I see nothing wrong with it being disabled if any player doesn’t have the graphics DLC.
What happens currently when someone has a civ DLC but others don’t? Can we just mirror that?
There have been many DLCs and Expansion Packs for AoE2 over the years, where one player has the DLC and others don’t. I’m sure something can be figured out based on experience
Can someone point out the historical basis for the camel catapult? I googled but didn’t find anything.
I doubt it. They called this DLC better than the others; and while that’s obviously a bit of sales hype, I doubt they would actually make it worse than the others.
It’s in a Chinese warfare book written during the Song Dynasty. I can’t recall the name, but that’s where it’s mentioned.
We have a bactrian camel throwing scimitars called a mamluke for the arabs and you are worried about historical authenticity?
For those of us that don’t speak Chinese, what is the main point being made by this video?
It seems like Chinese community wants Khitans too.
Props to the video creator for finding all the scenes from the older DLC promo images and lining them up with the campaigns that eventually got released.
I think inauthentic historical concepts doesnt apply on civs which were released after DE. I think in 1998 they went wild with ideas but after DE they thought they should stick with history
I’m really excited for this DLC. Can’t wait for new information. Hopefully we’ll get some within 12 February, the Chinese new year 2025.
I think historical battles are good approach… In this way they can cover the vast amount of things from Chinese history… I think if they go for campaigns they will miss many historical figures and events
I agree that Scotland and Ireland are more relevant than the Picts. The aim of my suggestion was to preserve the gameplay of the existing Celts civ design while also giving better historical representation to Scotland and Ireland. Celts are a very unique civ and there are some people who really enjoy playing as them. (Ironically, I’m not one of them.) However, they’re also not really based on history at all. If they were changed to represent Scots and Irish more accurately (whether through a civ split or not) they’d end up so different that Celts would effectively be deleted from the game. I don’t think that’s a good idea.
I agree with this. I think a Scots civ with Woad Raiders wouldn’t satisfy anyone – people who liked Celts as they were would no longer have their civ, people who want a historically accurate Scots civ would not have that either.
The news article describes it as “one of the most exciting DLC expansions for Age II: DE yet, packed with fresh new content”, so I think it’s unlikely to be smaller than at least the past 2-civ DLCs. We have had misleading messaging about DLCs in the past, though, so you could be right.
I think for DLC civs, a player with the DLC can use them against a player than doesn’t have the DLC – but the player without the DLC can’t.
For terrain objects that came with DLCs, I think these are useable by everyone – e.g. birch trees were added for Dawn of the Dukes, but you don’t need the DLC to use them, they just appeared in the same patch.
I just noticed the DLC is bringing crane birds.
That’s so cool to add environmental elements, like trees (maple) etc.
What about Thirisadai?
I have to agree. I can’t confirm this but from everything I can tell this DLC was the originally intended 5th anniversary DLC, and is now being repurposed as the “double down on consoles” dlc. I really doubt just from those facts alone this dlc will be smaller than some of the others in comparison.
I’d also like to address some arguments in regards to RoR, TMR, and V&V that might seem to indicate that FE has been trying to get away with doing less and less for a while.
Now I’m no naive fanboy. RoR was confused and disappointing at best, a shameful re-monetization of aoe1 at worst. TMR was nothing special IMO, and V&V I characterize as a disaster through and through.
However one might look to RoR and point out that the missing campaigns show they were trying to get away with as little as possible. However I’d like to counter saying from LOTW, all the way through to TMR, every 8-9 months a dlc was released, with exception of RoR, which was about 3 months late. I think porting over aoe1 was harder than they’d planned, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they went over budget even without those extra campaigns, hence the jump from $10 to $15 sale price. I think they bit odd more than they could chew and some campaigns were left on the cutting room floor.
One might look to TMR, the doc with the fewest new scenarios, 15. Technically so to do DoI but that also had a completely redone prithviraj 5, as well as appreciable improvements to bayinnaung and almeida. And DoI added 3 civs. However firstly shortly after RoR was released SOTL released a video where he points out that despite a good win rate Roman’s pick rate was quite low. The theory being, RoR sold poorly, so fewer people even had romas as an option to pick. Also TMR has some other weird things. The qizilbash scenario unit that has an elite version and both fortified churches and mule carts as these pseudo regional buildings. Also there’s the roadmap that implied we’d get another civ split in late 2023. I think TMR was originally going to offer more but when RoR underperformed, TMR was pared down to just about bare bones to recoup the losses.
And in regards to V&V, while I think the communication was absolutely shameful, and consequently I’ll never trust anything they say ever again, I don’t think V&V being so low effort was born out of the desire to just do as little as possible. Without getting into the weeds of it all, I’m pretty sure BFG was originally planned for March 2024, and when it was determined CA was going to miss that deadline, something like V&V was the only thing they could make in time.
All this to say, I don’t think they’re going out of their way to make DLCs contain as little as possible. If we knew nothing about this dlc, I’d have no reason to assume it’d be smaller than a 2civ 3 campaign dlc. However what we do know and can infer gives us lots of reason to believe if anything this dlc will be bigger, not smaller, than normal.
You say that, but we have the Armenians.
Perhaps a steppe lancer UU?
They had mentioned when they teased the pics that there won’t be more info until spring
Ah, ok, I see, and I agree with that. So basically just make current Celts the Picts, and two new civs to rep Ireland and Scotland? I could work with that
I’m 99% sure you’re right with this, especially with when they cancelled the AOE3 DLC they mentioned wanting to include something to make sure they felt included when they initially announced it, and I wouldn’t be suprised if same thing with V&V they wanted to make sure they had something for AOE2, but BFG wasn’t ready yet so they cobbled something together for their big set of announcements they wanted to do. Granted I think that if two of your four games for the announcements aren’t ready yet, maybe pair back the announcement, but oh well.
Yeah that’s why they gave the non-Malian Gbeto to the Malians and made the Armenians, who would have realistically been a cavalry civ, an archer one. For historical authenticity.
And don’t forget when they gave Dravidians a ship based on a Javanese temple relief and didn’t make any change to it whatsoever when it was found out the “Thirisadai” was made up by some idiot on Wikipedia (same with the medical corps referenced by the UU). That shows their commitment to authenticity.