What do you expect from competitive players? If they are competitive they are only thinking about competitive. This means it is kind of hard for us to blame them when they don’t actually care about history or the like. It’s always been that way.
1 Like
If you knew anything about me, you would realise how wrong this comment is, and delete it.
I have only had complaints about mild things, and treated them as such, with AoE2…until 3K. Because this DLC is such an egregious violation. I am not “looking to complain” as you put it, or said “game destroyed” until 3K.
My comments on competitive players was based on what I am seeing in multiple other games, which is breeding a lax attitude from developers towards the game, in pursuit of this crowd who are frankly easy to please.
4 Likes
I dont understand why aesthetics has to be in conflict with gameplay and
You sound like people who care only gameplays are evil things, which is like ???, why gameplay has to have 0 importance?
Its not like we are opposing to regional units, better campaigns and so on. The hostility to pros is just wild to me.
As a high elo player who voiced for dislike with 3K historial, while admittedly care gameplay more, I am rather frustrated.
Welp, so much for this lol.
1 Like
The patch is out. I would love to see Khitans (and maybe Jurchens?) in Temujin scenario.
1 Like
I’m not seeing the animal decay change on the patch notes so far. Maybe they removed it?
Edit: Never mind. It’s still there. RIP laming.
3 Likes
My complaint is with the hyper-competitive people that do not care about visuals or theme at all. They are the problem.
3 Likes
A DLC that its worth its price with decently designed medieval civs from across thw world isnt an “unachievable objective”
4 Likes
It actually is.
Because everybody has different opinions on what that would be.
And if we speak about “worth”. The content that was released is actually massive, most of it is actually artwork that enhances the “authentic medieval flair” of the game. Why is this neglected so much?
There are no “different opinions” on what is Middle Ages or not. It either is, or it isn’t.
Because for the art:
1: It does not match the artstyle that is used for the rest of the game. It looks like a Chronicles-esque spin-off.
2: What makes it more or less effort than the other art? Something still had to draw it.
And as for “worth”…
1: Shortest campaigns, with three recycled maps.
2: Several of the civs are unfinished
3: Several of the civs are cobbled-together messes that contain many elements that have nothing to do with them.
4: We don’t want three of those civs. I wouldn’t even want them added to the game for free.
5 Likes
TBH from the “medieval lore” perspective 3k is actually way, way more fitting than eg. Burgundians, poles, bohemians … actually most of the civ
Cuase this actually fits the classification of medieval romanticism, that’s why it’s so much represented in different other games too. Ofc it’s not the “european medieval”, but it’s actually the chinese equivalent to that european romanticism and also warfare of the late medieval period.
I don’t see why you are so focussed on an arbitrary (and btw also never well-defined) european medieval timespan. Which the game also never fit. Besides a lot of other historical misses. They were never seen as an issue. Just for an example: The Goths weren’t “medieval”. The Huskarl isn’t a Gothic unit. And the “anti-archer” feature is completely made-up. Such a unit never existed.
And you complain about 3k just not “fitting” your arbitrary timespan of AOE2 perfeclty. This is just ludicrous.
No. It’s not.
They end 200 years before the Romans, this already puts them before the game’s setting. They are also purely political, they have no cultural differences from the in-game Chinese. Because they ARE the same Chinese.
The campaign for 3K even has the pre 3K states use the Chinese civ. Your own beloved DLC proves you wrong.
Poles, Bohemians and Burgundians are separate cultural and ethnic groups from other civs in the game. Which the 3K are not.
Does not exist in that form, there is no Chinese Middle Ages from their perspective. There is Early Imperial China, which is from the start of an organised Chinese state up until the the Sui Dynasty in 581, where it becomes Middle Imperial China, and so on.
And in that case, wouldn’t this be the case for everybody? It would disqualify a bunch of civs from the game like Maya or Aztecs.
Or perhaps tech is the issue? In which case, why not let the Athenians in?
Because that’s the games setting. It’s why I bought the game. It’s why I play it.
If I want antiquity, I play AoE1 or Chronicles.
It fit until 3K.
Crimean Goths lasted until the 1400s, many others lasted to the 700s. Stop. lying. to. me.
No. I complain about 3K not fitting the game’s setting.
3 Likes
Ofc it is. The Political circumstances and Warfare fits the medieval lore way better. The named other civs already represent newer forms of government, buildup of nationalistic concepts, peasant revotls and so on. In this context 3k fits the romanticised medieval way better.
It doesn’t has to do anything with timeframes, it’s just the real historical developments. And China was ahead of europe.
And this categorical thinking is actually post-medieval. What are you even trying to set up here? If you want a medieval setting you shouldn’t use post-medieval cathegories. That’s for sure.
So we can’t include any of it? Devs have to make decisions what they want to implement. And btw: 3K is actually the better “medieval” fit for china. Because it’s actually relatable to the european middle ages. It was Kingdoms, douchies and so on. And culturally different groups lived side-by-side, quite literally in the same Regions often governed by Kings and Leaders of different cultural groups. That was the reality.
3K is therefore actually quite similar to the later middle ages in europe.
Don’t try to build up some alternative history of europe to denounce others. Stay with the reality there. And then you will see, 3K actually fits the historical cirumstances of the real medieval europe very well.
