the new architecture looks really nice. buildings look unique, but are still immediately recognizable. it seems to also contain some scenario buildings like the “european fortress/outpost thingy”. The only buildings i struggle to recognize are these
they look like like they have a 3x3 footprint (compare it to the house behind), so it can’t be a house/mill. one of them might be a monastery (probably the left one)? my guess for the other one is a “resource pit”, as it’s really common in the screenshots and always placed next to wood, farms, or gold. so a building where all (or at least most) resources can be deposited.
Tupi unit design
While I question to what extent “unit that trains in pairs” differs from “fast creation speed”, i don’t consider this horrible. It’s probably just another pointless gimmick, but I prefer those to bad new mechanics.
“Ibirapema Warrior, a heavy infantryman with powerful area damage.”, let’s just hope this isn’t another fucking charge attack, then this is a classic unit design which does the game justice.
El Dorado campaign will be back (although this counts as one of the 3 new campaigns…)
EDIT: after some more reading, it looks like this will be a new campaign. So 3 full new campaigns, this is also good.
The bad
Inca rework
I don’t want major reworks to classic civs. The Inca are a beloved, fun, and well-balanced civ. why mess with that? Even if you don’t buy the DLC, this will be forced upon you. This is a really scummy business practice.
EDIT 2: looks like the inca rework is going to be fairly minor, so this isn’t as bad
yes, some people are unhappy with the current state of water balance (although most also think it’s in the best state it has ever been)
the water balance did not look great in the preview-tournament. I don’t want this. Another thing that will be forced on everyone, whether they buy the DLC or not. Trampling games preservation and the identity of the game with their feet
the price:
This DLC will contain 3 new civs, one civ rework and 2.5 new campaigns (el Dorado was in the game before) and one campaign rework.
think what you will about 3K (I hate it), but at least the price was ok. 20 EUR for 5 new factions and basically 3 campaigns. the last chieftains is the same price, but less content. 3K had lots of problems, but content for price was alright. the new DLC contains significantly less for the same price.
The mountain royals was already very expensive, but the new DLC contains only slightly more (1 extra civ) and costs even more.
Content-wise an almost exact comparison is DoI, which contained 3 new civs, 3 campaigns (+one rework for everyone), but only cost 10 EUR, half of what this DLC costs. no matter how you look at it, this is not much content for the amount money they are asking, when comparing to other DLC. Making this a bad deal financially.
They are continuing the trend of “higher prices, less content”
the mapuche unit mechanics:
unit that deals extra damage against wounded foes? how will this affect player choices? I don’t know enough about how this mechanic will work, but I’m carefully pessimistic.
bolas rider who snares enemies. FUCK OFF ALL THE WAY.
Musica unit mechanics
the phrasing is unclear on the guecha’s “heals on death”-mechanic. The steam page says “heals nearby allies” while the accouncement says “heals nearby Guecha Warriors”. Not sure what to think of this, could be alright and make for interesting interactions (eg if you have an injured squad you delete a couple of units before engaging a mangonel. then again, do we want to encourage more unit deletions), I’m waiting to see how this plays out. I am worried this will be another super janky unit though.
a heavy infantryman that attacks faster the longer it fights - sigh, more units with status effects/temporary buffs and other non-aoe2 nonsense.
more bad communication:
the pre-order claims
The Last Chieftains is a DLC set in South America primarily during the late medieval period.
but also:
The campaigns of The Last Chieftains tell the stories of those who fought for their freedom against European incursion.
which one is it? the European incursions into South America are not medieval. I don’t think this is a major problem, but why not be honest about this? There is no harm in simply stating that these civs are “late medieval and early modern”. if it isn’t medieval, don’t claim it is.
Incas get a new economic building and a new scout which is rumored to be very similar to Eagles. I don’t get how it is ruining the civ. If I couldn’t afford the DLC I would be happy to at least have Incas.
I haven’t opened the game for 7 months due to Three Kingdoms ruining the game, but water rework was a long overdue. Most people hate water.
I agree with the pricing. They should’ve just added Chimús as a 4th civ. Although I wouldn’t use Three Kingdoms as a counter arguement because that DLC is pure trash - I wouldnt pay a single cent for it at this state. On the other hand this DLC seems like it is worth some money.
Yes, 16th century is not medieval. Yes, they could’ve chosen better words. But the 16th century has been part of the game’s timefrime since AoC. Advertising 3 Kingdoms with Tanguts, lying about not splitting the Chinese and Victors and Vanquished being a campaign DLC were far worse.
if that’s all the rework does, then I think it’s fine. Something as big as the Chinese changes wouldn’t be good.
have a look at the recent water tournament Thalassocracy 2, the new water balance is even worse. We somehow saw even less unit variety, it was the same strategy every time.
