Btw If I don’t wrong, Chronicles and other DLC of AoE2 have diffirent devs team? If this is true, it is very hard to move Three Kingdoms to Chronicles
Not at all. All it is is a title.
agreed.
Chronicles should mean alternate single player content.
5 Likes
Good Lord, the developers really need to listen.
2 Likes
They won’t though. The only times they have “listened” in the past two years were when it was something ridiculously easy to change. Variant names in AOE4 and including the Romans in ranked required virtually no effort.
To paraphrase a famous Civil War quote “Damn the customers, full speed ahead!”
Renaming the civs and removing the heroes is ridiculously easy to change though? Like, its not like its a fundamental rework of the civs or anything. Just need to add like, a few editor triggers to name them 3K stuff again in the 3K campaign
Sure, they aint moving them to Chronicles, but tweaks are possible and necessary.
Like, the free patch, bugs and all, was a laundry list of community requests like a hwatcha for the koreans, castle skins,etc.
3 Likes
I already bought it with the notion it will launch May 6th, so I say launch it on-time and then work on some future patch update to bring some peace and harmony to the revolts
Wouldnt be the first time a company take a product, already sold, off the store to fix something. Though World’s Edge seems to not mind to release broken things, anyway, so why care about this messy DLC, right?
No need to split that DLC, if a future one also allows unlocking Jurchens and Khitans. It’s possible to have 2 different DLCs unlocking the same thing.
Keeping the 3K civs off ranked would be a stop-gap.
Removing the heroes requires rebalancing the factions. It might not be a ton of work but it is more than renaming a faction.
It doesnt. The Heores are already irrelevant to the faction balance, tacked on presumably in a misguided effort to drive sales; they dont have their campaign effects, the building the campaign uses to recruit heroes is not in MP, and they are already hidden behind seemingly deliberately high costs.
Nothing about the civs will change if they cut them. Their flavour dies if they stay.
The DLC is fundamentally flawed. The 3K factions are grossly outside the AOE2 timeframe and heroes are grossly outside the AOE2 tone. No amount of patching will fix that.
4 Likes
It just seems like some tweaks need to be made. The DLC is probably mostly fine otherwise, so why not let those who bought it enjoy it?
- Moving it to Chronicles would be simple if they decide to do that.
- Changing heroes to something non-hero and figuring out a different uniqueness would be fairly simple.
- The Khitans and the Tanguts issues, camel-pults, etc. issues sound harder to fix probably, but maybe could be addressed with all hands on deck post-launch
One day or week of work, problems solved.
I can wait a week or so for launch if devs need more time. Tbh, though, the DLC says they “plan” to launch May 6th 
They could very well delay it for long time if needed: “This game plans to unlock in approximately 2 weeks”
1 Like
There is one. A patch to remove them from ranked.
3 Likes
From what I seem, those who like do that just because its new content, so what changes to them if its 5 real civs or 3k plus two real civs?
If it becomes Chronicles: 3K does it change anything in their fun?
2 Likes
I play SP skirmish. Sometimes MP vs. AI. And always “Full Random” for AI civ selection.
To me, the DLC brings more civs that I would like turning up sometimes when I do those games. If the civs are tucked away under Chronicles, though, I (think?) I will only get to see them if I choose Chronicles, which is a more limited experience and would account for a tiny fraction of my AoE playtime. Wastes my money. Don’t get as much value for my $.
UPDATE: I don’t need to worry! 
All is well, per this reply to my post:
1 Like
So IDK how easy it’d be to move to chronicles, specifically chronicles. they obviously started this as something more like chronicles, but IDK if they could at this juncture EASILY make this a chronicles, but they should be able to easily make it single player only.
There is perhaps a set of people who’s approval of the dlc is determined in large part that those civs are SPECIFICALLY for chronicles and not just more generally single player. I am not amongst them. chronicles, regular campaign, a frankenstein hybrid, V&V, I don’t care that much. I think the average preference is chronicles, as the 3k stuff seems to fit that format better thematically, but I wouldn’t expect a huge backlash if the devs said 3k would be regular campaigns only, but it wouldn’t be a chronicles.
Unfortunately the problem with that is people were promised 5 ranked civs. Yes people can get refunds and etc, but i’m sure MS doesn’t want to open that can of worms.
So renaming civs could be an answer, but the wei for example, seem like they should be the xianbei, which glossing over a lot of complexity, is basically the khitans. So you haven’t even solved the problem entirely.
You could rename the khitans to the tanugts, and then move liao dao cav and anything else around to get these civs to make sense.
Also IDK who would be Wu with their naval focus.
All this to say, I don’t there’s there’s any one single simple change, that really fixes this DLC. It has been quite frankensteined and botched.
But if you could rename the 3k civs, banish the heros to SP, fix the khitanguts, and give a good home to wu to let them keep their naval bonus…most good will have been done for the most people for the least effort.
Unfortunately I think MS is absolutely banking on 3k selling like hotcakes in china, and I don’t think they’ll rename the three civs, even if it means keeping the campaigns the same. So I think the single biggest thing to fix this dlc is also the thing MS is least likely to do.
1 Like
I understand that it is. But that’s the surprising part to me since most of the game mechanics aren’t quite realistic or according to history and some civilizations don’t overlap chronologically or geographically. Yet those civs fight in the game. So while I understand people have issues with historical inaccuracy but didn’t think the sentiment would be this strong. I feel like it has more to do with the marketing approach and the initial preview where most people started guessing its something related to Tibet, Tanguts and so on.
I’d be happy with this too. Because to me a civ is just a list of bonuses. So call it Shu or Song, I’d play them
because their lumberjacks generate food and archers shoot more projectiles.
1 Like
With what advertising? 
Because it’s been stretched far too far this time. Plenty of stuff is acceptable because that’s how the game has always been, and it would be hard to change those.
This is basically adding a more-egregious problem, that they are asking money for.
I don’t think the marketing helped. However that Frankenstein of a Khitan civ likely made that job difficult.
Maybe the controversy is the advertising and y’all are underestimating WE’s 45d Blackgammon