I have the feelings that the team working on AoE2 is less and less qualified.
Or weirdly schizophrenic, because they can release bad (3K) and good stuff (updates) at the same time.
I hâte Tiger cavalry having fur on the head. I’m happy we can do personalized selection of civs so I cannot play 3K civs.
4 Likes
It might still fit if you consider the Middle Ages to start after the Battle of Adrianople in 378…but it’s very close to the chronology and would be more like a historical battle for AoE 1/RoR/Chronicles (since in the original AoE 1 several Yamato missions went from 376 to 405 CE)…
Yes, it could be possible (although it would be a bit short), and also connect with Suleiman in AoE 3 (I was planning to run an Ottoman campaign for him in AoE 3 at some point):
-
Battle of Mohacs (1526) (Ottomans vs. Germans)
-
Siege of Vienna (1529) (Ottomans vs. Germans and Spanish) (here you’ll play on the Ottoman side and try to change history)
-
War against Venice (1537-1540) (Ottomans vs. Italians, Spanish, and Maltese)
-
Siege of Eztergorn (1542) (Ottomans vs. Germans)
-
Siege of Szigetvar (1566) (Ottomans vs. Germans)
Yes, but if we base ourselves on AoE 4 or literally the Chinese history text that is in AoE 2, medieval China starts in 618 CE (if you count the Sui dynasty 581 CE) since from the fall of the Han in 220 AD and the 3K until the Sui China fell in centuries of divisions (just as in Rome there was the crisis of the 3rd century, but there it only lasted 50 years, similar to the 3K) … the 3K were “the crisis of the Roman 3rd century” but in China …
Yes, the fall of the Gupta Empire is considered the beginning of medieval India, which remained divided until the arrival of the Mughals a millennium later…
Medieval India is generally divided into two main periods: the early medieval period (approximately 6th to 12th centuries) and the late medieval period (approximately 12th to 16th centuries). This era began with the decline of the Gupta Empire and ended with the rise of the Mughal Empire in 1526.
True, but still… AoE 2 is supposed to take place after the fall of Rome (or at least in the last decades of the Roman Empire) and that’s still a fact and it takes place 2 centuries after 3K…
Of course, it doesn’t even touch on the 3K period because it ends like 10 years earlier (which makes it worse)…
Of course, that would leave out all the campaigns from the 16th century (Moctezuma from The Conquerors onwards as the earliest example) or even from the mid-15th century (from Dracula onwards)… literally almost half the game…
Yes, it looks like Warcraft 3, AoM in part, and practically many RTS games from the 2000s…
Yes, Goths in AoE 2 are fine, ultimately the problem has always been the Huns since The Conquerors and the Romans since RoR…
Yeah, for me they just took some AoE 2 hero on horseback and slapped a Cao Cao skin on him and didn’t even notice the stirrups…
Well, that’s a more realistic date…it would be a decade after Alaric…
Because of the exact reason all AOE games (up to 3K) had defined their eras chronologically, not by the development level of technology or society (like in Civ games)
In Civ games Aztec eagle warrior is an ancient unit because he uses primitive weapons
In AOE Aztecs is always medieval or early modern
1 Like
Of course, this wouldn’t happen if they kept the chronology that ES imposed for a reason… they want a 3K DLC, right? There’s Chronicles or, lastly, RoR… don’t ruin AoE 2 because you want to tell “new stories”…
4 Likes
Also Aztecs in AoE II could produce zweihanders aka champions, halberds and saboteurs 
.
Man, wlth all respect, AoE is not 100% historically accurate and we know and kinda accept it. It is rather simulator of what if all civs had nearly similar techs with bonuses and one or couple of unique units for particular civilization (faction).
Otherwise it may requre to change existing and add new mechanics.
Using the opportunity, I’d like ro mention the things I’ve changed in AoE for better realism if I could:
- add units’ stamina;
- add number of shots for ranged units and ability to fight melee when they are over:
- add ability for all cavalry to act dismounted;
- remove ability of melee units or rams to damage stone walls;
- add weather conditions change and related perks:
- add land fertility option (i simply can’t take it seriously watching on farms in desert or snow landscape)
and so on.
But in that case it will become (completely?) another game.
Great. I love the “100% historically accurate” strawman. No wonder I felt something missing in the previous discussion
That is abstraction as a compromise to technological limits 1990s. Not a deliberate choice to blur the historical setting of the game.
