I still wish AoE3 Indians also got split, but that’d require WE to care about the game.
3 Likes
yes it is. you wouldn’t be ok with buying a book or movie and then having it changed a year later. if I buy a game, i have a right to play it how it was. Even more so, if there was an explicit statement that they wouldn’t make such drastic changes.
I don’t care that it’s weird. we also have 50 houses representing all of Cairo and <75 units representing the entire army of saladin. it’s a game, not a simulation.
what is it with you and straw-men arguments??
where am i even mentioning trample damage?
where?
most other developers, who make changes this big to their games, at least let you revert to previous versions. Either within the game or through steam’s features.
what utter nonsense.
Even aoe2HD let’s you do that. you can still revert the game to patch 4.3 (ie before any DLC was added). it takes 2 clicks in steam’s interface. that’s all i want for aoe2DE.
doing this is not just possible, it is common place.
I went through my steam library and check which games allow this, and which don’t:
- Deep Rock Galactic (this one is even live service!!)
- EU IV
- Factorio
- Stardew Valley
- Terraria (best example. they also said “we are now done updating this game”, then changed their mind, but actually left that version available. this is what ethical developers do)
don’t:
- Northguard (small indie game, but still has lots of complaints about updates breaking stuff)
- Civ V (they even have older versions available in-game for scenarios, no reason not to properly publish them. I am currently downloading this one to check if you can just disable the DLCs and go back to almost vanilla)
- total war: warhammer I&II&III (they are arguably live-service games though)
Gurjaras are just worse Berbers:
both are Camel and Cavalry civs. both miss halb, both miss Arbs, both have decent CA/elephant archers, both have HC, both have FU/really good hussar, both stop at Onager, but have BBC
I haven’t played much with the other two.
you are going 4/4 on strawman arguments.
I don’t want any extra european civs either
Looked this up just now and neither seems to have been landlocked. Even if they were, it is possible to fish in bodies of water other than seas and oceans. I don’t know what the fishing bonus was intended as a reference to, or why you think Indians specifically had to represent the Delhi Sultanate and Mughals.
There is very likely some small print saying that you only buy the right to play the game, and that they have the right to change it however they like. Presumably in the EULA.
1 Like
i had a look into the (surprisingly short) aoe2 EULA, and it’s basically just the code of conduct. lots of drivel about “build a community that means trusting each other”, “we welcome new players”, “we play fair and respect each other”, etc
Wait a second, even books aren’t allowed to receive new editions? Is this serious?
You ≠ everyone
You can’t just call everything a strawman. You’re the one who complained about UUs with shared mechanics. Trample damage is a mechanic shared by multiple units, including UUs.
“Civs have no identity other than superficial mechanics” is certainly an opinion.
I missed the part where not wanting more Euro civs changes the fact you’re fine with a territory as big as Europe being represented by a single faction.
2 Likes
Every purchasable part of AoE2DE has a note about contents may be subject to change.
For an online game with thousands of players?
Not to mention the devs don’t seem keen on splitting the playerbase up.
Ok, so you know nothing about how the civ actually works. Just the units it has.
I corrected my statement.
Anyway. The point is that this civ representing “Indians” is 99% a Delhi Sultanate & Mughal civ given the units, bonuses, buildings and UTs. But then has a random fishing bonus to try and squish the southern tip of India in.
2 Likes
I’ll leave an statement that I’d have no problem with a game mode or option that lets you play with old builds’ balances (though idk how you’d implement pre-DE builds in that), but I also have 0 interesting in keeping a conversation with someone who claims every single response to them is a strawman argument. Goodbye.
Back to this, imagine if science and history schoolbooks couldn’t be updated to match new evidence, or English (or whatever your country’s official language is, in my case it’s Portuguese) schoolbooks couldn’t be revamped to match the evolution of language, or any book that ever had a minor spelling or translation mistake couldn’t be updated to fix that because TheTowerDefender here can’t accept something they already paid for being even slightly changed.
1 Like
Not from a geographical perspective but civ strength wise. Based on the theme they have set for Indian civs in aoe 2, they’re never going to have knights or CA. Some aren’t going to have gunpowder either. And despite lacking 2 very important unit lines, the civs are still going to miss many useful techs. And as a compensation receive some extremly niche water units or elephants. So splitting those civs even further is only going to produce much weaker civs. Maybe for representation,
they can add more of these civs to Chronicles or some other single player game mode but I wouldn’t want a ranked DLC with more Dravidian like civs.
I’m not advocating for any more European civs either but except a few shitty ones created through oversplitting like Sicilians, most of the European civs are well-designed and competent. My wish is to have good strong civs with many options. The ones that have good balance, unit options, solid military bonus/eco balance trade-offs. Africa, other parts of Asia are fine too. Anything with good generic units.
Again, not about the size but the poor theme chosen by aoe 2 devs for these civs - factions that are not supposed to have good generic cavalry units or cav archers. Irrespective of whether its historically correct or not, this is the setting chosen by aoe2 devs for the region and creating more civs like that isn’t good for competitive gameplay. As we have already seen they’re unwilling to take risks and make massive changes to the water gameplay, so creating more naval civs isn’t something I’d prefer either.
