I get your point well but if a dlc is not full-fledged then it will have bad sells.
Not necessarily if it’s well made and if the price is reasonable. And from what I can tell there’re many people on this forum interested in Japanese campaigns.
Well look. If you make the dlc like this, then:
- there will be 2 portraits on logo, not 3, this is a bad marketing signal and some loss of the brand
- reduced price will also show that the developer is “giving back”
- on the tab of this dlc there will be only 2 icons and it will look poor
- adding just one nation to skirmish will make it very optional
I often have to remind on this forum that there is a player, and there is a buyer. There is gaming content, and there is marketing. There may be 2 good stories, but it will still not sell well. AoE does have a working formula, no need to go weird experiments and brake it. They failed with it 2 times already.
In addition, I think that the Ryukyuans can have their own campaign, but cannot have a separate civilization.
In view of all this, I do not see the possibility of a separate successful DLC about Japan.
No. We do not need to introduce a civ just for introducing the Japanese campaign. I don’t think we need the Ryukyuans at all.
The failure of V&V didn’t mean the failure of campaign-only DLCs. The Japanese campaign can be introduced together with the Korean campaign or other civ’s campaign by a DLC that has civ reworks rather than a brand new civ.
Ok, if a bigger DLC is absolutely needed for marketing reasons then I propose the following:
1. A Northeast Asian themed DLC featuring Jurchens and Ryukyuans as the 2 new civs + new campaigns for them + new campaigns for Japanese and Korean.
Why I put Jurchens here? Well Jurchens and their ancestors the Sushen and the Mohe had a lot of interactions with neighboring Koreans, and they also maintained close contacts with Japan. The Balhae kingdom founded by the Mohe often sent envoys to Nara and early Heian period Japan. And later in the early 11th century a group of Jurchen pirates called Doi in Japanese records heavily raided Japan’s coasts.
And the Ryukyuans deserve to be their own civ in the game (albeit not of high priority), cause they were independent during AoE 2’s time period, with the first recorded Ryukyuan dynasty or kingdom being the Shunten dynasty founded in 1187.
2. An East Asian themed DLC featuring Baipu and Tanguts as the new civs + new campaigns for them + new campaigns for Chinese
This DLC is self-explanatory, and I find it fit to introduce Chinese campaigns here cause the Chinese had interacted with both of them.
3. A SE Asian themed DLC featuring Chams and Siamese as the new civs + new campaigns for them
Again this doesn’t need much explanation. We could add the Mons here as well if we have enough space.
A campaign only DLC could work, but I guess most people (me included) prefer a DLC with new civs. The Ryukyuans aren’t a civ with high priority that I largely agree with you, however if we’d like to introduce new civs for a Japanese or Northeast Asian themed DLC then I see them fit to be introduced along with the Jurchens. Of course you could also decide to add another Korean civ (say separating the current Koreans into Goguryeo, Silla, Goryeo, etc.) however that risks running into political problems.
1 Like
Yes, but they weren’t called Koreans at the time, so my point is: what is wrong with adding a civilization that lacked independence during the time period? Heck, the Cumans hardly got any time to rest, being chased around by the Mongols so often.
1 Like
Wasn’t Goryo when the unified Korean identity was born? And doesn’t the name Korea itself come from Goryo?
Maybe he meant Goguryeo? Anyway I’m all for splitting Koreans as Chinese, I was probably one of the first asking for it since I’m not against time splits.
First of all, I don’t think we need a new Korean civ or Ryukyuans at all, especially the former should not be happened. As for the latter, even the Emishi/Ainu are better than them because of their battles against Japanese and Mongols in the Middle Ages, while the first battle of Ryukyu against an existing civ was the Japanese invasion in 1609, too late.
A civ needs lots of work for study, design and development and since introduction it has required ongoing maintenance. I don’t appreciate the way that a small civ is introduced just for bringing out the other civ. We don’t actually desire that civ but something else. The campaign is not a necessity for the game, strictly speaking. Not really worth developing and maintaining an extra civ just for that.
The failure of V&V is not the failure of campaign DLC. People do not like it not because it does not contain a civ. As long as the production of the campaign DLC is good enough and the price is right, consumers can be satisfied even without new civ.
To the original post. In my way, there might be:
-
A Chinese DLC focus on battles during the Song dynasty of China:
Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts, and Chinese. -
A DLC focus on Central Asia and who had significant interactions with the Tang dynasty of China:
Gokturks, Sogdians, Tibetans.
The Chinese campaign can be introduced in one of the both, basing on the story is about Tang dynasty or Song dynasty. I personally prefer the story of General Yue Fei so I choose the first one. But maybe both can have a Chinese campaign for Tang dynasty or Song dynasty respectively, considering that Chinese history has a lot of suitable material and the Chinese market is huge.
-
A DLC focus on the Japanese and Korean campaigns, their potential rework, and some passible scenarios for historical battles in Asia.
As no new civ, it might be smaller and cheaper. -
A DLC focus on the southeast Asia:
Siamese, and Chams.
