Keep Khitans and Jurchens. Move the Three Kingdoms to Chronicles with the campaigns (as the ideas are cool but 1000BC kingdoms DO NOT FIT IN AOE2). You can replace the Wu, Wei, Shu with civs in the proper time frame OR you could add the Chinese dynasties as civs instead. Ming, Qing, Tan dynasties etc. I’m not that familiar with the Chinese history but you get the point.
I get the cash grab type of thing but at least do it properly. If you abuse this too much you might risk breaking the game, AOE2 is not a big cash cow to start with as it’s fanbase is not that big. AOE2 has had great developers and ideas but sadly they listened to some idiot with this DLC and made their first big fart since the DE release.
Sure lets screw all the people who already bought it and force them to buy something else to play something they already paid for.You can argue saying make chronicles free for 3k holders then you loose money that could be made off chronicles.
I said move the three civs to Chronicles and remake them in AOE2.
It helps to read carefully before responding. Besides, they will still have Jurchens and Khitans even if they do not remake the Three Kingdom civs.
They don’t fit chronicles either. Would you give 3k units the skins of chronicles units?
Timeframe-wise they would fit the main game more than chronicles but they still aren’t civs, just ephemeral breakaway Chinese states, so they fit neither.
The Three Kingdoms are fine for the base game period, considering they’re during the time period when Rome was invaded by the Huns and barbarians, that is, after 200 AD.
In fact, considering how the history of the Three Kingdoms goes:
While the Jin Dynasty was eventually formed in 260 AD, the north was unstable, and by 308, control of half the kingdom was lost, which was then plundered by 16 Xiongnu clans.
Many of these barbarians grew tired of plundering China, so a group traveled to Europe, ravaging any kingdoms they found in their path. After encountering the Sogdians in their way, they warned the Romans that the “Xiong Huns” were coming, although all that remained of that was the term “Huns”.
The original Caucasian Kingdoms disappeared from history, along with the Bosporus Kingdom in 376 AD. Only ruins and no records remain, as all its inhabitants were killed (everyone). The tribes that escaped from them were the ones who invaded Rome (Heruli, Franks, Burgundians, Goths, etc.).
In case anyone doubts the relationship between the Huns and the Xiongnu, genetic studies have determined that the bodies of many Huns are anatomically similar to the corpses of ethnic people from northern China, from the Xiongnu region. And in Roman evidence, many Hun traits point to Asian people, including the fact that their horses were distinct (perhaps the famous Mongolian horses).
In some ways, their stories are connected to those of the base game campaigns.
Let’s first ignore the elephant in the room that three separatist states that lasted a few decades with the same culture as Han Chinese are not civilizations at all
If you treat late 300-400AD as “after 200AD”, I could also call it “after 3000BC”.
Old Kingdom Egypt fits the game’s period perfectly
After the Achaeans sacked Troy, there was a prince called Aeneas who travelled to North Africa then Italy
Aeneas was believed to be the founding father of the Latin people in central Italy
His descendant Romulus founded the city of Rome, which later became the Roman Empire, whose collapse marked the beginning of the middle ages
Considering that the three kingdoms lasted from 195 to 266 A.D, and then the Jin (266–420) were practically a continuation of the Wei, at least one of the civ fall within the period of 300-400 AD.
On the other hand, there’s a reason I explained the Xiangnuts and their relationship with the Jin. It’s another matter if you’re just trying to contradict me based on very specific criteria and meaningless sarcasm.
Also, the Egyptians weren’t the same people from 3000 BC to 30 BC; they also went through many periods and dynasties… and yet they’re all far, far FAR AWAY from the period of the Goths, post-Constantine-I Romans, and Huns (300 AD-400 AD) that you proposed, so even your “supposed” attack of sarcasm doesn’t make sense, because contradict your own statement.
That’s a mythological story from Virgil’s Aeneid.
If you’re trying to refute my argument with the first conceit that comes to your mind (even with Mythologycal narratives), I’m going to assume you’re just trying to refute for the sake of refuting, rather than engaging in dialogue.
