Would you prefer a regional skin based on a traction trebuchet (for civs that used that one, but not the counterweight treb) over having the Traction Trebuchet as a separate unit with different stats?
Not sure. The counter weight trebuchet is obviously less wrong for civilisations that hat traction trebuchets then for civilisations that had no trebs at all so it would be strange to reskin that unit but keep all the other units with their even more wrong appearances.
Iâm not sure about the traction trebuchet yet because it also fills the role of a bad Bombard Cannon.
Generally I think it would be nice to have regional skins first and then we can think about how wrong some units are for some civs in a functional way.
On the other hand, would it be worth to make a regional skin for a generic unit that is getting replaced by a regional unit?
1 Like
1 What do you dislike most about the DLC?
âKhitangutsâ and Extending the timeline beyond 200AD
2. What do you like most about the DLC if anything?
Jurchens civilization and regional units
5 Likes
As a supporter who bought all previous DLCs - I really hate the 3 Kingdoms DLC and the idea of making 3 Kingdoms into Civilisations. I wonât buy it until it got reworked.
9 Likes
hei guang isnât interesting to me, just a knight replacement, but the rocket cart, fire lancer, and lou chuan are definitely cool.
2 Likes
Some people expressed their dislike for the Three Kingdomsâ lack of the usual Trebuchet in the Castle. So, my question is whether it would be better to have the common unit for everyone, as it has been the case since 1999, but with the appearance of a traction trebuchet instead where appropriate. Though itâs unlikely that they would discard the new unit.
Iâm not sure I follow your logic. Yes they were on par technologically you could argue, which is why theyâd get things like the same siege weapons and ships and gunpowder units etc⊠but also have regional animals such as elephants which were added in. I think the DoI civs were generally done well.
These new civs however are completely on another scale. They are firslty kingdoms that roughly had a lifespan of <100 years and somehow go through the same technological advances all the other Medieval civs go through in the span of ~1000 years. Such as getting steel plate armour and steel weapons and blast furnace and so on. None of which were a thing back in their time.
I mean you can lean into your suspension of disbelief to some extent but somethings just push it too far.
If I were to have my way these kinds of late-antiquity civs would get completely different blacksmith techs and so on.
Yea, and the thing is there is already precident in them doing this in AOE3 where they went back and fixed some of the issues with the Native American civs to make them more âauthenticâ. I never understood why they couldnât do the same to AOE2. Specially now that they have shown a willingness to introduce more regional units and new mechanics into the game and even completely replace core essential units such as the trebuchet and knight line.
First of all, the names of the 3K civs but it is the least important and maybe Iâm biased because I donât like those civs.
Second, the emblems of the civs, they looked off and different from the rest. Even the Chronicles emblems are more fitting than those.
Third, the bonuses of the 3K civs. They are different from any other civ, like a copy paste with a tweak that makes the original bonus less unique from other civs that have it behind an UT.
Fourth, the heroes. They are ok in campaigns, not in multiplayer/ranked/tournaments.
Fifth, the false advertisement about 5 new civs showing pictures about Jurchens, Khitans and Tanguts to later show the 3K DLC, which doesnât have anything to do with the Jurchens and Khitans.
I just hope they can fix this nonsense later the same way they fix the Indians because I donât think they will change anything by next week.
I like the new UU and the patch that came with it. Looking forward to play the Jurchens and Kithans.
1 Like
My least favorite thing is Heroes, but not just for ârankedâ. I wish the poll just said, âHeroesâ
I play SP unranked games, so the âheroes in rankedâ option in the poll doesnât really apply to me. Oh well, no prob. I voted for it anyways since itâs the only way I could somewhat express my dissatisfaction with heroes in AoE2
Weâll see how it goes once I try the DLC, but judging from my past experience with AoM and AoE3, Iâm not too excited at the prospect of heroes in AoE2
2 Likes
As the release of DLC is coming, I am feeling kinda upset about 3K and heroes will appear in ranked games.
Technically Dynasties of India replaces the more siege weapons then 3 Kingdoms (if we donât count the medieval civs) since the the entire Ram Line is replaced.
Neither did the Huns have that.
The Armour and weapon technology of Ancient China was probably more advanced then most of âDark Ageâ Europe like Vikings, Goths, Celts and of course Huns.
Chronicles didnât even change the blacksmith technologies and icons despite changing up man other technologies like all the Monastery ones (which are also wrong for none Christians for the most part).
I think American civs need a unique Blacksmith replacement a lot more urgently.
I know Inca had Bronze weapons but generally they didnât rely that much on metallurgy then the old world.
