Wtf heroes in aoe2 outside campaigns. Wtf are they, doing
Games turning into wc3
10 Likes
These three civilizations should have no place in competitive multiplayer:
Their timeline does not belong to the game’s timeline.
Trainable heroes’ is an alien feature compared to the rest of the civilizations.
I also dislike all the aura boost features. It’s not a fun feature for me to play with.
17 Likes
honestly there should be entire civset just around Late Antiquity and Early Middle Age period. 300-800 AD timeframe. You have civs that doesn’t even belong to any category. Like current Saracens has no similar historical design with Early Islamic Saracens. Late Roman had different military style compared to Chronicles/Byzantine era, Three Kingdoms belongs to this era properly along with possible few other future civs, Sassanids itself was very unique too and even the Indians, Goths/Huns perfectly fits here. Possible Vandals civ design fits nicely here
On a more serious note, if the conquerors were released today with internet (which means the devs also have more access to info), it would be better done in the first place, if they were developed by WE from two or three years ago.
For example:
Spanish would be called Castilians.
Huns may not have been made. The originally planned Magyars would be added instead.
Koreans don’t get a nonsense Chinese travel wagon that shoots ballista as a UU
Etc.
Look at what they did for the DEs and AOE4 at release. They were much better thought-out, and have better historical representations.
Few of the new AOE2 UUs in the first few DLCs had the same level of mistakes like the Gothic Housecarl or Korean War Wagon. Cataphracts no longer look like western knights with plate armor. Many AOE3 units get more accurate weapons and real uniforms. Some inaccurate names were corrected.
AOE4 also did the research, despite its other problems at release. The javelin countering archers nonsense is gone. Crossbows have a different function as bows. And the civ settings and themes belong to roughly the same time period.
If you have more info then you could make better designs without altering the gameplay.
Then some genius opened up the new opportunities with “Jeanne d’Arc variant civ” and their historical coherence land-slid all the way back to a level even lower than the conquerors when they did have much access to internet.
8 Likes
+1
Ridiculous dlc as is
1 Like
Guys, what can we do to stop this? How to make our opionions be heard by the developers? I’d like to sign a petition, if there is one
Romans did nothing great in the time frame of AOE2 and set the beginning of the “Dark Age”. They have way less place in the game than the Huns which started the Great Migration and had their peak in the “Dark Age”.
I would not mind if the Romans were removed from rank.
The 3 Chinese kingdoms are not only historically incompatible, but their designs and hero units don’t fit AOE2.
1 Like
I don’t mind too much that the 3k civs are more fitting too antiquity, we survived the Romans addition too, atleas these match each other.
Age used to have civ or people’s, not kingdoms. The 3k are all Chinese kingdoms. If this is the wax for the dlc then atelast be consistent and rename old Chinese civ to Song
But the design with hero’s and auras just sucks. I hated the aura of the centurion too. Now we get more of that.
This mechanics creep is Bad. Stuffing in more and more unique cool features ends in a game like age of empires 3, or modern leage of legends compared to the simple champion design in 2009.
Age of empires 2 was like chess to me.
Mostly simple mechanics, but deep gameplay emerging from it.
We don’t need heroes. We don’t need auras.
I know this rant won’t change a thing. Let’s talk about this again in a few months
6 Likes
Where can I sign the petition? This DLC is worst!
4 Likes
Hello? I’m here to play games, not to learn history.
If I have to do historical research to play a game, I’d better become a historian instead for money.
3 Likes
One big reason to move the 3 Kingdoms civs to Chronicles is the navy.
The AoE2 style ships make no sense. Why do 220 AD civilisations have Demolition Ships and Petards? Clearly gunpoweder units.
Yeah they are out of place for the Aztecs too but at last not 500 years to early.
Chronicles has it’s own naval system that would work better with the 3 Kingdoms civs and the new Lou Chuan would perfectly fit in with those units too.
I also think that Chronicles units sprites like the Milita, Spearman, Scout and Skirmisher lines would fit better into the setting too.
Even the Chronicles Archer and Cavalry Archer Lines wouldn’t look to bad but the Chinese certainly did use Crossbows and the AoE2 Cavalry Archer looks kinda Asian.
They’re not necessarily gunpowder weapons. My interpretation of demo ships is similar to greek fire, a chemical weapon basically. Sasanians used chemical weapons against Romans in the 3rd century like gases, mines etc.
Vandals if they were to be added would probably have a bonus to demo ships to counter byzantine and Roman fire ships.
Again there’s a distinction to be made between gunpowder and chemical weapons (chemistry as a tech is a bit confusing on this) which existed in ancient times as well. I mean aren’t demo and fire ships in chronicles too?
The fire lancer is probably the unit that crossed this line historically, still chemical but also setting the precedent for gunpowder weapons.
Chronicles has Incendiary Ships that don’t have gunpoweder barrels on them and also do less damage then the Demo Ships.
3 Likes
Well if it’s a matter of name and look I agree.
Not sure what kind of campaign(s) Three Kingdoms is. But I guess it could be a single campaign like BfG.
1 Like
If you need to “do historical research” to figure out high school history, basic meanings of English words and primary school mathematics, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s problem.
1 Like
You replied to my reply to someone who thinks “civs” means “campaigns”, and 200 won’t be larger than 100 if you add 500 to each.
And you say you need to do historical research for those.
That’s why I ask.
2 Likes