This is a perfect “not even wrong”
Because Wei is also practically a continuation of Han which is also practically a continuation of Qin which is also practically a continuation of Zhou, let’s add all of them and the Spring and Autumn states to the game too.
Do you know what is a good way to capture all of them?
CHINESE
Mind-blowing isn’t it? I wish they could add that civ in the next DLC.
Great. So which part of Xiongnu and Huns come from the Three Kingdoms?
You know what, the United States was only 200 years away from the Spanish Empire. So it should be in AOE2 too
Whether Huns come from Xiongnu or not their culture had become very different after centuries of migration and absorption of other steppe and Germanic peoples. They didn’t do genetic testing for themselves. And none of them had anything to do with the Three Kingdoms.
And also, your dear WE didn’t think that way. They simply said “Three Kingdoms are technically advanced so they are medieval”. You are making them look silly.
Exactly.
Like I said the same to your other WE fanclub members ruling the other subforum: if you have historical and/or industry insights and all you did was use them to tell everyone “everything WE said was right”, then I consider it a waste and insult to your insight.
This place is not like your little kingdom, mind you.
The Xiongnu Empire was decisively defeated by the Western Han in the first century BC then fully dissolved in the first century AD. During which it split:
One part migrated westwards and loosely became Huns, absorbing a lot of other peoples on the way
The other part remained and gradually entered with the Chinese sphere as vassals and mercenaries. These are the people who later plundered the Jin dynasty
That split happened more than 300 years before the Huns emerged or the “Southern Xiongnu” people plundered the Jin dynasty. The latter didn’t magically teleport to the west at the same time.
Whatever happened with the Three Kingdoms had nothing to do with the “Huns” whose Xiongnu elements, if any, had left China 300 years ago.
So it is Huns - Xiongnu migrators - Xiongnu Empire - Southern Xiongnu - Jin - Wei - Three Kingdoms
The number of hops here is so large I could easily connect Old Kingdom Egypt to the United States with them.
At the end of the Three Kingdoms period, the dynasty that won was Wei, under the rule of the Sima Clan, but to show that it was starting a new beginning to the people, they changed the name of the dynasty to Jin. In
terms of the military and economy, it was practically the Wei dynasty.
On the other hand, my point was about the game’s representation, where the representation of military armies and bonuses is very important.
Llike other civs, the Wei is the one I assume will be used for campaign representations and custom scenarios as the Jin.
Similar to Franks for many french periods (Franks nomads, Charlomagne kingdom, 100 years wars, etc) in the campaigns.
This isn’t the same with the Zhou or Qin, which, practically due to their historical distance and ideologically diferences in governments, would had other unique units or bonuses than Han, and are technologically too old (Zhou: 1046 - 256 BC; Qin: 221–206 BC) to be included in the base game, wich didn´t happens with 3K.
Now, I tried to be constructive, but let’s go to the real reason why you criticize my arguments:
What’s your point? Discrediting the fact that these civs (3K) are within the game’s time period of other civs of the game, as romans, goths and huns?
Because what you write doesn’t discredit what I’m saying. Rhetoric without logic is pure hot air, and if it’s used to slander, it’s an unforgivable offense.
I said it from the beginning. It’s another thing if you don’t read what I write and are just looking to discredit me in the most vulgar and anti-intellectual way possible.
I never said the Huns are the same as Xiangnu, but if they are derived from them, then you can connect stories. I was talking about it at the narrative level of campaign development, like in Chronicles DLC, or those campaigns with heroes wich interconect with another stories.
But you’re being unusually offensive without showing a rational reason that has to do with the topic at hand.
I say again, you’re trying to use rhetorical devices to discredit me instead of seeking dialogue.
What’s your point? Discrediting the fact that these civs are within the game’s time period of other civs of the game, as romans, goths and huns?
Because what you write doesn’t discredit what I’m saying. Rhetoric without logic is pure hot air, and if it’s used to slander, it’s an unforgivable offense.
Errata: I should have written Xianbei, but in some writings they are referred to as the same thing.
