I had played most aoe2 campaigns previously, excluding Three Sh_tdoms and V&V and I can assure you, there is no downgrade in terms of quality. There’s just another difficulty that makes these campaigns very challenging.
6 Likes
Yes, I checked already. I even reported here when I did.
Other than changing fauna and flora, I’d like them to replace the hills representing the Andes with regular elevation, and maybe fill the Amazon river with walkable shallows. Also, the map needs a rename or bigger redesign, it covers too much to be called Amazonia.
As it is now it’s really hard to traverse.
1 Like
There’s a massive downgrade to the campaign UI, and all objectives being shoved in the player’s face instead of the old gold standard of “Keep explorin’ the map” got really annoying, really fast.
Aside from that though, my only gripes from this dlc ended up being too many unit spam missions and not enough build and destroy missions. Surprisingly, that was it. A nice change from having to stare at the
overall.
1 Like
They forgot about the Battle Royale El Dorado map, too. The guardians represent Amazonian tribes, but the buildings are still Mesoamerican.
2 Likes
I didn’t even know about that one
Maybe even the devs have largely forgotten about Battle Royale. When the Romans were added back in 2023, they updated the Castle in the BR Fall of Rome map accordingly.
Some people wrote about the lack of (official) scenarios featuring the conquistadors as protagonists. In BR El Dorado, one begins with two Conquistador heroes and conquers the land of the Amazonian warrior women. 
1 Like
I’ve seen games that had interesting ways of doing harder difficulties. For example, Fire Emblem has a nightmare difficulty mode that once completed supposedly unlocks a nightmare+ difficulty mode (I remember trying nightmare on one of them, didn’t get very far but it was insanely hard). And Baldur’s gate has many difficulty settings, and I recall the hardest one giving a warning to prospective players.
Pretty accurate imo. People who aren’t skilled generally fail to recognize that - and if they do, then that’s often the first step to actually improving their skills.
I finally played all of the Last Chieftains campaigns. Here is a version from my positive steam review.
A very good expansion for Age of Empires 2 DE. Finally, classic, traditional, and high-quality content. The best since 2023 and The Mountain Royals.
The negatives first:
-
The translation. In Mission 1 of the El Dorado campaign, the objective to capture the castle remains in English.
-
A few issues or bugs: in El Dorado Mission 4, the Spanish camp remains unexplored. It’s also impossible to trade with an allied market in one of the missions (El Dorado or Lautaro). In the Muisca interface: no description of the temple guard?
-
The lack of new, realistic maps (Caribbean, South America, or other regions) for skirmish mode is a real shame.
-
The absence of a campaign for one or more existing civilizations.
-
Finally, the price. It’s the worst value for money of all the DLCs, a trend that has unfortunately been consistent since 2023.
Next, the positive points that make this DLC quite enjoyable.
-
The naval overhaul is great, even if it might be unpopular here. The three-ship system is pretty good, as are the simultaneous upgrades. I have nothing against naval technology at the university.
-
The three new civilizations. They have nice gameplay designs (especially the Mapuche and the Tupi), are varied, and consistent with the game’s theme, unlike those of the Three Kingdoms. I was a bit skeptical about the theme at first, but it’s actually very good.
-
The campaigns. Good storytelling, interesting and historical stories, beautiful interface elements, and very engaging scenarios. You really feel like you’re in South America. For me, they surpass Montezuma in the history of pre-Columbian America and its encounter with Europeans.
-
The new architecture is very beautiful and blends well into the different cultural areas represented (Andean, Colombian, Amazonian).
-
I was skeptical about the campaign menu interface, but I actually find it quite good and fairly similar to the old one.
6 Likes
This is a big no for me. I was expecting the legacy icons for the campaigns and background.
+1 against for me. Really, it is this and the decisions mechanic that are the 2 things that kept me from calling a full return to form; I want my consistency back in the campaign screen.
1 Like
I have mixed feelings about the DLC (I thought it was better for 3DE), but yes, at least it’s better than TTK and the best since TMR…
Yes, they missed the opportunity to port the 10 South American maps from AoE3 to AoE2…
Yes, that’s true, but they’re probably saving it for a Mesoamerican DLC: Mayans, Purepechas, Tlaxcalans, and maybe even Caribs…
Yes, although it’s more of an Inca-style architecture, the same as in AoE 3, and it’s kind of strange that civilizations like the Tupi and Mapuche used it (the Muisca might be, since they were neighbors of the Incas and perhaps they copied Inca architecture in the 16th century)…in the WoL mod of classic AoE 3, the Tupi use Haud architecture and the Mapuche use Lakota architecture…
Yes, it’s the same as the one in Chronicles, but oh well, we’ll have to get used to it…
There is a twist compared to Chronicles and Three kingdoms: this time, you can spot the whole scenarios at a glance, without moving the map. That’s why I think it’s equivalent to the traditional map.
The difference, and what it has in common with Three Kingdoms and Chronicles, is that you don’t directly select the scenario buy clicking on it, but rather select the buttons at the bottom of the screen.
This shouldn’t be part of a critic for this DLC, it’s South America after all. Instead you could say there’s a missed opportunity in leveraging voice actors to add historical battles.
I thought about at least two historical battles:
-Battle of the Maule: The Mapuche resisted the inca expansion to the south.
-One for the Spanish where they finally ended the resistance of the Incas of Vilcabamba in 1572
4 Likes
Yes, I understand…
Yes, even the Battle of the Maule River could have been a sixth scenario for the Inca campaign, playing as Inca Yupanqui in 1485… and the Mapuche campaign should have ended at the Battle of Curalaba in 1598 with Pelantaro using Pedro de Valdivia’s head to scare the Spanish…
I suppose that’s a better idea than what I thought, where a new sixth scenario would be centered around Tupa Yupanqui’s legendary voyage west to the Pacific, where he made contact with Easter Islanders and other Polynesians. At least this event is guaranteed to have happened.
The problem is, facing the Mapuche doesn’t feel right if they don’t have their unique units.
Yes, but that’s how it is… anyway, in the El Cid campaign we can use Conquistadors and gunpowder didn’t even exist in Europe back then in 1072 CE…
1 Like
I don’t think so, the Inca didn´t win that battle. Conquering the Chimu kingdom is still a better finale for the campaign; besides, the Mapuche woudn’t be able to use their UUs. So a historical battle without UUs would still be fine.
Of course you’re right…
Eh, rule of cool wins here imho, the Rapa Nui voyage as a sixth scenario would be an awesome way to connect the Polynesian civ(s) to existing ones. Eastern Islanders have traces of Amerindian DNA and some structures on the island resemble Incan stonework.
those two are not connected afaik:
the influx of south american DNA to polynesian populations happened centuries before any possible expedition by the Inca (Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA super intersting article about the DNA tracing) TL;DR, the DNA points to a single point of contact in 1200 CE, before the Incan empire even formed, and the DNA is a better match for people who lived north of the Inca.
1 Like