Universty, siege workshops, towers…
Should I continue?
17 photos all over the internet.
You won’t be able to convince me.
It is not a significant civilization at all and certainly not one with a documented history, for a campaign in AoE2.
This is my opinion, your opinion is different and there is no reason to continue arguing.
The day they finish covering recorded history - I’d love to try challenges with all kinds of lost niche cultures like these.
East asia will always top the polls as we have og civis from than region without official campaigns.
China exists in every game of the Series, yet the only campaign they every got was in AoE3 and that is not even based on history.
And quite bad too imo…
Nah I don’t think it’s that bad.
It is great from AoE3’s standard.
The other campaign be like: You fight as Knights of Malta in America against the Ottomans for the quest of Fountain of Youth.
They could make houses like this, or use RoR’s Tool/Bronze East Asian or WoL houses…
You could do a Momo or Kupe campaign…
That’s true, you’re both right…
That’s been the case forever…
You have the meh Chinese campaign in AoM Tale of the Dragon after The Titans and the Chinese campaign in AoE 3 is not so bad if you consider it as historical fiction, but Zheng He’s travels in 1421, on which it is based, did occur at least until the 2nd mission, after which a storm diverts them to Yucatan is like a lot of historical “flexibility”, but the Treasure Fleet could endure a transoceanic voyage, at least as far as Europe, since it was better prepared than the caravels of Columbus’ first expedition, which appears in the intro of the game…
That’s true, I mean, the original campaigns and the Chinese campaign of AoE 3 are very historical fiction… but then the rest are rescued a little better in their “historicity”: in The Warchiefs, Fire (American Revolutionary War), Shadow (the Red Cloud and Black Hills Wars) (I’m talking about the original version, not the woke version of 3 DE), and in The Asian Dynasties, Japan (the unification of Japan) and India (the Sepoy Rebellion, which I didn’t know until I played it in TAD)…
Why does everyone put more stock in campaigns over gameplay and pvp. One actually rewards you beyond a time waste if you win!
PvP doesn’t inherently reward you more then PvE.
Not like there are any unlocks in AoE2.
If you personally prefer PvP that’s your thing not something that applies to everyone.
The thing is that many PvP players actually dislike new things and big changed.
They only want bug fixes and balancing.
Every time there are new civs there are people complaining about pay to win, having to learn new civs and broken balance.
That’s a different issue of every civ getting its own super special secret region only no fun allowed unit instead of stepping back and saying “we keep creating new wastes of mechanical space when the cogs in the machine we have now can be manipulated in 400 different ways and we’d have more unique civ designs than there are city states in all the world.
I don’t think that’s what’s going on in this thread. To design a civ, one needs a certain amount of historical, archaeological and/or cultural information about the real civilisation it’s supposed to represent – otherwise, what’s the point? Campaigns are only part of a wider discussion here.
(Also, I don’t know why you’re suggesting campaigns don’t have gameplay.)
I’ve no idea what rewards you have in mind. But like all hobbies, neither is a waste of time if you get some enjoyment or fulfilment from them, and neither is inherently more rewarding than the other.
This was perfectly sensible, in my opinion. For the poll to be unbiased, the person writing it shouldn’t make judgements about the “viability” of regions. Leave that to each individual responding.
Campaigns are the perfect way of showcasing a civ. Suggesting on which strengths to play, show some highlights of its history, and most are quite memorable (hand-made map, custom mechanics, voiced dialogue…), probably much more than “Arabia game number 305 but this time with that civ”.
Plus, a significant proportion of players, maybe a majority, mostly play in singleplayer. And campaigns are definitely a bigger piece of content than random maps vs the AI.
Very true.
And without the campaigns the game would be another strategy game, they also represent another artistic development.
The gameplay has always been really great and simple - and the story goes with it.
I think a lot of the value of Campaigns is psychological instead of actual real value.
When purchasing a DLC you get dedicated unique content with that DLC. You get a relatively easy calculable value from your purchase.
New civs are like adding new tools to the belt. You have to play those civs and like playing them to get value out of the DLC but it’s hard to judge how much you will like those civs and how much you actually end up playing them.
You can indeed know for sure how much gameplay you get with campaigns, probably over 10h for 3 campaigns.
At least when the campaign is well done and its topic allows for the civ’s mechanics to shine. I still remembr the old Prithviraj campaign with Indians, where he was deprived of one of the civ’s UT because gunpowder didn’t exist yet.
Yes, I agree with everything…without campaigns few would buy the dlcs at the price they are available…
Or when such features are de facto useless. Take the Incan UU during the Pachacuti campaign, the kamayuk is a strong anti-cav unit… but as the only civ are Incans you won’t face any cav during the whole campaign, making it utterly useless.
This unique content that comes with the DLC is one of the most exciting things about my gaming experience anyway.
You are waiting for more cultures, more tools, more history.
If you really like the game and don’t have the money to buy the DLC when it comes out, you feel like there’s another world you haven’t reached yet.
And a DLC day is a holiday lol
Don’t get me wrong. I love new DLC.
But I rarely play the new campaigns, or only parts of them. I have barely played any of the base game campaigns yet (ignoring the original campaigns that I played 20 years ago).
The DLC I play the most campaigns of was RoR. I wish they made more RoR content.
I love making scenarios so new civs are like new tools for that.
That’s why I’m so upset about the last DLC. 0 new content outside of the scenarios themselves. No new units, buildings, props and of course no new civilisations.
RoR should become more like AoE2 because it is boring and discourages people from playing it due to the lack of uniqueness between civs.