There are many theories about the Xiongnu (or Xianbei) becoming the Huns.
One, the one I belief, is that they derive from the “Xianbei” tribes who at some point grew tired of raiding the civilized kingdoms of China, whether they were the Han, during or after the Three Kingdoms period, and migrated to Europe, becoming somewhat Turkified along the way.
Others say the Xiangnu diversified earlier (300, 400, 1000 years? many subtheories), turkified, and that they were in the Russian Steppes, sort of “hibernating” without doing anything at all for 500 years or more, and then out of nowhere in 350 AD or near, decided to invade Europe.
I’m sticking with the first one, since by the second, they would have become so Turkified that they’d hardly retain the Asian features attributed to them. Unless you have more clues that might suggest otherwise, but not being an offensive jerk.
An about this statement:
My theory was that the Huns were derived from the Xianbei, with less than 100 years between their attack on the Jin Dynasty (near 310 AD) and their attacks on Europe around 350 AD. The Bosporan Kingdom was confirmed to have been destroyed in 376 AD, and others in the Caucasus before that.
And in that theory, which is the one you criticize, there’s about a 50-year difference.
And what you propose goes from 3000 BC (Egyptian) to 1776 AD (USA)? 4,776 years of difference.
I say again: You’re trying to use rhetorical devices to discredit me instead of seeking dialogue.
What’s your point? Discrediting the fact that these civs are within the game’s time period of other civs, such as Romans, Goths, and Huns?
Because what you write doesn’t discredit what I’m saying. Rhetoric without logic is pure hot air, and if it’s used to slander, it’s an unforgivable offense.
Assuming that every opinion from one side contrary to your belief is bad or biased, is called the straw man fallacy.
I’m not part of any fan club, I just gave my opinion. If you disagree with WE or me, you can argue with facts, not labels, and some are quite offensive or even conspiracy-theoretic ("WE Club fan members that rule subforum? hahaha)
My comment was in favor of the expansion because I think it’s well-founded. If you have arguments against it, don’t let them be a pure amalgam of hate and derogatory rhetoric.
The truth is, it contributes nothing and only shows that you’re just trying to annoy people because of some trauma you had with some expansions, in this case i suppose the 3K dlc.
On the other hand, thanks for the concern for my “insight,” but I prefer to use it to freely express my opinion, not to fit in with what you think is valid.
Wei didn’t win the Three Kingdoms. It was overtaken by Jin before Wu was defeated. Sorry.
Wei was always ruled by the Cao Clan. The Sima clan had the de facto power later, yes, but then your logic can be directly applied to Han:
At the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty, the dynasty was under the rule of the Cao Clan (by your definition) which later became Wei
So: Han dynasty fit into the game
Read what I wrote. As you said yourself.
There is evidence that Xiongnu become Huns: yes
That means the Huns have any, even narrative relation to Jin or Wei: NO
Despite the continuation of names, that split happened long before the Three Kingdoms. You cannot say Cumans are related to Ottomans because they are both “Turkic”.
First of all, most would agree these are already marginally, MARGINALLY, out of the scope
Second, all of them overlapped with the middle ages. Three Kingdoms did not
Finally, all of them are distinct cultures. All the three kingdoms were Chinese. And Chinese happened to be in the game.
And 3K lasted a few decades, too short to become their own “civilization”.
Yet almost all their in-game UUs are either ethnic non-Han or pure invention, while their culture should have been dominantly Han. That tells a lot: they couldn’t even make good UUs for them after all the mental gymnastics.
You invented that two hours ago? Like how WE suddenly discovered the Three Kingdoms was actually medieval in 2025 AD?
It took the Oghuz Turks 200-300 years to do a similar migration. How come the Xianbei did it in 50 years?
The history of Xianbei was very well-documented. The majority founded some Northern Dynasties which later assimilated into the Han Chinese culture. There was no mass westwards migration. If there was any, they would be too small to be noticeable.
The DLC would not sit at well below 50% positive on steam if it REALLY was a Chronicles DLC or campaign only. Not slapped with a “medieval” label then slapped onto everyone’s face.
