If BFG is DLC 5 we’d expect to see a dlc5 strings files in the strings/key-value directory, explained in this reply.
Furthermore it was theorized that a folder ccam1, which contained a copy of the V&V intro and outro slides, the leading “c” might stand for “china”, “copy”, or “chronicles”. The location of the relevant directory is explained in this reply. What are the contents of ccam1?
Conversely, if BFG is NOT DLC 5, we’d expect to see a new directory in Aoe2DE/modes/ next to Pompeii
Chronicles is not DLC5 unlike what I’ve earlier expected. Its campaign texts are stored in the paphos file.
Either DLC5 is Return of Rome (which wouldn’t make sense because it came before Mountain Royals) or it’s something completely different.
What if DLC 5 is like Half-Life 2 Episode 3 that will just never be released and we will get DLC 7 next?
In the end it’s just a number. They wrote in a recent News article that they are going to release more normal AoE2DE DLC with civilisations that well be playable in ranked again in the future on top of more Chronicles DLC.
Regardless of what the devs say, V&V doesn’t feel like an “experiment”. basically everything was recycled. Old filthy scenarios, intro and outro slides from previous scenarios, no new skins. Even the DLC icon was the old single player or multiplayer shield. One VA. Even the menu navigation, having it up in the corner with historical battles, seems like an afterthought. Seems baffling that you’d want to try a “single player only experiment” and then put as little effort into it as possible.
BFG, is basically just an official version of the Rome at War mod. Yes it’s very ambitious, but still at it’s core, conceptually, it’s a mod. The 5th anniversary (the exact 5th annivesary) DLC of DE is…a mod??? That doesn’t seem thematically appropriate. No more than if RoR had been the 5th anniversary DLC.
And DLC 5 is still nowhere to be found. DLC 5 being RoR doesn’t make sense as @FloosWorld points out.
I’d also like to point out that before V&V, DLCs released every 8-9 months, with the exception of ROR which was late by a couple months, but TMR was back on schedule. So they have an established preferred cadence. After TMR the next DLC would have been released in June/July. So why did they need to greenlight another DLC to be released in March?
All this to say, I don’t think V&V in March and BFG in November was the original plan. I think BFG was originally slated for March, and DLC 5 was slated for November.
BFG was a very ambitious project, by a comparatively new team. It seems very late 2023/early 2024 it became obvious that BFG was not going to be ready in time. However DLC 5 (I’m assuming to be the original anniversary DLC) wasn’t far enough in development to take over the march slot. And waiting a year between TMR and the anniversary would be longer between releases than they’d prefer, presumably due to cashflow.
So they needed to greenlight a new project, that’d be very quick to make so as to be ready for March. Assuming all is true, V&V makes a lot more sense. V&V wasn’t an experiment. It was a last minute project built in a rush to fill a release slot. Anything they could re-use would shorten development time. Which is why the vast majority of the content was recycled.
So V&V bought BFG the time it needed.
And whether it was because DLC 5 couldn’t be ready in time due to time lost to V&V and/or AoM or if it would just be easier to let BFG take the anniversary slot and let DLC 5 slip into 2025, BFG became the anniversary DLC, and DLC 5 is as of yet still un-released.
