New campaigns?

Which campaigns in game do you feel are off when having to represent their civ?
I’m not asking how good or bad they are in terms of design but to argument why some of them doesn’t do a great job at displaying a civ, either historically or for how they play in game.

Imho the forgotten expansion was pretty hit or miss.
I think Alaric works fair for goths (even if some scenarii are too basic but that’s off topic) but maybe the fact the campaign moved further earlier aoe2 timeframe (going before 400 AD) could be considered controversial when Theodoric would be more consistent.

Sforza is ok too for what Italians represent and are designed (mainly renaissance), again not crazy level design in a couple of scenarii but off topic.

Pritviraj is strange since the history behind it seems pretty legendary but I don’t know enough of Indian history to tell if it does a good job at representing gurjaras or they could have better hero picks, you tell me.

Bari is not a bad campaign per se (apart scenario 3 and the end of scenario 5) but it is when you have something like byzantines to represent. It feels like a wasted opportunity to have more iconic protagonists.

Dracula would be a good campaign for vlachs… except that you play Turks, Magyars, Slavs, anything that’s not the actual civ lol.

So all in all the forgotten campaigns were more of a fan mod and could be redone or scrapped. Bari could be changed with something more iconic, Dracula have a proper civ to play with while Alaric and sforza could stay as they are (don’t know about pritviraj).

But what’s your opinion on this and other DLCs campaigns?

4 Likes

Best replacement civi for romania is slavs with boyars unless they get a proper civi.Turks and Magyars makes sense as vlad did come with forces given by them.

The Honfoglalas scenario has a lot of material for a campaign. In the Forgotten expansion, it was, basically, a campaign condensed in a single scenario. It was dreadful. I really like what they’ve done with it in Definitive Edition, and I wouldn’t like that scenario to be removed, but the history of the Magyar people from their migration to their conquest of the Carpatian basin is perfect storytelling.

1 Like

I’d say Joan of Arc and El Cid have a disconnect between the civ’s design and the time period the campaign is meant to encapsulate. Franks are designed in big part after the Carolingian Empire yet their campaign takes place in the Late Middle Ages, and on the opposite the Spanish are clearly post Iberian Wedding/Reconquista/New World Discovery yet we have this 11th century campaign with a gunpowder civ fighting the Almoravids in a disunited Christian Spain.

4 Likes

Yeah but when Magyars and Turks will eventually get their own campaign probably Dracula should get an overhaul. It’s ok to play a scenario with a different civ, for example Tatars in Babur 1, but the campaign should present a civ in a decent way, at least 4 or 5 scenarii. Dracula is a bit of a mess… at the end of it you don’t feel like you know any of the civs you played in it.

They should definitely get a long campaign either based on early Magyar raids or later. If they leave honfloglalas they could get them a later full campaign.

We all know the answer to this: split!
But yeah definitely, specially el Cid where you play half the campaign with Saracens while an Andalusian civ could do I guess.
If really split franks and french or Spanish is too much then maybe they can change the UU trainable at the castle with triggers…

I add Tariq Ibn ziyad to the not so great campaign protag list and not because the campaign is badly designed (it’s not that bad I think actually) but because I think they could have choose more interesting or iconic stories. Or maybe it’s just a problem of storytelling.

Well, actually you only play a third of the campaign as Saracens. And interestingly the first third you work for the Castilians, but in the last two missions you may as well play the Aragonese… If the Spanish were to be split, obviously :wink:

It kind of feels like two short campaigns poorly jointed together with a filler episode, tbh…

2 Likes

I think they only picked it because of the link with Tours.

2 Likes

Yes! So they would finally create the Catalunyan civ and give them the Balearic Slinger as their unique unit.

