I really liked African Royals for its originality, the fact it exposed me to the history of Africa in better detail, and the professionalism in crafting the civilizations and the African environs. They really went out of their way to give Hausa and Ethiopia unique architecture and units, and crafted the African maps to be unique both in terms of feel and gameplay.
I had hoped that Knights would take some pointers and that theyâd apply the same detail, but it appears not. Still fairly solid, any new content is welcome, but I hope later this year weâll see a return to the level of innovation from African Royals.
Itâs because it was horribly balanced on release. Otherwise itâs a very good expansion thatâs faithful to the history and has tons of great maps and two fun civs.
The expansions that I like the most are âthe Asian dynastiesâ and âthe African kingdomsâ. Very original and unique civilizations. Very good art in general in both expansions, but I think the African expansion should have had full campaigns, even if they donât have cinematics (which I would like).
What I like the most about âKnights of the Mediterraneanâ are the royal houses and the new role they have given to the maps to reward the one who controls the maps (like the captureable mills for example). Plus the new game modes that provide a lot of replayability.
I think Mexico is my favorite ânewâ civ, however a single civ DLC will never top the larger more ambitious major dlcâs. The Knights of the Mediterranean is my top DLC because it finally brought us European maps and minor civs, plus a plethora of new maps, mercs, and treasures. TAD Is a close second for me, for largely the same reasons.
KoTM is amazing. Love all the new stuff itâs quite overwhelming in a good way. The new maps are so pretty. I also loved when the Americans first came out. They were just so vastly different than the civs at the time and had so much variety of strategy. Mexico was equally as great but because the US had come out sooner, it didnât have as much of a wow factor (although the architecture and themeâŠincredible). I love both civs though. African Royals was great, loved the new maps and the minor civ units. I really canât say anything bad about anything in DE except some name changes I didnt agree with and the favt that they made the Sebastopol Mortar too weak. Basically Iâm enamored with aoe3 right now.
Now the old xpacks⊠Warchiefs was interesting. TAD was bad. I didnât like the maps, the minor civs were religious instead of cultural, Japan is still too powerful and too anime, Deccan was overplayed, and the civs IMO were very poorly researched. And I donât like wonders being used to age up. Wonders are supposed to be used to hold and win games.
Warchiefs (legacy) because it actually had single-player campaigns that were good. TAD is a close second because it actually had single-player campaigns that were challenging. KOTM is dead last because it has no single-player campaign or even missions. The Italians are the best of the FE-designed civs though.
Obviously the European dlc, I had been asking for it since 2005âŠ
Yes, the same thing happened to meâŠuntil the African dlc arrived, I didnât know about the Hausa and the Fulani War and with the Ethiopians I was able to find out what happened to them later in the modernity with the Era of PrincesâŠ
The African Kingdoms is the African expansion of AoE 2, the one of AoE 3 is The African Royals but it can cause confusion xdâŠ
It was complicated by the budget and the limited time they had⊠but if the expansion had been done by BHG, assume that we would have had a campaign⊠a Hausa monk who wants to overthrow his oppressors and an Ethiopian mercenary who wants to free his people of division and poverty, gives enough playâŠ
Hey, at least it has the historical maps, which have some replay valueâŠ
Yes, they would have delayed it for a few months and they released it with Morocco as a playable civ tooâŠ