So…I know i’m probably reading way too much into this and getting my hopes up too much, but is it possible this post the AOE instagram did could point towards a Thai/Siam civ coming in the next DLC?
Probably being way too optimisitic, especially given how the last DLC has gone, but…thoughts?
Perhaps they are redoing East Asia, properly this time, and will include the Siamese as a new civ.
We already have civs from northern periphery of China (Jurchens and Khitans), adding some from the southern periphery of China, such as the Tibetans and indeed the Thais, would be the next logical move.
Especially if they want to fix the damage caused by the communication about 3K, we’re screaming at them what we want. Making the DLC everyone is asking for would be the safest option possible.
A DLC with 2 civs from the southern periphery of China, with campaigns for them and campaigns for the Khitans and Jurchens, would make me much more happy with the state of the game.
And a Chinese campaign as the centerpiece
This is just a post about a current campaign right?Why would this be a hint about a dlc?
Since RoR everytime they’ve “teased” a DLC we’ve just been told flat out lies. The only point in engaging with what WE tells us anymore is to infer the opposite will be closer to the truth.
They have made these posts about the campaigns before. Plus it’s about the Burmese, not the Thais.
Ignore it.
You mean since RoR’s release or including its promo phase? Because RoR was actually properly teased as bringing AoE 1 into AoE 2.
I’d meant release, however…
This is generous.
I still prefer RoR’s tease to V&V and V&V2, but I wouldn’t exactly call it a slam dunk either.
Also Adam Isgreen said all the campaigns would be coming over. That was months before release, so it’s very possible plans change. But it’d have been nice to either not tease not for sure things, or give some update when things changed.
So yeah, RoR’s tease wasn’t great by any means, but still lightyears ahead of V&V and V&V2.
DoI probably the best tease of any DLC.
I only know TTK/3K (I prefer to call things properly by their name, sorry 
) but I get what you mean.
I have to look for the specific podcast again but I think he said he “hopes” to have all of AoE 1 and 2 in one place.
That and LotW which was announced an entire month before its release.
If only you shared the same interest in semantic fidelity in regards to “splits” and “renames”. 
Well I still think Chinese weren’t split. But I guess as a primarily MP player our definitions vary, right? 
Ngl as someone who is no fan of the 3k DLC myself, I don’t view the 3k civs as a China split either. That’s because the 3k setting is entirely outside of the scope of the game, and outside the scope of what the original China civ represents (the actual Medieval Chinese culture, not some very late antiquity Chinese political entities).
In order for a civ to be a split, it actually has to be a civ, which I contend the 3k factions are not civs as they are political entities, not seperate ethno-cultural entities.
The fact that the 3 kingdoms are just that, kingdoms and not civilizations (that were very short-lived at that, there are one or two instances where I could see dynasties making sense, but even in that metric these 3 kingdoms that hardly lasted a century aren’t it) is my biggest gripe with their inclusion, along with their being too early in the timeframe, and the hero units (as well as the mystical stuff in the campaign)
You know what’s funny? In the 3K campaigns, the Chinese from before the 3K period are played with the Chinese civ…I kid you not.
Clears throat KHITANGUTS!
That’s a legitimately interesting take. Can chinese civ be split if the secondary entities aren’t civs? I think they irreconciably incongruous with the other civs in the game, tho the game treats them no different than the other civs. the devs want you to think of 3k as civs.
If the secondary entities aren’t similar in type, then is it a split. I think the game treats them the same. If they were chronicles-esque civs, I might be more inclined to adopt this view.
I can’t agree, but this is an interesting line of reasoning.
It seems you knew, before any concrete information was presented in regards to what would exactly would happen to chinese or the civs that would be introduced, that chinese wouldn’t be split, and even after the logical contradiction of that was presented to you, you doubled down. To say this more explicitly, all we knew at the time you claim to have known this wasn’t a split, was Cysion saying it wasn’t a split.
Therefore I can only conclude your definition of what a split is, is whatever Cysion says a split is.
Consequently I emphatically agree that our definitions vary, however I must contend that you being an MP player does not seem to be what is giving rise to our incompatible definitions.
180AD Han China represented by Chinese
220AD Han China represented by 3K civs, multiple civs to make a finer point on this
300AD Han China represented again by Chinese
But Cysion said it wasn’t a split. IDK what to think.
Funnily at no point in the game or marketing does it refer to them as civs. But the others, they do.
*CE
My fiancee always says I can’t multi-task lol. fixed, thx
Impossible. There are AoE2 players out there who aren’t single?? (I kid, I kid.)
Took two wololos before she’d date me but yeah lol.
AoE2 dating advice, ask out a couple houses out on a date before asking out who you’re actually interested in.
