Why is the US using Pikemen? Why is the mexican army using Rodeleros? Why does Morgan Black not have access to Hospitaller knights? Why do John Black’s Mercenaries lack access to taverns?
Please, devs, implement the mechanics and units of the new civs into the campaigns where appropriate
9 Likes
Because the campaign is balanced for the current civs. You’d have to rebalance every single mission
1 Like
More than that, it is because they do not want to touch that of the campaigns because it would be a bigger job
If they could/want/were able to, they would rebuild campaigns when working on the remaster itself. You’re asking for a thing like that 3 years after the release? I’d give you a percentage chance for that but don’t want to ruin your Sunday.
They are many reasons why campaigns haven’t been really revisited and reworked, and nothing new has been made since the OG ones.
1 Like
Not true at all. This isn’t starcraft.
Also, all the changes to the enemy civs are in effect. The ottomans in chapter 1 have all the new ottoman units whereas previously they only had janissaries. And the enemies in every chapter can build taverns while the player cannot. And have been able to since the beginning.
And really what’s there to balance? Is replacing musketeers with regulars and pikemen with state militia really that much of a dramatic balance shift? Hell naw it ain’t.
Is replacing rodeleros with hospitaller knights really going to break balance? No.
Does giving John taverns WHICH HIS ENEMIES ALREADY HAVE break anything? No.
I’ve already modded such changes into the civs and they work fine. The problem is you can’t mod the deck tree and deck builder for campaign civs. Else I’d’ve finished the mod and published it.
5 Likes
It’s ridiculous to talk about balance in campaign mode. Campaign mode involves people using a certain process to overcome fixed AI. Since it’s not a human to human confrontation, shouldn’t it be more fun? Secondly, campaigns will provide players with certain mechanisms and ethnic characteristics of teaching. Since they are from countries with the same historical origin, using different mechanisms can only cause confusion. However, the third generation campaign mode of Malta is completely different from the conventional battle mode of Malta. Those who go to play the conventional battle mode of Malta due to the campaign mode of Malta will only feel confused, Benchmarking campaign mode Malta with regular battle mode Malta can make it easier for new players to learn how to use it in regular battles
1 Like
Yes that’s because most non-playable players in campaigns are using the exact skirmish civ so every update changes them.
However the campaign-specific playable civs never got updated accordingly. That’s a problem since TWC.
1 Like
I concur. In fact I believe Malta to be useless as a playable civilization, as it does not represent anything slightly relevant to the time period. The only real use would be to be featured in the first act of the vanilla campaign (I thought that’s why they did it).
3 Likes
They did, albeit at the beginning of the time period by defending against Ottoman invasion, those (disclaimer, imma gonna mention them…) the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were far more instrumental in defying Ottoman expansion (I await for Austrians to appear here too 
). The rest of the period is basically the Knights trying to cling onto their order within Malta with a few novel things like a Caribbean possession or two.
Obviously there’s a gazillion more ‘worthy’ civs however it’s a relatively easier civ to add in compared to an Asian/African/Native one. I’d prefer any aforementioned region civ than Malta however more content is better than none at all.
Yeah, I know, I’m just saying that it makes the argument of game balance invalid.
There is already significant changes in the original campaigns, you can build town centres with settlers, you couldn’t do that with auro civs in the original game.
You can train surgeons from the field hospital.
So yeah either make it authentically like the classic game or tweaking them a bit isn’t too bad. Not this half-measure we have now.
I agree in some ways. I don’t think the SPC civs should reflect the original civs perfectly, but something to bridge the gap would be a big improvement. There is a big quality gap between SPC civs and the wider game’s selection.
For example, I wouldn’t give the Knights of St. John the Commandery the Maltese have, or replace their Hoop Throwers with Fire Throwers. What I could do is change their Caravels with Order Galleys (would still give them Caravel spawns during the PIRATES! scenario), give their Settlers, Hoop Throwers, and Pikemen Maltese voicelines instead of English ones.
I would also give the AI opponents other things to reflect the new content and the fact that the game is no longer split in 3. It’s embarassing seeing the Aztecs in the China campaign being player by Pirates.
This is the last big issue I have with this game that hasn’t been adressed yet. The thing that upsets me the most is that FE updates its AoE2DE campaign maps every time a new civ is released (there’s even a YouTube channel keeping an eye on the changes), yet AoE3DE apparently isn’t worthy of such treatment.
2 Likes
Yes, maybe they will one day…change the Knights of St. John with Malta, John Black Mercenaries building taverns, Amelia and Chayton with the United States civ against Mexicans, Nathaniel with the Haudenosaunee and the Revolutionary United States and the Aztecs in the Chinese campaign…
Personally I am 100% into replacing Hoop Throwers with Fire Throwers, because Hoops are useful in exactly 1 mission and then they become worse than thrash units. They literally have a X10 multiplier against Janissaries specifically and nothing more, which is very awkward as you’re not really fighting Ottomans through most of the campaign.
3 Likes
I agree, Fire Throwers are way more useful, and they’re still good against Janissaries due to a 1.75 anti-infantry modifier.
Hoop Throwers in the July PUP, I think, got a stealth buff—on the UI, and I have no mods active, it lists them as having a 1.5x multiplier against ALL heavy infantry. No negative multipliers, mind you, against ANYTHING. Meaning, these guys will mow down cavalry in large enough numbers. I can’t tell if the anti-janny multiplier is gone, though.
The hoopthrower in the playable Malta, and the one from the campaign and 2 completely different units.
Yes, that’s specifically what I’m talking about—the Hoop Throwers recruitable only by the Knights of St. John in “Blood”, and from the Native Embassy on some rolls of “Unknown”. Not the Maltese Fire Thrower with its own set of Skirmisher-like multipliers. The former only has one visible multiplier in its UI on the July PUP and that’s straight up universal anti-Heavy Infantry. The anti-janny multiplier is and always has been invisible so I cannot check to see if it is gone.
Trying the campaign it did not seem like it did bonus damage to a Janissary outside of the HI multi.
Personally I think the unit is stronger than fire throwers since it has no negative cav multiplier and a larger HI multi.