Aztec in the game VERY explicitly represents the Aztecs between 1300s to 1500s. Their compendium page says so. Their AI player names says so. Their campaign says so. Their uniqueness says so. They didn’t get modern Mexican or Teotihuacan elements. The developers had to use European models because they couldn’t otherwise.
While 3K also very explicitly represents polities that lasted 60 years before the 4th century. Their very specific hero names double down on that.
The game had a specific theme which had been almost maintained for 20 years and still mostly preserved through some odd additions during DE (like Romans, Burgundians and Sicilians but they still filled in the time frame). Then 3K broke it utterly. That’s why it’s particularly bad.
4 Likes
Got it clear about your opinion of 3K. What about Chronicles then?
We always accepted inaccuracies that existed as a gameplay compromise, such as the ones you mentioned, they’re all about game mechanics. But the problem with inaccuracies lately is that they have nothing to do with gameplay or balance, but design decisions that don’t affect either, it’s just historical inaccuracies that have no reason to exist and are embarrassing. Like Tiger cavalry with stirrups and tiger pelts, or the War Chariot, or the Khitanguts. They could have changed so much without affecting the gameplay, but all the inaccuracies are from a thematic standpoint.
4 Likes
Chronicles are fine as long as they do not interfere with the main game. I’d be fine with 3K if it was moved to the sidebar too
7 Likes
Especially after seeing an obvious trend of increasing quality from early FE mod to maybe DoTD or DoI. Then it nosedived
Edit: oh I forgot they still haven’t acknowledged thirisadai
2 Likes
Sure, mainly due to technical limitations and to keep the game balanced, but if you look at the Aztecs in AoE 3 they feel very different and it’s probably the same in Retold and AoE 4.
the sad thing is this had to be the best aoe2 year of all time when u look at the patches.
we got some great stuff that the community has been asked for..
but then we got a weird expansion that is kinda a middlefinger to the core community wishes that has
been said for YEARS.
like bruh: it would have been so easy to make a lot of money + make the community happy. like they had
been done with the DoTD + DoI.
6 Likes
I guess they need some quick money to cover the cost of the free updates.
BUT I don’t see how the DLC would sell significantly less if it was NOT stitched with 3K, but had its true new civs more fleshed out and their own campaigns. That part is very likely the decision of an out-of-touch management who had little ideas about their own games (“what sells in China? 3K! Just add it! What do you mean they are not medieval? Then call them medieval. Who cares”) or themselves overpromising.
6 Likes
The date is more fit to Western periodisation, but much less clear turning point than 220.
Sima Yan, founder of Sima Jin (there were other kingdoms with “Jin” in name) dynasty started his rule in Cao Wei (that Wei from 3K, there also were other kingdoms with “Wei” name) kingdom in 266 as emperor Wu. He reunited China In 280 and put 3K period to the end.
Since 304, non-chinese ethnicities (“5 barbarians”) established their kingdoms (period of 16 kingdoms) at northern China as aftermath of civil war after death of emperor Wu (known as War of 8 princes).
As far as I understand, related ambuguity is in definition of early Sima Jin time as full restoration of centralized state or just a brief unification time during state fragmentation since fall of Han in 220 until full restoration under Sui dynasty rule in 581.
Let our chinese colleagues correct me if i’ve understood something wrong.
I’d say it’s debatable.
The end of Eastern Jin marked the true mass migration of “barbarians” which echoed all the way to the Sui Dynasty.
At the end of Eastern Han, ethnic Han was stil politically dominant. It was similar to some of the more fragmented periods before (Warring States, end of Western Han, etc). The decentralization and the beginning of incorporation “barbarian” people did plant the seed of future collapse, but it depends on how long you’d like to stretch.
It’s like whether you mark the “true fall of Rome” at 476, or the third century crisis.
1 Like
In that case I’d like to leave both matters to be debated by professional historians
they did, I don’t remember where exactly, but they lied about it being totally real and it being from a “military manual” from the Chola empire that described many types of military vessels. I don’t know if this was before or after the original hoax was debunked, but it’s still a lie because they clearly got it from Wikipedia, as no other website had that information. Plus the Chola empire didn’t have a standing navy, so a military manual wouldn’t mention warships that they couldn’t have in the first place…
1 Like
But it’s just unprofessionalism.
They simply stumbled into the wrong source then stumbled into the same wrong source again, and that source was ninja deleted soon afterwards. You don’t understand.
1 Like
I understand your angry, I share your hate, I love your posts.
1 Like
It didn’t? How did it manage to defeat the Srivijaya Empire then?