But even if lots of people hate water (I doubt it’s most), they shouldn’t take the existing water balance away from those people who like it.
same for me, i haven’t bought it and never will. but the general idea of “5 civs and 3 campaigns for 20” is fine. For 3K the issue isn’t how much content there is, but what the content is.
The point is more, “even if you like 3K, this new DLC is shrinkflation”
totally agreed, I’m not arguing that these civs shouldn’t be added based on the timeframe. It’s just that a game based in history should be able to get basic historical concepts right in its promotional material.
Agreed, those two were straight-up lies. Here it is way less of an issue, because the correct information is in the same article.
Small correction, the El Dorado campaign from HD is not back, they only reused the name. I guess for name recognition and because the El Dorado myth stared with rumours about the Muisca.
From the description, the Muisca campaign has nothing to do with Francisco de Orellana and his accidental exploration of the Amazon River.
So in your line of thinking we will get 3.5 campaigns.
It’s not that major. Slingers are still the same to them, but new to the others. Champi is the new eagle warrior just with the ability to make an outpost, and the only REALLY big change is the settlement which is just a TC with no garrison or villager production.
no, that makes it 3 campaigns. i was counting a changed El Dorado being added as .5
Changes to pachacuti might count as an additional 0.1. But civs being replaced when a new DLC comes out is par for the course (happened with lots of scenarios when eg Burgundians were added)
fair enough, IF the changes are this minor I retract that point. I was (and still am) worried about another overhaul like the Chinese received in 3k.
How come improving a half baked civ with architecture from another part of the world and units from another civ, and also updating their campaign (wich is considered one of the worst) is a bad thing?
I feel the same about your subjective posts that can be summarize as “I don’t like anything, and the things I like are boring”
improving is an optinion. some people will like the changes, other won’t. the issue is that these changes are forced on everyone.
Inca are a well-balanced civ, with a clear identity, which sees regular play in tournament, without being OP. what’s half-baked about them?
I am worried they’ll commit another clusterfuck like the changes to Chinese, where they are now zooming around with fire lancers in siege towers.
I didn’t complain about the architecture change, in fact i pointed out I like the new architecture
I pointed out several of the things I like about the DLC.
Most posts here that aren’t bug reports are subjective posts. The forum is here to share opinions.
Yeah, probably. they didn’t say much about it though, so we’ll have to wait and see. It is the campaign where you can pick the side though, so I guess it will be quite unique.
Again, Age of Empires is a historical game, being historical is the “CORE” of the game, giving a civ a unit that do not belong is a objectively a bad thing, giving a more aproppiate unit is objectively a good thing
you are ignoring the “game” part of “historical game”. Giving a civ a-historical units (Maya trebuchets, etc) is a trade-off between game-play and historicity. Some people will prefer a more historical game (akin to a simulation), some will prefer a more fairly balanced game. those are preferences or OPINIONS.
you don’t seem to know what that word means, you keep using it to describe opinions.
Of course, if they can circumvent that with sappers or whatever unit fits historically, it would be BETTER
Yeah, this hole thing is not about your stubborness, inability to process change or more open aproach about what’s innevitable, is just that I don’t understand words
So your claim is that, because AoE2 is a historical game, any change that increases historical accuracy is objectively good. With that in mind, if Incas were changed so that every unit and technology they didn’t historically have was removed from their tech tree – e.g. crossbow/arbalest, wheelbarrow/hand cart, all siege workshop units, trebuchets, etc. – would you consider that not only a good thing, but objectively a good thing? (Note that if you don’t say yes, you are contradicting yourself.)
it would be more historical, which in your OPINION is better. giving trebs to all civs makes it easier to learn the game, which in my OPINION makes it a better game.
you have demonstrated that you don’t know what the word means, by insisting that your opinions are objective fact.
No need to start insulting me.
Yes, because at the end of the day the bonuses are numbers, the technologies could be anything (could be more historical), could be region aproppiate, just as the Chronicles have their own tech tree
You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not talking about replacing them with more historical alternatives. I’m talking about just removing them completely.
As I said, your claim was that any change that improves historical accuracy is objectively good. Such a change would improve historical accuracy, and therefore, by your own measure, you should consider it objectively good even though it would leave Incas in an essentially unplayable state.
I’ll add that I find your approach to forum discussion rather funny: you claim that your own positions are objectively correct, and if anyone disagrees with you, you try to discredit their positions by calling them "subjective " or “opinion”. It’s perhaps the worst argument strategy I have ever seen.
EDIT: I scrolled up a bit and realised your argument strategy is even worse than I realised, because when you realised it wasn’t working you resorted to insults!
Yes, if you follow the statement dogmatically it would be like that, but as said, the bonus that wheelbarrow provides could be given by a aproppiate named tech, easy
Because opinions are subjective, I dont claim to be right, I just didnt like the “everything that I dont like shouldnt be implemented” of the fellow forum friend, and in a similar fashion… you could see how poetic this is
