Some facts:
Franks and Goths formed their coalition around the beginning of the 3rd century.
Late Romans usually are assumed to start between 286 and 313.
Persians (Sassanids) start in 220 circa.
Byzantines start in 286 or 324 circa.
Celts (in this case Picts) start around 300.
Malians (Ghana) starts around 300.
Huns come later, towards 350.
By this logic the Chinese were there since 2000BC so the game starts at 2000BC.
I think the overall theme and assets of the game represent the history from 400s to 1500s. That’s pretty obvious.
Not my logic, it’s not a controversial stance to say that with the fall of Han medieval China started. You can postpone it later to Jin (266 I think) or with the southern or northern dynasties or just wait till Sui and Tang.
Then if you ask me I’m not am enthusiast of the 3 kingdoms partially because it feels pointless but more because they’re not really civs, they’re just Han Chinese and mostly because they are too gimmicky.
I just think the timeframe argument is the weakest one overall.
We cant have diferent timelines for diferent part of the world. If it was my choice I would choose the fall of the Jin as the start point for China or the 5 barbarians
But you rather accuse the others of being dishnoest than accepting that the game cannot be that nebulous
I think “medieval Chinese” (which is a concept people rarely use) should start with no earlier than Tang.
The three kingdoms was still a continuation of Han. Even the Jin was. But the Northern and Southern dynasties had such a drastic impact that at the beginning of Sui (short-lived) or Tang, the culture had evolved a lot already.
Like how early medieval petite kingdoms overhauled the Roman system almost entirely, even though a small part of the culture and social structures were still preserved.
I agree with you. An Age of Empires game is about enriching medieval setting by adding cultures, not individual kingdoms.
The Hunnic Empire fell before Rome. Even Sandy Petersen indirectly acknowledged this.
The reason for adding the Huns was because they’re popular, mysterious, and interesting from the perspective of the average person.
I said @Szaladon is dishonest because he took the occasion to bash on Romans for something that doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Adding 3 kingdoms is not the same as adding Romans and if you think that you’re just dishonest.
I’m sure you see what I mean.
That said I’m not a fan of having 3 kingdoms either, your proposal to start with Jin so just after the 3 kingdoms around the end of the 3rd century was good enough to me.
To me the problem is more that mechanically wise the 3 kingdoms don’t feel like they pertain to aoe2 and again they’re not cultures (although maybe someone more expert than me could find a way to justify that and I’d be ok with it).
That’s good enough for me. I wouldn’t be against just stretching it a bit with the northern and southern dynasties or even jin without going far back to the 3 kingdoms. I just think Tang is a bit too late to start, you just lose all the migration period aspect.
Looks at Bohemians and Sicilians…
Note that I am more fan of those two than the Chinese ones (kind of weird of me to admit that), but tiny kingdoms isn’t exactly something new to the latest DLC additions.
Heroes though feel completely out of place in Ranked AOE2 matches. They kind of destroy the intemporal aspect of a civ and reduce it to a very tiny time frame. Not that the 3 Kingdom civs themselves don’t already have a limited scope in time.
Their peak is closer to the actual time frame than Rome ever was. Rome is as cringe as of an addition than the 3 Kingdom civs we’re getting right now. I’m not a fan of either.
Reminds me of the Aztecs and Mexicans being in AOE3 haha.
I think it’s a great addition and brings fresh ideas to aoe2 de
I have wanted an Age game to start back much farther in time before, like Neanderthals or something. Whatever would work from a somewhat believable standpoint. I think it could be quite cool
How about an Amoeba vs. Paramecium DLC? 
Another baffling thing to me is why would you prioritize questionable choices when there are a lot of low hanging fruits that anyone will think of. The latter choices will easily make everyone happy. It has been like this for a while though, and now it’s getting worse.
Three kingdoms when there’s Tangut.
Malta when there’s Poland.
Order of the Dragon when there are Teutonic Order, Hungary, Bohemia, Wallachia…and basically 20 good civ choices out there.
Why do you deliberately choose to seek trouble?
new (or “fresh”) =/ good
To be fair, I didn’t know the DLC launched today, so my earlier post wasn’t any direct relation to that. I will check out the DLC on YouTube, etc. and see how it looks, unless I also buy it and try it. Generally speaking, I’m still mostly okay with Frankenstein AoE2:DE as I alluded to before, especially since there is a Chronicles section that the oddball stuff can be listed under.
I’m ready to add AoE3 civs /s.
These are more akin to AoEIVs variants than AoE3DE civs lol.
He even admitted in some interview that originally they had Magyars in mind for what eventually became Huns; mostly due to the latter being more commonly known for the American audience, which may never had heard about Magyars before.
Confirmed. And also I remember you that the Burgundians and Sicilians were changed really a lot after the launch controversy.