A Yunnanese civ for Nanzhao Kingdom could also be here if we really need them. -
DLCs focus on Africa:
Soninke, Songhai, Kanembu/Kanuris, Nubians, Somalis, and a Bantu civ.
I assume there could be 2 DLCs, but If there could be 3 then split the Bantu into Kongolese and Swahilis and introduce Yoruba and Wolof in the third one. -
A DLC focus on Americas:
Purepecha, Muisca, Chimu and a Mayan campaign. -
A DLC for a Vlach civ, the Dracula rework, and campaigns for Slavs/Rus, Magyars, and Turks.
-
If there is a DLC for RoR, a Vandal civ and a Roman campaign could be introduced.
The only problem left would be the Viking campaign. If there is a potential civ for South Slavs like Sclavenians or Serbs, then a Viking campaign and a new Byzantine campaign could be introduced together. However, I don’t really think the civ for South Slavs has a high probability. Frankly I think they can introducing the Viking campaign into V&V, so people who have bought this poorly reviewed DLC can get it as some degree of compensation. After all, V&V has a distinct Viking feature, including as many as 4 Viking scenarios.
I have already posted topics about the 1st (though lacking the Tanguts), 2nd, 3rd and 5th above in the forum.
1 Like
Rus, Magyars and Turks in 1 dlc??? No way.
RoR already has Roman campaign - Trajan.
If you want a realistic opinion, this is a realistic opinion.
The current Dracula is a mix of Slavs, Magyars and Turks. When the Dracula could be remade with the Vlachs, these civs could receive their own campaigns at the same time. Clearly more realistic than a Cossack civ.
What I meant is a campaign for AoE2 Romans.
At that DLC, the new civ for AoE2 could be the Vandals, so there would be 2 campaigns for AoE2, besides civs and campaigns for RoR mode.
About Rome - got it. Possible but players don’t show to have much love for AoE 2 Romans. 2-3 single battles somewhere may be better.
As for Dracula - ofc he needs Vlachs civ. But Magyars and Turks together with Rus - no way. You collected them on a residual basis - because they all do not have a campaign. But such DLC would have no theme and would look very strange.
We don’t really need a new Korean civ, that I can agree.
However, I don’t agree with you that Emishi and Ainu are better candidates than Ryukyuans, if anything they are even worse.
AFAIK, Emishi never founded their own kingdoms, and by the Middle Ages they had already been subjugated and largely assimilated into the Japanese. And the Ainu never founded their own kingdoms or dynasties either but lived in chiefdoms, and they had even fewer contacts with the outside world than the Japanese.
The Ryukyuans, however, were not only independent but also had their own dynasties or kingdoms, with the first ever recorded one being the Shunten dynasty which lasted from 1187 to 1259. And they maintained a strong trading relation with both China and Japan, and later in the 15th century expanded their trading routes to SE Asia and had contacts with Siam, Vietnam, and the Philippines. And they had wars of unification, a possible Ryukyuan campaign could be based on the biography of Sho Hashi (1372 to 1439), who united all 3 polities on the Okinawa island and founded the Ryukyu kingdom.
Of course you could argue that the Ryukyuans are of low priority as a civ and I largely agree with you, however the ones you proposed (Emishi and Ainu) are of even lower priority.
I don’t mind introducing campaign-only DLCs, but most people would prefer at least 1 or 2 new civs in a DLC.
Jurchens can be put together with the Ryukyuans in a Japanese or Northeast Asian themed minor DLC for historical reasons that I already mentioned above, and it would be wise to introduce Japanese and Korean campaigns with this DLC.
Chinese campaigns could be introduced with an East Asian or China themed DLC featuring Baipu and Tanguts as the new civs.
I don’t think the Chinese civ needs 2 campaigns, and neither do I feel that there needs to be a separation between Tang and Song. I’d pick the Yue Fei campaign over the Tang campaigns cause it strictly fits right in the middle of the AoE 2 time frame and there’s more material about him to write about.
1 Like
The theme is their battles in the East European steppe and Balkans. That’s not a problem.
We know there were definitely many interactions and Battles between them. Not to mention between them and Mongols, Byzantines, Bulgarians, Cumans, Poles and even Serbs.
Even though there was a Ryukyu kingdom, they are still not suitable to the game. The only battles of them in the Middle Ages were against themselves — in a small island.
Evem though the Emishi/Ainu people have never had a centralized political entity, they have a history of fighting against at least 2 other civs, which makes them more suitable to be presented in the game. Actually, having chiefdoms might be pretty enough.
I don’t look forward to these 2 “civs” at all, but if I had to pick one, I would pick someone who can have a campaign or a scenario to fight against others rather than just a mirror. That’s the point. When the civ is already not really needed, the situation that the civ can only bring a mirror will make its priority even worse.
Actually they expanded into the Amami Islands to their north sometime around the 15th century and had a battle there with the Japanese Satsuma Domain in 1493, which they defeated the Japanese. So it’s wrong to say that they only fought with themselves.
Anyways I don’t see them as a high priority civ, however the ones you proposed are of even lower priority.
1 Like