I still think that the Huns are the worst civ in the game.
They are more out of the timeline than Romans even and they use the completely wrong architecture set.
3 Likes
The Conqueror civs were civilizations
These are merely shortlasting dynasties
And heroes just damage the abstraction that AoE2 has
11 Likes
Not outside ? Some campaigns start after 1492… What other civ/campaign started that late in the base game ?
Before Three Kingdoms and Romans, I agree the Huns are the worst.
But at least they have more overlaps with Goths and Franks. If the latter two can be there, then so can the Huns.
3 Likes
The Three Kingdoms should appear in Chronicles instead because having Three Kingdoms in the base game is rather anachronistic. Instead of Three Kingdoms for the base game, there should be the Tanguts.
8 Likes
As the game included the barbarian invasions from the start (hence the Goths who were knocked out in the 700s) their presence wasn’t out of place.
Yes, they need a nomadic style, and civs should move toward an unique style per each civ.
Yeah, it’s the same comparing 50 years after 1492 than 200 years before 476
Okay, less than 100 years after the original campaign is the same as 200 years before the original campaign.
And you said CIVS not campaigns. The conquerors CIVS all existed in the middle ages.
The Three Kingdoms didn’t exist in the middle ages, and they were barely even civs.
6 Likes
What about Huns 600 years before ? No problems then ?
Oh right, because you were too young and didn’t have internet to complain about it (just admit it already)
1 Like
Huns miss the game’s timeframe by 10 years. They can also be argued to cover White Huns and Hunas.
While Shu, Wei and Wu miss the games timeframe by 200 years and they aren’t even distinct ethnic groups, they’re just dynasties. Chinese dynasties. They don’t belong in the game in any shape nor form.
11 Likes
Mistake about what ?
Read what you wrote yourself.
CIVS
Huns were not much earlier than Byzantines, Goths, or Franks, as CIVS.
3 Likes
Are we really going to talk about semantics instead of gameplay ?
1 Like
I’m talking about eating your own words.
In what sense “civs” means “campaigns”? Do you even need semantics for that?
You just need a dictionary.
5 Likes
And don’t you think that they based the civs around the campaigns at the time ? Most civs were thought as they were around the 1000
There were no longer “Franks” in the time of Jeanne d’Arc.
Goths were earlier than any campaign in AOK. Yet they were still in AOK. That is AOK’s earliest timeframe, and it overlaps with Huns.
And btw, “civs” don’t mean “gameplay” either. Fetch your dictionary.
Even if your nonsense is true, that the game’s timeframe is 1000s, wouldn’t the three kingdoms still be much worse violators than Huns? Now it’s 800 years vs 600 years, and 800 > 600, btw.
Think for yourself before arguing for the sake of it.
4 Likes
Even the game play has red flags with the heroes.
When Burgundians and Sicilians were introduced, they were already stretching a little bit of what an aoe2 civ is. At least there is some way for most people to accept it with some liberal interpretation (e.g. Burgundians may include a bit of dutch and flemish; Sicilians are Normans and those who migrated to Italy. Still, many still take issues in flemish revolution and/or Sicilian civ name).
For 3K, there is no way to even make sense of by liberalizing interpretation, let alone they are in the wrong time period.
God imagine Chinese vs Shu matchup with Chinese making Chu-Ko Nu against Shu. 
14 Likes