Iâll try to make an American DLC suggestion again with a reworked Blacksmith that makes sense and is also different in an interesting way.
I realised that later but unfortunately I canât change the poll anymore.
Itâs still the right option to vote for even if you donât play ranked.
Iâm curious how many people will buy the DLC and then how many people will actually play the 3 Kingdom civs in ranked.
Heroes will likely very rarely appear in ranked games, especially 1v1.
In the first month or two people will probably try to use them until they realise they are too easy to kill for their price.
1 Like
They did it because AoE 3 and the community allowed it and because of the context of the game where you have more information (they even hired a native advisor to advise them on how to work on the Hauds and the Lakotas)⊠in AoE 2 you have to maintain a certain similarity of the meso civs (but I see that later on they may rework them with regional skins for the generic units of the game, just as they did with castles, unique elite units, monasteries and monks)⊠time will tellâŠ
When you put a title like this, most people participating in the poll will be the ones who âdislikeâ. In the future when you try to take an opinion poll please use a neutral title. Something like âOpinion poll on this upcoming DLCâ
But thatâs still just one siege weapon isnât it?
Yea, Iâm not opposed to civs like huns, Romans etc⊠all getting different blacksmith upgrades.
Do it, thatâll be cool.
All this aside, back to the original poll question, I think the thing I hate the absolute most about this is how they hyped up the fact that we were getting 5 new civs and we had never had anything like this since AOC, when in fact it was completely misleading and we were really only getting 2 new civs, and 3 âcivsâ nobody wants in the game. Not only that, but now the 2 good civs are actually locked behind the 3 shitty civs so if you want those you are forced to buy the ones you donât want⊠I mean I donât even want to look at these civs in the civ select menu. Just makes wana vomit. And I will definitely quit any game if I am matched with someone playing those civs.
No voice lines for new civs is the worst to me.
And also no new architectural style for the 3K civs. They could at least add some flavour to the Chinese buildings, so as to give a different look (though I know the lack of a specific, more ancient style kind of helps arguing these civs are perfectly fit for the gameâŠ).
And I would add the option âshort campaign contentâ. To stop the story at red cliffs is quite convenient excuse to work less and also create a cliffhanger (no pun intended) that will make players eager to buy the next one. I know Chronicles does this, but at least they tell a big chunk of the story.
All these factors give the impression of bare minimum approach which is always bad but made worse since this became the norm from TMR onwards. Which is rather odd considering the work put in the last patch (balances, new skins, new units even).
This makes me think the campaigns will not be that good. And all in all, campaign quality is the main pillar of this game. If it starts to show cracksâŠ
3 Likes
Actually, this really annoys me. It promotes the outdated Early Modern idea that the middle ages were a period of technological stagnation, and that all major technological developments were the product of classical civilisation. Even some of the pre-medieval things in Chronicles (e.g. onager, palintonon, evocatio) are inappropriate for the BfG campaign.
I realise that several AoE2 civs have technologies that they didnât really have access to (Romans, Huns, Vikings and American civs being the obvious ones) â but I think itâs much more justified in the context of main game civs. With Chronicles, they obviously werenât opposed to renaming technologies, so these anachronisms were a conscious choice rather than a product of the standard game mechanics.
I think Chronicles is supposed to be âChronologicalâ so the first DLC was destined to be the least technically advance, right?
Iâm pretty sure they just thought Blacksmith technologies are the most boring technologies in the game so adding more flavour would have only caused confusion without really improving immersion.
Iâm curious what could be used in place of the current Mangonel and Scorpion lines.
The previous month, an image of Maya âsiege towersâ was posted:
I strongly believe that the recent changes to Age of Empires 2 are a blasphemy, given what the game represents. After watching the campaign preview, I was dismayed by the handling of hero units. The addition of overpowered abilities and visual effects seems out of place and reminiscent of games like Warcraft 3, League of legends, Fortnite and so on. I fear that this direction will lead to an imbalance in gameplay, especially in custom games. The idea of having multiple heroes per civilization, with their associated abilities and effects, seems like a recipe for chaos. I understand that I may be biased, but these changes deviate from the core elements that made me love Age of Empires 1 and 2. If this trend continues, Iâm worried that AOE2DE will become unrecognizable and lose its identity within a short span of time, perhaps less than two years.
2 Likes
But thatâs not a thing they are planning to do.
They added 1 hero in Imperial Age, that costs more then some UTs and is less durable then a War Elephant.
Also they donât have any abilities and just relatively weak auras.
Basically a way worse version of the Spartan Polemarch from Chronicles.
They are free, available starting in Feudal Age with a limit of 2 and they can have all 3 of the auras.
1 Like