Really?, the word stubborn is a insult?, perhaps is a language thing, in spanish is not a insult, just a critic, a light one even
4 Likes
It seems to be a deserved return to form to a classical DLC (medieval and historical civs and campaigns), which is great.
Communication is good too. Clear posts and a FAQ!
I regret there is no new campaign for existing civs (okay they bring changes to Pachacuti) and that the price is constantly going up (almost +100% since 2022).
13 Likes
If something (civ, unit, building, tech etc.) is new, then it was a non-aoe2 thing before being implemented.
Resource buying/selling was a non-aoe feature before AoE2 was released. The same in AoE2 for Huns not needing houses, Goths having 2 unique techs or Aztec monks getting HP for every Monastery tech researched.
All of those features break rules.
AoE2 was always about new ways to break its own rules (historically inspired) in a way that is fun to play while allowing different strategies. It’s easy to forget this for older civs but it’s not a new trend, it’s the main way to expand an Age of Empires game.
And about the Bolas Rider… What one can expect from this unit, if not to slow enemy units on hit? A lot of roles have already been taken:
- Plain pierce damage: Cavalry Archer
- Hard hitting: Conquistador
- Missed shots deal full damage: Arambai
- Multiple projectiles: Kipchak
- Melee damage (and bonus vs cavalry): Mameluke
- Bonus vs Archery units: Genitour
- Bonus vs Mounted Archers: Camel Archer
Maybe it could fill the role of Arambai or Mameluke, but not really, because it can’t be just a reskin.
They have a design that fits the historical inspiration that is also unique enough to the game.
History Ages overlap, so Late Middle Age and Early Modern Age may refer to the same time period.
7 Likes
The tournament was created for this very reason. The balance will be adjusted based on the feedback received. I think a water rework is absolutely necessary. As it is now, nobody wants to play in the sea. The snowball effect is “too much.” Also, even reducing the two-page dock to a single page is very satisfying for me.
2 Likes
I partially agree, but there are more points to consider:
- a new game introducing new game concepts or mechanics (eg market selling) is different from an expansion introducing new things
- back in the day, if you had AoK and then bought AoC and didn’t like the things it introduced, you could just uninstall AoC, and keep playing AoK. the main way of playing online (lobbies/voobly) made it so you could avoid playing civs with mechanics you didn’t like. neither is the case now
- the expansions during HD’s lifetime (forgotten, african kingdoms, rise of the rajas) didn’t break rules like this, at least not on the same scale. most UU and bonuses were similar to existing bonuses. ie free/cheaper techs, units that were unique due to stats and bonus damage.
off the top of my head they only introduced very few new mechanics: techs that alter the cost of units, units that don’t cost 1 pop (karambit), extra revealed areas on the map (vietnamese, burmese). So there is a clear break here, with post DE DLC each adding several unique mechanics, often several per civ.
there are so many other options:
aok style: bonus damage: we don’t have any cav archer with significant damage against infantry? or against buildings. we don’t have cav archers with high pierce armor
forgotten style: we don’t have cav archers that can be turned into a trash unit, we don’t have cav archers that cost less pop
or even base DE: we could have a cav archer that turns into an archer when killed (a la Konnik)
These are just the ideas that I could come up with on the spot. There are still so many options, which don’t require the introduction of new mechanics.
that’s fine and I hope you’ll enjoy the new version. But do you think it’s ok to force this on everyone? I think at the absolute minimum they should provide an official (data) mod that reverts these changes. Ideally also an option for the ranked ladder.
I bought aoe2DE, because it was advertised as follows:
- we are done adding new civs
- there will be tons of QoL changes
- you can play in 4k
- if you want to play like 1999, it’s all there
I bought this game, same as you. You don’t get to tell me to leave. I just want to play the game as it was promised when i bought it.
2 Likes
Well said. 
5 Likes
The dev’s choice is still better.
And you described a mounted slinger, not a Bolas thrower. It would need an extra feature, otherwise it would be too similar to a Conquistador while being weaker.