Ultimately if they’re able to split that region by giving proper raiding unit line, mobile ranged units and create at least 2 new land based civs, I’m fine with such a split.
2 Likes
are you trying to misunderstand me??
of course books are allowed 2nd editions. but nobody in their right mind would argue in favour of taking away your first edition and replacing it with a second edition. that’s what’s happening with aoe2DE. I literally cannot play the first edition.
first of all area of effect damage isn’t a unique mechanic for just cataphracts and war elephants, but it is also shared by battle elephants, mangonels, BBC, so even some generic units. Therefore it’s not a UU or civ specific mechanic.
“civ identity” refers to how the civ plays. it means what makes the civ unique, what differentiates it from other civs. If you renamed villagers in one civ to “peasants”, in another to “slaves”, and in a third to “citizens” that wouldn’t affect civ identity or gameplay. THAT’S a superficial change.
we also have all of siberia represented by a single faction, that’s an even bigger territory. and yes, india has more people. but the game is inherently euro-centric. the entire idea of a “middle ages” is mostly euro-centric.
but for all I care, get a mod that renames celts to “antarcticans” and goths to “mississppians”. I have no skin in this game, i care primarily about gameplay.
fair enough there is a
Features and system requirements may vary by country and are subject to change or retirement over time.
at the very bottom of the page. It is so vague though that I doubt that would hold up against their direct claims in marketing material though.
Eg. they probably wouldn’t get away with completely removing let say Franks and Britons from the game, right?
yep:
they seemed to be happy to do that when they tried to introduce empire wars and return of rome.
then enlighten me. how do the Gurjara differentiate themselves from the other cavalry civs we have? what makes their gameplay interesting and unique? (and no, shwarma riders don’t count. they are an abomination)
thank you, according to some other commentators that’s “impossible” and “too much effort for the devs”. I’m glad we can agree on that
here are the strawmen you built:
tbf the last one might not be a strawman, as much as just a fallacy/faulty logic. according to you “I don’t like it when companies break the promises they made about a product I’ve bought” implies “people are never allowed to change their mind”
we aren’t talking about fixing errors (those would be bug fixes in video games), or updating the language (those would be quality of life updates), but changes to content.
So the equivalent would be buying Lord of the Rings, and then not just having some spelling errors fixed (bug fixes), and maybe some wording changed to be more modern (QoL updates) but being forced to read a new version where the plot has changed (there is now an entire subplot about Bill the pony making his way back to the shire, also btw Boromir survived, his heroic sacrifice wasn’t that heroic, oh and Legolas has a sniper rifle and Frodo took the eagles to mordor).
In no book is that acceptable, but those are the kind of changes we are experiencing in aoe2de.
You can have more South Asian civs without them being weird.
Like, Kannadigas would need a heavy cavalry unit. Give them 2 UUs, with one being in the stable and is basically a knight. There you go, less eccentric already.
Irrelevant. AoE2 is more than a game for pros to play in huge stadiums.
1: Gurjaras are all about hyper-counters. The units don’t get full upgrades, but tons of bonus damage. This puts far more emphasis on getting the right unit for the right matchup and out-predicting and out-playing your opponent on the battlefield. Way more than any other civ. Hell, I’d say the Gurjaras have one of the most solid identities.
2: Can we stop with this stupid “Shawarma” name nonsense because you don’t like the unit design and can’t be bothered to understand a single Gujarati word? It feels borderline racist when people do that.
2 Likes
He wouldn’t like my Wallachian idea then.
Do the same for archery range and the lack of CA and do it for the other civs and I’m ready to pay for the DLC.
Like I said, if non-competitive players heavily outnumber and the civs need to be designed without many basic unit lines, there’s always the option to release them exclusively for single player mode.
Using the same hyperfocus argument, Dravidians should be named Tamils and Slavs should be named Russians.
1 Like
You could have given a like to his post at least.
1 Like
Probably because you cannot make the other civs as they didn’t have their own kingdom or king, can you?
Like would you be able to name 10 kings each from Yemenis, Kurds, Egyptians, Arabs separately?
So everything must be homogenous?
While the South Asian civs do lack knights with no general replacement, they at least have a different unit in the archery range.
And not buying one of the best DLCs because the civs play differently? That’s…kinda sad tbh.
There are plenty of civs missing basic unit lines, like the Meso-American ones, and some that make certain lines so poor you basically cannot use them. And yet they are in multiplayer. What makes the Indian ones different?
Dravidians to Tamils? Yes. 100%
And for Slavs it should technically be Rus.
5 Likes
Tbh it wouldnt really be a split, the current civ is a decwnt Mughals
Plus one to this.We could rename vikings to norse but its doubtful people would like this change.
2 Likes
all i need is the Swiss
2 Likes
But in a Teuton DLC together with others
- Swiss
- Anglos
- Saxons (Martin Luther campaign)
- Bavarians
- Frisians /dutch
- Prussians
1 Like