And guess what: it didn’t even cover the “real” 3K. All of it was “late Eastern Han”. The Liu faction became “Shu” because they entered the Shu region, later than the campaign.
Because you WE bootlickers always do more mental gymnastics than your dear WE ever dared to justify their own nonsense (those they are too afraid to confront by themselves). And most of the arguments are blatantly post hoc.
You are actually making them embarrassed.
Like WE spat on the street and tried to escape the spot while you guys yelled to everyone “Hey look how geometrically beautiful the spit looks!”
This is a company who doubled down on Thirisadai and never corrected themselves. FYI. You don’t need to come and teach us “Chola was a maritime power”. We know that. But Thirisadai is still a pure hoax. Period.
Another idea that I have is the Chinese and the 3K are remade into the Chinese dynasties of the medieval period - Ming, Qing, Tang and whatever else was there (I’m not a specialist on Chinese history). What do you think about this?
Perfect option is that they would add Chinese offshoot civilizations that lived in parallel with medieval China, but I can’t think of any. There is also the possibility of adding Tibetans, but that’s out of the question because that would result in banning the game in China.
Regarding game design and development there is one mastermind that is still around and should be consulted about his opinion - Sandy Petersen. He has his Youtube channel, does podcasts and I’m sure he will gladly accept any consultation with the current devs, matter of fact he said he WANTS to talk over things with them but they don’t contact him. Whenever we have ideas about new stuff we must always consider the foundations he placed on the game and build upon these and not implement our own stuff, because that would result in abominations similar or possibly much worse than the last expansion. (Abomination in the idea, the execution of the civs is fine, but the idea of placing civilizations outside the time frame which were not civilizations by themselves is very bad IMO).
A thing I have noticed in the forums is that these historical theory crafting posts quickly devolve into futile historical bickering. A rule of thumb to follow is KEEP IT SIMPLE. Which means - follow simple guidelines of game design, which Sandy Petersen pointed out Ensemble studios had at the time - the civilziations must be time relevant, they MUST be “cool” (Vikings, Mongols, Huns are cool, Toltecs, Inuits, Wei are NOT cool and interesting) and so on and so forth. When we start arguing about tiny small historical details the conversation is derailed because in the end of the day a game will NEVER EVER be totally historically accurate, we HAVE to add fictional and artistic stuff in, question is to what extent that must be done.
First of all this is not true. The Huns first show up in the 4th century, not in 200 AD. They don’t become a major power until about 400 AD.
secondly the game’s time period is the middle ages (admittedly that’s a european concept). it’s set after Rome’s fall. Romans shouldn’t be in the game either. Huns I can somehow understand as they are in a sense what started the Fall of Rome. Goths are perfectly fine, as the Gothic kingdoms were among the first successor kingdoms to Rome.
this is largely conjecture. What history agrees upon is that the Huns originated somewhere in central Asia, however by the time the Huns invaded the Roman empire they were a racially mixed group. the connection to the Xiongnu is one hypothesis, there is no scientific consensus on this.
you might as well include a campaign about the epic of Gilgamesh, that’s also connected to the base game campaigns. Fact is that the 3K campaigns are largely fiction and outside of the game’s time frame.
Worse: ever since WE dumped the “Three Kingdoms are very medieval” bs, their diehard defenders turned to inventing historical details retrospectively, not arguing about them.
And considering all of 3K’s unique units are either from other cultures or very fictional/generic, they likely scrapped what would have been cool and interesting and stitched them into what they believed as a quick cashgrab.
I find it very hard to believe anyone from WE could come up with “3K” in a “what shall we do for a Chinese-themed DLC for AOE2?” board meeting and had it greenlit all the way to the release. Because there are so many good subjects that fit the timeline very well and anyone who googled for five minutes would find them (this is a team who dug ”Thirisadai” from wikipedia and wikipedia is already abundant enough for resources about “medieval China”). Omission is commission.
More likely the topic was “what can we do with minimal efforts to get some quick sales in China?”