New DLC - The Mountain Royals

I will bet you the unit is the Qizilbash. They supported Shah Ismail in his establishment of the Safavid Empire.

If its been removed, does it appear in your MS Store now?

I haven’t checked today, but last night it wouldn’t let me get back to the page.

But you bought it? It should be there?

When I click on the game, it doesn’t open it or anything.

1 Like

Most people also don’t understand game balance, or what makes a game good. You should listen to the audience, but your audience rarely know what they want. This is true for all forms of media, including games. People might think that a new unit which shoots lasers is cool, but that’s not the best unit for AoE2 in my humble opinion.

Just to be clear, this is not true. I would consider myself fairly conservative when it comes to matters of this game. However, what I want is older mechanics expanded, before new ones are added.

By my counter, there are at least 13 mechanics which can be expanded upon before needing to add new ones. None of these are just stat variations.


Honestly, I think this is good, or neutral at worst. I’d be happy to pay twice as much for each DLC if it meant more new assets and better quality. At least higher priced DLCs undermine the excuse of the devs not having enough resources to put more effort into those categories. I’ll also take higher priced DLCs any day over the specter of a battle pass/in-game purchase system.

Yeah, the naming of both Armenian UUs is incredibly generic. Surely at least one of them could be changed to an actual Armenian word.

The opposite end of the spectrum is people who don’t know/care what makes AoE2 unique (including things that are intentionally absent) and assume that any new thing that could possibly be added must be a great idea. Think RobbyLava.

But it’s also not really true that even conservative people don’t want any kind of new feature. The mobile dropsite and warrior monks seem to be well received even by the conservative people in this thread, despite being new features for AoE2. That doesn’t mean that we think everything else is automatically good just because its new. It’s also possible to overuse things other than stat variations and thereby have things that are both gimmicky and boring, like charge attacks or armor ignoring on too many units, as may be the case with the composite bowman. But we’ll see what the actual unit design is soon enough.


I come in peace :alien:

It was not failed to me, I’m just stating that Devs choose to not replicate it again. Back to just 2 civs where Persians could have easily been divided, specially if you’re going to add a Safavid campaign.
Now Persians are in the same position of Franks, Spanish etc having a civ designed for a specific period (Sasanian empire) and a campaign set centuries ahead or behind. The war elephant in the room as someone pointed out went unnoticed…

Was it too much to add a third civ split from Sassanids/Persians and call it Azeri or whatever to give them the Ismail campaign? Another UU for them while leaving poor sassanid war elephants there.

Do not count me in.
Also I would like to ask to those conservative aoe2 “everything after clubmen was a mistake” fans, how would you make UUs that are supposed to be well unique? Genuine question. I hope the answer sounds as fun as increasing stats or adding a “Georgian” before the word Knight. A fast unit sounds too risky maybe, people could be confused :thinking:

1 Like

2030: AOE2: Everyone Rises edition

Eh but 15 dollars for only three campaign was already an stretch, now we are getting only two more goddamn Mediterranean architecture civs and three campaigns

Seems like a poor deal to me honestly, DotD and LotW had a lot of new assets and 3 new campaigns but they were only 10


I have no idea who these “everything after clubmen was a mistake” people are. There might be like 3 people who think that, but I have rarely, if ever, encountered anyone like that here.

If you just want interesting UUs, which don’t require new mechanics, that’s trivial.

  1. A wagon unit which can pack and unpack like a trebuchet and counter archers/cavalry depending on packed or unpacked.
  2. An infantry unit which chips away armour from buildings like obuch does, albeit at a slower rate
  3. A fast moving, but weak archer unit which only takes 0.5 pop like karambits.
  4. A wagon unit which can garrison units like siege tower, except archers can shoot from it

Those are 4 decent ideas I came up with, in 5 mins. I bet I could easily do like 30 in a day. There is little question about can you do it. The question is if you want to do it.


I also think 15$ is too much. Inflation affects second and third world countries much more than devs from West Europe and America.



I live a second world country and I do not. Everyone can buy their favorite game once in a while.

And that to Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian and South American aoe2 players.


Yes and no. At least in steam, prices get adjusted depending on the country and currency in order to better suit the economical situation of the country. Not sure if writing this from a 2nd or 3rd world country, but definitely not 1st and most people can afford buying some game or dlc here and there.

Edit: Censorship.

1 Like

I highly doubt the pricing would be $15…I still have hopium that it’ll be ~$10 like the previous ones before RoR. (Unless they added more things that we don’t know among the shown ones)

1 Like

I’ve paid for ALL the DLCs so far 15 $. I should be the one complaining and I also did 11

Devs shouldn’t increase their DLC’s prize because it helps them less than it hurts 3rd world gamers.

How many third world gamers are there? Aren’t most third world countries struggling so much that video games and computers are luxuries?

There’s regional pricing and one must admit that DLCs for a game are a bit a luxury item but still, it’s not great for them hiking up the price like this.

EDIT: Fixed orthographic error.

Well, I certainly hope they would give me a refund then! :joy: I paid $15!

1 Like