I’d like to get away from the constant pleas for attention towards this game (attention which is urgently needed btw) and the discuss some actual gameplay. I’m almost finished with the 4 original campaigns (Egyptians, Greeks, Babylon, Yamato) and I’ve noticed a lot of the missions are changed and most of the time not for the better. They are all with two exceptions (Lord of the Euphrates and the Caravan) made easier and sometimes have even lost the original intention. The Great Hunt is probably the most infamous example. The original is one of the hardest missions (if not the hardest) in the game, requiring quite a lot of micro and patience, without the possibility to build up with villagers. The layout of the map doesn’t quite make sense when villagers are introduced in the DE and I find it a shame. Yeah, it’s less frustrating but also less unique and memorable.
Another example I just played is Yamato 4, the Mountain Temple. The original starts you off with a few villagers in a claustrophobic corner of the map with 2 towers and very limited food and wood, then launches constant military and naval raids from the other factions. In the DE, however, you start in another corner altogether, with abundant resources and a single attack that can be totally wrecked with a single cavalry you can train immediately. Everything else is boringly uneventful for the rest of the scenario. The Izumo city is quite pretty, though, too bad the defenders just bend over and let you take it with no real fight.
So, yeah, what do you guys think about this? Are the myriad changes worth it/justified, or do they take away from the challenge and uniqueness of the campaigns?