There is a lot of talks about people disliking the upcoming 3 Kingdoms DLC and a lot of the same things are being thrown around but what does the majority here actually think.
What do you dislike most about the DLC?
Extending the timeline beyond 200 AD
Kingdoms and not Civilisations
Heroes in ranked
Unique and Regional units of the 3 Kingdoms (like Traction Trebuchet)
Civilisation bonuses and Unique Technologies of the 3 Kingdoms
Not getting the civilisations I wanted (Bai, Tanguts, Tibetians, etc.)
Unfinished nature of the DLC (like no voice lines)
The lies about not splitting the Chinese
I actually like the DLC
0voters
What do you like most about the DLC if anything?
Extending the timeline beyond 200 AD
Kingdoms and not Civilisations
Heroes in ranked
Unique and Regional units of the 3 Kingdoms (like Traction Trebuchet)
Civilisation bonuses and Unique Technologies of the 3 Kingdoms
You forgot the lack of campaigns for Khitans, Jurchens and Chinese (and even Koreans).
I choose I dislike Kingdoms more, but I also dislike Heroes. Would be cool to be able to select several answers.
People seem to dislike a lot of things about the DLC so we would get like 90% on most of the points.
I think itās more interesting to find out what people dislike the most.
This is by far the biggest let down of any DLC. I was so hyped with the free update news which seemed so well done and that could only mean huge effort for the paid DLC which had the greatest potential considering the civs available. It really felt like we were going to get the second Conquerors.
There should be an option about them forcing us to interact and encouter 3K civs even if we donāt buy the dlc. These civs should be in their own separate mode, not forcing us to face civs that donāt fit the base game both in timeframe and design wise.
If i had to pick, absolutely is the āāKingdoms, not civsāā point. Everything else could be changed with a patch later on, or added in a future DLC
This fundamentally breaks the very core concept of what is a civilization.
I found it quite hard to answer ā I think my answer is actually that Jurchens and Khitanguts feel like a tacked-on afterthought. That seems to be the problem that will affect me the most. The Jurchen civ design looks very good to me, the Khitangut civ design has some nice features but feels rather muddled and will probably never be split into Khitans and Tanguts, and of course neither civ gets a campaign. Meanwhile the campaign we do get is RPG-style, which I tend to dislike in AoE2. The civ designs for Shu, Wei and Wu look pretty uninspired to me. For example, all three have some kind of multiple projectiles unit/upgrade/bonus, and Wu have two of these! The bonuses donāt seem very thematic somehow, and Iām somewhat dreading the anti-fun snare mechanic ā although at least itās on an infantry unit.
Anyway, āJurchens and Khitanguts feel like a tacked-on afterthoughtā wasnāt one of the options, so I picked āKingdoms and not Civilisationsā ā that seems to be source of all the problems (including the civ design ones).
Regarding heroes, it would make much more sense to add them in a separate game mode in which every civ can train them. That way they could play a more meaningful role in the game without disrupting the balance of standard games ā I think this would give a better outcome both to people who want heroes and people who donāt.
I like Jurchens indeed. I like their castle and wonder. It seems to be the only ātraditionalā civ in recent years.
I strongly against 3Ks as independent civs, and dislike the Khitan-tanguts mixture.
I dislike the heroes either, but surely i do not care that much, because 1) i do not play ranked games and iām okay with the aura thing, 2) many people say they are not too powerful to make the game imbalanced.
I just feel weird because i believe that a hero canāt be produced (they are not Captain America, are they?)! It would be fine if their name could have been changed to āgeneralsā or whatever.
I donāt like that they extend the chronology to before 200 ADā¦ itās not even medieval, it should go to Chroniclesā¦ after that I see the rest as ok (the heroes can be made to be weak against normal units like in AoM)ā¦
200 AD may somehow be justified, as historical eras are different in different world regions.
But very shortlived kingdoms not civs, heroes in ranked and outright lying to fans (no Chinese split) are outrageous.
And from there, gimmicky civ bonuses and no campaigns for proper Chinese (+ Koreans + Jurchens etc.) make it even worse.
I think thereās too much of an emphasis on the defensive stuff. Iron Pagoda seems weird to me with the block mechanic. I know itād be another gimmick but Iād much prefered the iron pagoda have 0/0 armor but cut incoming dmg in like half. So unlike most high armor units that are impervious to low attack units but are only marginally better with very high attack units, iron pagodas could be much better against the highest attacking units, which seems more on point with them. They were legendarily heavy cav. covered horse and rider in armor.
But to your point, yes. Jurchens are ok. not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.