For me, the worst off - so far - are:

  • Tariq: I think the protagonist is fine, but not only is it a chore to play, in addition you fight Goths mostly and their Huskarl is a counter to your UU.
  • William Wallace: because it’s only a tutorial campaign, and you won’t really be able to play out your strengths as Celts.
  • Bari: indeed, there are better historical Byzantine characters to showcase than this fictional story.
  • Sforza: the protagonist is chosen very well, but the missions are mostly mirror matches, which means that the attack bonuses of their UUs vs. cavalry and gunpowder are not really useful
  • (Vlad Dracula: I agree, it should be one civ instead of three, but perhaps this will be realised one day?)

I think particularly well done are the following:

  • Prithviraj: very good choice, a knight in shining armour story, but from India, and the strength of the civ also becomes apparent
  • Attila, Genghis & Tamerlane: getting the feeling of the highly mobile and devastating armies, pillaging and raiding. Also, perfectly chosen protagonists obviously.
  • Hautevilles: perfect showcase for the history and characteristics of the civ, evoking the feel of raiders and invaders
  • Algirdas and Kestutis: great choice of characters and Leicai counter Bojars and Teutonic Knights
  • Edward Longshanks: easy, flowy campaign with Longbow galore and also Trebuchets featured. Perfect protagonist choice ofc
2 Likes

I don’t know if I’m a natural born contrarian but to me it’s not that bad. You have infinite unit spam in many other scenarii after all. I’d say actually it’s the protagonist which it’s not a great pick for Berbers (a very broad category that should probably be split anyway), it feels more like another Saracen campaign but earlier.
There are so few campaigns set in the dark age… Weird civs choice too. I mean Italians? Just make that city Romans already. Also Spanish? I see what you mean but no, again Romans or even Celts would be better. Byzantines? This may kinda work because they reconquered Hispania and stayed there until a century before. Otherwise Romans again.

Agree.

I’m pretty sure it will, probably on Halloween.

Not a fan of late medieval Italy but I guess the protagonist is ok. Problem is again the forgotten HD introducing Italians. You’re playing with a Milanese guy so it feels forced to play as a great naval power in a couple of scenarii. And yeah mirror matches of course because Italy was one thing after all, just the same from north to south with some random Portuguese acting as Venetians because navy I guess.

Not a fan, I’d tend to consider it one of the worst actually along with Sforza but probably because Britain could have better representation. Even there you fight Welsh who are Britons like you and… Celts, whatever that means.

You can’t really go wrong with steppe civs even if I never particularly liked Kotyan and Ivaylo.

Both very good, specially the hautevilles for me.

After the DoI DLC it started to really shine.

But no Jadwiga?? That’s the best by far imo.
And suryavarman is one of the worst for me (maybe along with yodit), kinda simple and bland.

1 Like

Dracula is bad because it covers 3 civs all wrongly, but the gameplay is really good.
Pachacuti is Inca mirror but 1-2 new South American civs could solve it.
Yodit is not an Ethiopian hero and she is only vaguely known as opposed to other Ethiopian heros

1 Like

I actually like pachacuti, one American campaign without the usual war against Europeans. You can easily solve the problem with civs variety in a DLC but I think the gameplay is actually very solid.

Dracula I was never too fond of but I think it’s because I wanted the narration to be better for such a character, like the one of Attila. Scenario 4 is kinda lazily designed and the last would be good but the map is too freaking small lol. But the third one is quite good I recognise.

Yodit should either be for another civ I never remember the name (they were Ethiopian Jews) fighting Aksumites and Ethiopians is a bit later. But aside from that scenarii apart the first three, specially the third which is excellent, are not too inspired. The last one in particular is so obviously uninspired it’s embarrassing.

1 Like

I saw someone call them Beta Israel. I remember seeing another name as well (as in a demonym) but I forgot.

Edit: found an article about them on Wikipedia: Gudit - Wikipedia

1 Like

The other name might be Falasha, but it’s an exonym somtimes seen as derogatory. An other option might be Agaw, which encompasses more people and states without overstepping on the Aksumites or the Habeshas.

1 Like

Didn’t play it yet (only first level so far) :wink:

1 Like

Make sure you have played Algirdas and Kestutis before you played Jadwiga!

1 Like

Thanks. I did. Awesome campaign!

1 Like