A “cav archer that turns into an archer when killed” is a nice role to be filled, but not for the Bolas Rider. And again I think it would need an extra feature to be truly unique because a Konnik is a Cavalry unit that turns into an Infantry unit. The class change is important here. A Cavalry Archer that turns into an Archer would still die to Skirmishers and siege while being weaker against mounted units. Maybe a Cav Archer that turns into a heavy spearman, or a Camel Rider that turns into an Archer would be better.
The weapon of the mounted unit could a crossbow to spice things up a bit.
I don’t think so, but different opinions and all that. But my point is more that there is still plenty of design space within these old constraints, so we don’t need this feature/gimmick creep.
I consider new units that don’t introduce new features more elegant game design (and more fun to play with), so i strongly disagree with “it needs and extra feature”.
A cheaper, weaker version of a conq trainable in the archery range seems like a reasonable unit to me.
I’m just glad a normal DLC is coming, that’s all I have to say. Imagine how the 3K and Chronicles situation made me tired, and I’m still salty about the 3 kingdom civs.
11 Likes
Trust me, my idea of what a “normal” AoE II DLC should be, has become so simplified that whatever they add, whatever gimmick they include, it should be welcomed, as it can’t be worse than the overall design and the fundamental choices they made with the base concept of the 3K DLC. Idk, but that’s just my opinion.
2 Likes
I understand your frustrations, but i think our expectations should be higher than that
2 Likes
The whole 3K mess was just a ploy, for us to be more acceptable for future expansions 
They truly made me scared for the future of the game. I am beyond thankful they returned to the classic formula.
6 Likes
Mild insults are still insults. What you wrote reads like it was intended as an insult, and I don’t see what else you can have meant by it.
3 Likes
From what we know I think the Inca rework sounds ok. Assuming the settlement is just a universal drop-site that supports population, it’s combining existing mechanics in a new way, which is the kind of design I like personally. It fits with the Incas both in terms of their better QoL style gameplay, an in terms of history as I understand it. I expect the slinger is unchanged except for becoming a regional unit. Not sure about the champi warrior, but it sounds very similar to an eagle warrior from the description.
All that said, I do agree that making major changes to a feature of a product you’ve already sold is bad business practice.
EDIT: I’ll add that I don’t like the name settlement because it sounds too generic and not like the name of a single building. Every civ in the game built settlements of some kind.
2 Likes
That’s pretty much the only thing I’m against, the settlement. I get the idea behind it, but it would be better if they just had plain, simple drop-off points. You already have Georgians and Armenians using the mule cart, which basically serves that purpose. Adding something so similar to that, and at the same time so close to a standard drop-off building, feels kind of unnecessary.
I know this is the most unproblematic thing to be an eyesore, but for some reason it’s the thing that bothers me the most.
1 Like
Perhaps a more lighthearted word would be fine?, like, obstinate, hard-headed, obdurate, i don’t know, english is my secon..four language actually, Im so sorry it offended you
I didnt want it to be read as a insult, I could say something about you being a very passionate writter, would that be taken as a insult too?
1 Like
It’s definitely unnecessary since Incas have managed without it for about 12 years. But if it’s a truly universal drop-site, and in particular works for farms, I think it’s different enough from a stationary mule cart to be a reasonable addition.
It didn’t offend me. Mostly I thought it was funny – you were calling someone stubborn because they wouldn’t accept a position that you hadn’t really argued for.
Anyway, this has gone far enough. I was just trying to point out what looked, to me, like a problem with your reasoning, and things spiralled from there somehow.
1 Like
Yeah, but all new civs seem to be filled with content. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud for all the work they did. I know they want them to feel more unique. It seems as of now, “overbloated” with the settlement feature for me. In my opinion, all of them would be fine without the settlement. But that said, I might be going to much forward, we didn’t really see all the civ bonuses and technologies.
4 Likes
Thats completely your impreasion of it, and because you felt that way you are just saying that all changes are bad
Its really immature to act this way
You can criticize gimmicks, bad civ and unit design and bad choices without it being always “BUT MUH NOSTALGIA”
1 Like
It’s possible the new architecture set doesn’t include a mill, lumber camp, or mining camp.
1 Like