There’s pretty much 3 schools of thoughts concerning heroes and as I’ve been discussing the topic quite a bit lately, was curious what the majority opinion on the matter is.
Barest minimum : rename the heroes into a generic name, “northern warlord” “southern warlord” and “western warlord” for example.
The option I’d pick in details would be :
But only removing the historical figure name would at least make the civ feel more versatile (yes, only so much you can do with the 3K who didn’t even last a century…). But imagine picking one hero for the Franks Byzantines Chinese… any civ that had more than one famous moment.
I’m not totally opposed to heroes, I think it’s a similar situation to wonders or kings.
They could have their own game mode and it wouldn’t hurt anyone. It’s actually one more option to play the game… Maybe heroes could replace kings in some regicide mode, maybe you could train them from wonders etc. Why isn’t anyone complaining about kings? Why wonders should be more encouraged?
Some civs should definitely have more than one hero although you could argue the same for wonders.
There are many things you could do, removing them is the close minded approach imo probably because you imposed yourself to hate everything related to the DLC but to each their own.
I think people are just too rigid and conservatives which only makes sense when you love a 25 yo game about war, power and history.
The only silly thing about heroes is the campaign ones having fantasy active abilities and super annoying loud voices but luckily that’s not the case for the rest of the game. Those along the 3k civs and campaign were a mistake and they should put them somewhere else.
It is not the same. Kings are just a target in a specific game mode. The heroes are trainable in each match. Heroes have a unique name of a historical person.
My preference would be to remove heroes from standard games and introduce a new game mode in which every civ gets heroes, and they are better integrated into the gameplay instead of only being available in Imperial Age. I think this would give a better experience both for people who want to play with heroes and people who don’t.
Unfortunately there’s no option in the poll for this. Polls like this should always include options that cover all possibilities. It’s easy to do – just add an “other, please specify” option at the end.
Indeed the poll notably tied the presence of 3K civs and them having heroes
Remove all civs altogether + let me play with heroes only.
Defence of the A…ges
Keep 3K civs (even though they should only be playable in the campaign) but restrict heroes to the said campaigns
Remove the heroes or restrict them to non ranked games, there shall be no half measures. They can do it to the Romans, I’m sure as hell they should do this to the 3K as well.
I don’t think they’ll ever remove existing civs but maybe they remove heroes in single player and quick play modes.
My wet dream for this game atm is to see 3K get removed or name change and no hero units in lobby or rank.
Indians.
Also Romans were originally going to be non-ranked.
Nuke em. They don’t deserve to be here. All my homies hate 3k
Make heroes available to all civs available at wonder? Also make them more generic (Japanese could have Shogun: Cavalry archer with bonus damage against other heroes and unique units)
EDIT: But yes they don’t even seen to add much to the game and if people don’t like them cut them.
I think you’ll get a predictable outcome here on the forum, as a lot of us are here protesting.
The issue with hero I resonate with a lot is they are out of place (not really how balanced they are), which is due to 3K civs being out of place. Here’s how it goes:
Having heroes for three kingdoms makes somewhat sense, but having three kingdoms as aoe2 civs don’t make any sense. Therefore, these heroes don’t make sense in aoe2.
(You can generalize three kingdoms to other clans etc)
I don’t think this is true, actually – at least not for the heroes they picked. Sun Jian and Cao Cao both died before the Three Kingdoms were established, and Liu Bei not long after. In Sun Jian’s case it’s especially ridiculous – he died more than 30 years before Eastern Wu was established! If these civs are supposed to represent the Three Kingdoms, the heroes actually make them less suitable for that.
I mean, yeah..
I also forgot that Sun Jian was chosen for Wu which is asinine. Wouldn’t Sun Quan make more sense?
Anyhow, one could argue Cao Cao’s achievements are fundamental to the establishment of Wei so he deserves the hero spot, even if technically he died before the kingdom actually became so-called Cao Wei.
I’d return to my main argument which is 3K don’t make sense as civs, which is why we had this dilemma of Cao Cao being the fitting hero of something that doesn’t exist yet.
A related comparison in the game: Attila of the Huns. Huns are also short-lived, but at least Huns as an entity exists with or without Attila (sure Attila is significant for leaving a mark on the history books for the Huns), whereas same cannot be said about Cao Wei – they are neither a distinct ethnolinguistic group nor a massive empire that had the time to develop original culture.