Should AoE2 stop being so “revolutionary” and start being more conservative?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

AoE2 is a lengend from 1999, people fell in love with this game, and definitive edition brought a well deserved reboot of the series.

Being in 2019, the devs adapted to the market and make dlcs, in the case of AoE2 this is actually great because the dlcs were amazing, not only new civs which was the cream of the DLC, but new maps, new campaigns, and many others like the 2vs2 siege map.

The first 3 dlcs were amazing en masse, and the online polls show that. We got some special units like the ones who eat armor and the ones who ignore armor but nothing out of the ordinary.

But then came…. Return of Rome, that a lot of people disliked. Sure, Rome was popular with the mods, but it was a mod because it was outside the game in the first place, the Romans don’t belong in the dark ages, the fall of Rome caused the dark ages. It’s like playing the Byzantines in a period after the fall of constantinopole.

My deepest condolences to AoE1 fans as Return of Rome should have been an AoE1 dlc with new civs and campaigns.

And then came V&V and the mountain royals, which weren’t bad per se but were overpriced and underdelivered. And now comes Battle for Greece.

I like to call these last 4 dlcs as “the weird ones”, I only have the first 3 dlcs because I’m interested in the core of AoE2, think RoR is too expensive for only 1 civ that I don’t even think fits, played some campaigns but not my cup of tea, and royals overpriced and underdelivered when compared to the first 3, and for Greece scenario I have no interest.

Which is fine, it’s not like other people can’t enjoy things because I don’t, by all means if those dlcs have a market go for it.

But I would only ask that these new experiments are kept away from core AoE2 gameplay, I don’t want to play multiplayer matchmaking or ranked against the Spartans or Athenians, I already have the Romans.

The chronicles series is a great initiative for those who like that kind of scenario, but I think a clear distinction needs to be made between core AoE2 and that and be kept separate.

5 Likes
2

What are you saying is already the case, DEvs stated those civs will be only available in in SP and unranked MP lobbies, they already know that most players want more SP content but others agree that there are too many civs for the main game that powercreep is a reality, so at the end both sides are happy.
As for the others yes those are clealry with the biggest flaws (TMR more expensive with content equal to LOTW and DOTD, ROR simply not being enough to bring back AOE 1 back to life and VAV with most content as simply enchanced workshop content).

6 Likes
3

The Mountain Royals was pretty similar to the first 3 DLC, not sure why you consider that a “weird one”. Mountain Royal wasn’t really overpriced, it’s price is just adjusted for inflation. They can’t keep selling the DLC at the same price forever while their operating costs are rising.

V&V and Chronicles are there to fill the gap because Forgotten Empires is/was busy with Age of Mythology Retold. AoE3DE just got nothing during that time, not even patches.

Return of Rome is the really odd one out, but they did what many people asked for.
Chronicles is on some way a reaction to Return of Rome. Many people wanted a more AoE2 like experience with an ancient setting. Chronicles is what many people hoped Return of Rome would have been.

But back to the topic of “normal” DLC. They already promised that there will be “traditional” DLC for AoE2DE again soon. There is no need to worry, unless you can’t afford the price increase that DLC had since Mountain Royals, because I don’t think the old prices will ever return.

6 Likes
4

the Romans don’t belong in the dark ages, the fall of Rome caused the dark ages. It’s like playing the Byzantines in a period after the fall of constantinopole.

Yea, just like playing Huns campaigns in AOE2 (Somehow got a pass because they are a classic). Totally not out of timespan (Both Romans and Huns are). I still believe people who argued Romans doesn’t fit the timeline are loud minorities, instead of pointing out other problems within ROR.

Romans are an interesting civ, and I love it.

My deepest condolences to AoE1 fans as Return of Rome should have been an AoE1 dlc with new civs and campaigns.

No, this speaking from me as an AOE1 fan. The community of AOE1 is truly niche. Heck, even in Vietnamese, most people stick to the CD version than DE.

The AOE2 engine truly brings more fun to me than running on StarCraft 1 pathfinding of AOE1DE. ROR OG campaigns are enjoyable. Having QoLs like trading and gates make everything fun.

RoR is too expensive for only 1 civ

ROR should be standalone imo, and the Romans DLC civ should be seperated from ROR.

I think main reason of negative in ROR is that it is essentially an AOE1 within AOE2, which also is locked behind a paywall. Bugs are a major pain once ROR released. Many assets are ROR-exclusive, missing many opportunities.

And why should we sells AOE1 for majority of AOE2 audiences? There are too many wrong marketing decision with ROR. You have too many AOE1 civs while the most audience mostly care about AOE2DE content. Having too few 2 yet too much 1. This also eating up development manpower for traditional AOE2 DLCs.

But I would only ask that these new experiments are kept away from core AoE2 gameplay, I don’t want to play multiplayer matchmaking or ranked against the Spartans or Athenians, I already have the Romans.

The chronicles series is a great initiative for those who like that kind of scenario, but I think a clear distinction needs to be made between core AoE2 and that and be kept separate.

And given ROR performance. At first I have a “What? Why?”. However digging up I found many interesting things:

  • BfG is developed by CaptureAge. Not the main team concerning with traditional DLCs.
  • BfG provides many assets that can crossover with AOE2DE. Oysters, editors’ assets, terrain, units, etc… This can be very fun for map making and potential tournament map script.
  • The civs are more optional (even with a toggle) and do not exist within ranked matches.

