I want Indians with Hindustanis civilizations to rework together and appear together to play all game modes(e.g.King of the Hill,Wonder Race),and also it should be appear in select civilization.
You want them to be next to each other on the civilisation list?
Or you mean them being merged into one civilisation again?
I think what they’re saying is they’d like both indians and hindustanis as civs in the game.
I think indians never really left, just got some changes and a new name. so basically hindustanis and old hindustanis…but after V&V2 why not. add anybody. Add 2013 indians in too.
2 Likes
Old Indians with Gol Gumbaz and Middle Eastern Architecture will feel like a brand new civ.
Well, with 3K being in the base game, it’s possible.
4 Likes
And old monsterous stat of Elephant Archer as the Castle UU.
Yes. Bonus Tip: Maybe they can change it to look like a Elephant Gunner.
Indians were very advanced for their time. Fits right in.
1 Like
He wants a Indians civ and a Hindustanis civ.
Mocking the 3 kingdoms situation.
You kid, but that’s actually what I wanted before the release of DoI, more or less.
The idea that an existing civ could be removed and replaced with new ones was incomprehensible to me.
1 Like
I mean, this is kind of what having Chinese and 3 Kingdoms all in the base game would be like.
Except 3 Kingdoms were earlier than aoe2 supposed time period, more short-lived, and far more specific.
3 Likes
Seriously? Its’ just a rework with a name change. Just like what happened with the Persians. It would not be different than changing viking to Norse.
2 Likes
More like romans italians situation.
We can imagine this Old Indians Civ to be Mughals with stronger Elephant Archers (preferably reskinned to Elephant Gunners to avoid confusion). So they are later in timeline just like Chinese are to the Three Kingdoms.
This game has become a laughing stock with all the experiments (V&V, Chronicles, Three Kingdoms) they have been doing lately.
1 Like
only good experiment. Rest are bad. Three Kingdoms aint bad but hero concept and timeline is my primary issue. Even small time important faction being a civ is no issue. Just dont want to see it larped with Middle Age civs
1 Like
It laid footings to all bad experiments to come. Why can’t they just stick to the timeless classic pattern that AoE2 is? The timeframe of the game and the civ tech tree is a great concept. They just need to expand upon it by adding new civs in the same pattern and we are all happy. Chronicles really feels like a fan made incomplete mod not an official DLC.
Did you played Chronicles? I think you are going far too conservative in this. I mean judging by that way why we stepped down from The Conqueror’s 5 civ, 1 historical campaign battles and 3 new extra campaigns to 4 new civs, 3 campaigns then? DE shrunk down contents much more with less innovation. There is a reason why game took down the path of “gimmick” mechanics. Personally speaking I have no issue with gimmicks if done right. Creates more interesting replayability than anything else.Making same repetitive contents will make it boring and dead over time.
Now let’s go back to Chronicles. I mean I would love myself an RTS game which tries to paint the timeline in best way possible. As in having AOE1 civs in much better fashion, new UUs and everything. Not to mention actual improvement in campaign system where you feel the need to explore the game map in different fashion and its not just mundane achievement chasing. That’s why it received much praise from wider SP community. MP community ignored due to no ranked options. In some way I want to keep it unranked and hope for with more well designed civs and testings to make it its own ranked ladder. 3 new Antiquity civs only, nothing to do with time period of existing Middle Age civs, major overhaul which is far too much different from existing civs to compete with is just not enough yet to be ranked. So waiting for new civs like when its like around 10-12 civs, more ironed out balance changes and then have it ranked with its own ranked bracket separated from existing Middle Age civs.
Why the uproar against Three Kingdom civs? Mainly because its just political faction. Maybe you can still excuse it but its still overall odd design. They are far too much out of timeline. Can’t even overstretch at all to fit. Inclusion of hero units by replacing treb is just overall very bad. Also “traditional AOE2 DLC” meant it was gonna add Middle Age Chinese/East Asian civs. Like Jurchens, Tanguts, Khitans, Dali and few others here and there. Not having that was major disappointment. Middle Age itself has so many things to cover and saddening how devs ignored it. Mongol era and Middle Age China at the end of the day is empty. Even the Middle Age civs are poorly designed. Its just bad mis-mash of Khitan and Tanguts. Ppl refers it as Khitanguts. Just failing this is alone is why its getting backlash before it was released.
I mean it still can be solved simply. Remove 3K from ranked, remove hero units, bring Traction Treb to Castle and change some namings. This way you can solve some issues of DLC. Not a good one but still a remedy to the issue.
V&V as a concept wasnt bad. I would’ve loved to see Turks, Japanese, Vikings and few other missed civilization having its full campaign series. Also another series of long Historical Battles like The Conquerors and Forgotten Empires. if possible more new things for scenario editors. But instead we just got already done campaigns with minor touch ups by the community. I mean I would’ve loved that regardless but price didnt justified the cost simply. Felt very cheap cash grab for the sake of it.
AOE1DE port itself is self-explanatory as well. It is still unfinished in nature. Failed attempt to attract Vietnamese player without knowing what those players actually want and how economy works there. Didnt even ported all of old AOE1DE. Still kept the bad parts of AOE1DE like having caveman in Iron Age with no way to upgrade them.
After these long essays overall point is devs are simply failing to understand the audience and going for statistics. Also axing of AOE3DE hampers the trust by a lot. Solution to these issues are simple but it feels like Microsoft is simply repeating the mistakes of what happened to Ensemble. That’s why the all concern and backlash. Three Kingdoms would’ve been fine for something like Chronicles focused SP content but not so for this. It doesn’t encompass any broad group. Just one political faction with ppl at gunpowder era even. Sure odd civ vs civ exist but 3K civs takes step far too much out of the time. 3K backlash went as far as even the pro player scene. Which alone tells entire community is not happy about this.
Yes. Got bored very quick. It was very similar to playing an incomplete mod.
I don’t get your argument. Yes the amount of content increased/decreased but pattern of civs and campaigns remained the same. So ?
Chronicles has mostly reused bonuses and techs. Not even unique ones. That itself feels like a mod.
Spartans and Athenians are also Political Faction than cultural. The differences is mostly fictional. Tommorow if Macedonians are added, they too will be yet another faction of the same civilisation. Three Kingdoms ain’t too different in this regard.
Inclusion of four unique techs per civ is equally bad.
Yes it should have stayed as an AoE1 update.
They are equally unhappy about Chronicles. They just do not comment because it doesn’t affect them on ranked.
Same problem. Why do you even want a new game within the game? What’s the point of such shitty experiments?
Macedonians were actually diferent from the other Greeks (more diferent than say, Burgundy, Normandy and France)
But yeah its kinda funny to divide the two hoplite naval nations just because they had an iconic rivalry
1 Like