Did anybody offcially state something this way? I don’t think so. Clearly the Knight line gives an impression that medieval Europe is a key angle of the game. But I don’t think the devs ever restricted themselves to a specific timeframe. You try to bend it that way, but it’s not an official restriction of the game. Ritght the opposite, they always released civs that DON’T fit the timeframe or european region.
And if they didn’t we also could only have european civs. That would be so boring. I am Happy the devs aren’t so restrictive to themselves so we get at least some american, african, middle and far east civilisations. Because IF YOU would be coherent here all these civs would need to go. They don’t fit medieval europe. period.
For someone who claims to be into that historic aspect you seem to forget a lot of stuff what is actually in the game. The Goths in the game aren’t the crimean goths. And the others as you mentioned all ended in a chatic phase that many, includin me, DON’T count as medieval. Also quite shown that from the time between 600 and 800 we have literayy NO civ in representation (except the byzantines who outlasted that chaotic time).
The Goths in the game represent, along the Huns and Romans the end of Antiquity. So if you would be consequent you would NEED to be against them. But you aren’t. So you can’t even keep up with your own arbitrary set standards and demands.
More than many other stuff that is in the game. Like… what about the American Civs?
And btw… it’s just an impression of “it’s out of the center of the usual we have in the game”. It’s nothing official. Every game has that. Ofc you can say at some point it’s going a bit too far. But tbh I have way, way more issues with Romans in the game than with 3K. Cause the Roman warfare was completely different even at the later stages than in the medieval. And 3K is actually way closer to that.
Ofc the unit aren’t the same, but the general approach to warfare, the political settings etc is closer.
This is just word soup bub.
All of the things you mentioned happened during the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Industrial Revolution etc. Does not mean Sumerians or the East India Company should be added to AoE2 ranked.
Because…this is how the games civs have always worked.
We have Hindustanis, not Mughals. Tatars, not Timurids. Bengalis, not Palas. Gurjaras, not Pratiharas. Britons, not Tudors. Franks, not Carolingians.
Because these are not people groups. In AoE2, you pick a people group and build an empire with them.
You have to look at China from the time period of the game’s setting. Same with all the civs.
Eh? Better than what?!
1: No, it’s not. It’s centuries before then.
2: And kingdoms and duchies are NOT civs.
I am not even gonig to attempt to understand the mental gymnastics you are undertaking here.
When did I do that?
Oh I am, are you? I did a LOT of research into China during this period to prepare for the mod I am working on.
Yes. “Rome has fallen, and the world is up for grabs”
Are you trying to twist this to make me sound racist? Don’t. It’s pathetic.
Oh contraire, they do have Crimean Goth elements. Their new castle contains elements of architecture the Crimean Goths built.
They are from 476 to 1599 yes? Then they fit.
This tells me you know nothing about the kind of warfare and military equipment used by the 3K states.
Their level of technology was the same as the Han Dynasty, which is actually fairly basic. Yes they have some more advanced elements like crossbow variations, but that’s hardly unique to China pre-Middle Ages. Their polearms are still the simplistic basic Ji, and not the more advanced types we see later. Their armour was mostly lamellar hide armour, aside from the most elite troops.
Chinese warfare during the 3K period was about moving massive blocks around, high volumes of troops, same as in Antiquity Europe and the Middle-East.
Once the Middle Ages hits, troop numbers come down, and equipment quality goes up. This is true for China as well.
The 3K didn’t even have stirrups. How on earth are they comparable to Middle Ages militarily when they lack this element (especially when one is designated a cavalry civ)?
Now let me be very very clear with a tldr:
- China’s closest equivalent to the Middle-Ages starts in 581 with the Sui Dynasty
- The game has never used political states as civs before 3K
- The game’s setting is the Middle Ages. AoE1’s is Antiquity. AoE3’s is early-modern
- China was not using Middle Ages tech in late Antiquity. It was using Antiquity tech and styles of warfare.
- The devs put out a bunch of paragraphs of lies to defend their choice to add these unfitting civs, which was likely done because Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a popular setting and they wanted a piece of the pie. You are under NO obligation to defend it.
8 Likes
I prefer my words in a salad.
3 Likes
- No new voice lines.
1 Like
Blame the dev for nor caring the art.
Dont blame the players, who can / only want to bring up gameplay issues.
Does everyone have to care about aesthetics / arts?
I dont really see this way, and to me personally gameplay is much more important than art.
I dont understand much of the building style e.g. Persian stuff nor do I care.
Same as most of you here who does not care much about gameplay.
I dont see the lack of care of either aspect as a problem. Why does everyone have to care about everything?
Again, blame the dev, dont blame the so called supercompetitive player
1 Like
But have some understanding for people that does not think it is as big as gameplay issues (like pathing).
Putting the blame on players is one of the weirdest take I have seen in a while.
1 Like
Gettimg less campaigns and no architecture sets compared to 2017 for more money is a pretty big jump in prrice in relation to content, thats what I meant by “worth the price”. Hell, we havent gotten a six scenario campaign since Dawn of the Dukes
What I think when I say “exploring the medieval world” is definitely subjective, but I consider that all DLCs made by FE prior to Lords of the West are pretty good at that.
“Decent civ design” is the one I have the hardest time defining, and the most controversial. But I believe the main problemd devs have had is that the civ designs are either too weird (like Khitans, which have way too manynunits with crazy bonuses but are missing irreplaceable stuff for any kind of military) or too generic (we have enough naval/infantry or infantry/cav civs for example)
4 Likes