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between core AoE2 and that and be kept separate.

And they are currently doing it. Chronicles is addressing what you are wanting. I think it’s healthy to develop “revolutionary” DLC that is not breaking traditional AOE2, while offering new contents to classic AOE2.

V&V, which weren’t bad per se but were overpriced and underdelivered

Trust me, having limited time achievements and scenarios suck. Plenty of reviews and some Youtube walkthroughs already told me it’s a pain for Single Player before I even touch it.

5 Likes
5

There are a small group of people who want the Byzantines in AoE3, so, anything is possible

3 Likes
6

I find this claim very odd – Dynasties of India has a lot of features that were (and in most cases still are) out of the ordinary:

  • First aura effect (caravanserai).
  • First and only civilisation to be renamed/removed/split into more than one civilisation (Indians – depending on how you look at it).
  • First and only civilisation with more than two unique units (Gurjaras).
  • First and only unique unit to become a generic unit (elephant archer).
  • First and only civilisation to receive a new unique unit and have its access to its former unique unit removed (if you consider Hindustanis to be a renamed Indians).
  • First (and only?) unit to have more than one special ability (urumi swordsman – charge attack, trample damage, ignoring armour).
  • First and only unit to switch between attack types (Ratha).

I might even have missed some. Personally I think it’s far weirder than The Mountain Royals.

I haven’t played V&V, what does “limited time achievements and and scenarios” mean? Scenarios that you can only play during a specific time period, like Barbarossa Brawl? I didn’t think V&V had that though… There’s The Siege but it seems to be available permanently.

1 Like
7

I disagree slightly with this, I think Chronicles was the main “Innovative” DLC concept that was planned for awhile, and V&V was a gap-filler because Chronicles wasn’t ready and they wanted to put out a DLC.

I am hyped for Chronicles, but I also hope that the next “traditional” DLC comes soon (Q1 2025). And I think that’s feasible given that Chronicles is being managed by a different team.

1 Like
8

I presume they mean scenarios with a count down timer.

9

I think the main issue people seem to have with Mountain Royals is the higher price.
Also maybe a recency bias. There are probably a bunch of AoK and AoC mechanics that would be considered to “revolutionary” for many it they were added to the game now.
Especially if you count in all the features that didn’t make it, mostly because of technical difficulties.

For example imagine the Trebuchet would be added. A unit that can transform into a different mode. People would likely hate it if it was something new.

If Chronicles was supposed to release earlier it would have still been a “gap filler” inbetween DLC made by Forgotten Empires.

I’m more hyped for Chronicles then for any other AoE2 DLC. And I really hope there will be more Chronicles in the future.
Medieval civs are nice and all but we already have 45 of them (if you count civs like Romans and Huns as Medieval). I’m never against more civilisations but I rather have some more ancient ones.

2 Likes
10

WOW this dlc is incredible!!! CANT WAIT FOR MORE of this type of DLC!

1 Like
11

I think I mostly agree, however I disagree on the distinction between the “good” and the “weird” DLCs is as you call them.
I think the first DLC already had some weird elements with instant units (flemish revolution) and the charge attacks
Dawn of the Dukes was great, no complaints there from me
but I also didn’t like the indian DLC. Shrivamsha riders don’t belong in the game, more armor ignoring attacks made lithuanians less cool, generally unfun civs imo. Also i wasn’t a fan of the campaigns

V&V isn’t just overpriced it’s also just plain bad, nowhere do the scenarios in there become as good as any of even the mediocre campaigns

12

So Archaemenids and Greeks share unit lines? No regional skins.

13

I guess it depends on what your definition of filler is. I view filler as something that was fairly obviously scrapped together quickly, in somewhat of a panic, to fill an unexpected gap (kinda like V&V).

Chronicles seems very planned and well done, with a lot of time and effort put in to it, which is why I don’t exactly view it as filler.

If you’re viewing filler as just “another product to intersperse between traditional DLC so there is new content coming more regularly” then with that definition yeah its filler, but filler in my opinion has a negative connotation that I don’t think Chronicles deserves.

Maybe i’m just overthinking the heck out of it though lol, i’ve been known to do that.

2 Likes
14

While Chronicles opens the gate for Antiquity Age, it seems to be closing the gate for further normal civs in AoE2 (either slow down or stop addition of). It means many regions will remain uncovered.

15

Why do you say that? They’ve said that the team doing Chronicles is different from the main team (Capture Age as opposed to Forgotten Empires) so base game and Chronicles content can be worked on at the same time by the two different teams.

16

This year there was no other normal civs DLC. It’s around 1.5 years since Mountain Royals.
Earlier Lords of the West and Dawn of the Dukes released with just 0.5 years gap.

17

AoE2 should stop being for psycopaths.

18

You really suck at hiding garg.

19

what does “limited time achievements and and scenarios” mean?

I meant that some scenarios and achievements from V&V are based on time (how fast you finish it).

It’s supposed to make player more aggressive in gameplay. To be honest, it’s really suck. Like the Nobunaga scenario where 90mins seems to be the maximum time you’re allowed to have fun.

20

The last Byzantine rump state fell in 1479 :point_up::nerd_face:

1 Like