE2 timeline into classical antiquity, so I don’t see why they can’t extend it further into the Bronze Age. They could go all the way back to the Stone Age for all I care, honestly.
1 Like
If you just need a list of civs from Antiquity Age, you can also ask ChatGPT. It will give you a huge list.
If there is no brainstorming on actual civ design then why waste time, be smart, use AI.
1 Like
Not the AoE2 timeline. The Chronicles timeline is separate.
I’m still hoping they eventually remove the ability to play AoE2 civs with Chronicles civs once there are a few more of the latter…
3 Likes
So long as they respect history as it truly is, then okay. We’ll see.
I hope they never remove this feature.
What would we gain from not having this option? What is the advantage of less features?
6 Likes
That feature is nice.
However, it would be cool of Chronicles ends up with its own ranked, in which case it would be just to hard to balance aoe2 with Chronicles civs, so they should probably be balanced separately.
But yes, that feature should not be removed, even mixing civs makes it wildly unbalanced.
1 Like
as long as these are all cross playable with existing civs in non ranked and available in custom lobbies i dont mind
Honestly game feels very similar. They only need to make changes to navy in the base game. Athenians/Spartans feels very weak when compared to base game civs actually. Their only choice is just infantry and infantry itself needs serious changes to make it worth while.
1 Like
I think a separate queue would be nice but I feels like the current civs are not really balanced against each other yet.
3 civs is obviously not enough for a ranked queue yet.
1 Like
I have the hope that future Chronicles releases will make a full game. It would be like what ROR could have been.
With full roaster of civs, and a campaign for each civ… Would be great.
2 Likes