How about a new optional setting that adds hero units to all civilizations in single player skirmish and unranked multiplayer?
When the setting is enabled, each civilization can train a hero for 500 food and 500 gold in the castle. It doesn’t have to be balanced and the heroes don’t need an aura effect or anything. It would just be for fun!
There are so many cool looking heroes in the game already: Edward Longshanks (Britons), Ulrich von Jungingen (Teutons), Jadwiga (Poles) etc.
i think this is a good idea, IF they also hide the 3k heros behind this setting.
this is a way to get rid of them for most players, while letting the devs save face
I think this would be the best solution to the problem of heroes in the Three Kingdoms civs – remove their heroes completely in standard games, and add heroes for everyone as a separate option in lobbies. Also make them trainable earlier in the game (Castle Age from a castle is probably fine) so they can play a more meaningful role in the game. Seems to me like a win-win both for people who want to play with heroes and people who don’t.
Maybe some civs could have a choice of hero? Not sure how best to implement that though – would you choose before or during a game? What would the interface for it be like?
In any case, the good thing would be that Bengalis, Khitans, Koreans, and Jurchens definitely received a new (land) hero each.
And some currently available ones looking like trainable units (e.g. every Saracen and Japanese hero) would be given unique skins, I assume.
Idk why some people are opposed to this. Since it’s an option you can turn off or on, it’s like they are getting mad at other people for playing with a setting they don’t like.
I really really hate the idea of hero units in AOE2. Besides all the other reasons everyone has pointed out a million times it really ruins the vibe of the game. The timeline of a single skirmish game in Age of Empires which goes from the Dark Age to the Imperial Age is supposed to abstract the passage of hundreds of years. This is what gives the game its sense of grandeur and epic scale. The armies and units are supposed to represent generations of people whose lives spanned this time period. They are nameless and faceless. Throwing a hero unit in there confines the events in the gameto a specific time and place framed inside a much narrower historical window which is inconsistant with the game’s otherwise expansive timeline. Its just jarring. Heroes only belong in campaigns which depict specific historical events that take place over a shorter time period. The original game designers obviously understood this which is why they designed the game the way they did and kept heroes out of skirmish and multiplayer games. The current devs have completely lost touch with the game’s identity and aesthetics.
Person A says Saladin should the hero, person B says Qutuz. Person C says Charles Martel, person D says Charlemagne (I’m person D).
I suppose that could be sidestepped by having a generic ‘leader’ (chief, king, emir, etc) unit. Still, too many moving parts to this - it’ll inevitably effect the dark age and that typically snowballs into a very complicated situation.
Simple answer: Nothing is going to happen to the treb.
There is enough space for another button in the Castle. Flaming Camels were trained at the Castle before update 107882 and Tatars still had access to trebs.
I didn’t suggest adding heroes as starting units in Dark Age.
Also the Chronicles civs have 2 extra buttons in there, they just shove things around to fit.
Technically they can rename the civs and keep the campaign roughly as-is. All they have to do is use the re-name civ option in the scenario editor. Like how in the Sicilian campaign it says “Normans” instead of Sicilians until the final level.
It does not matter about mechanic civ changes, as these three are barely recognisable as the 3K anyway the research was so bad.
?
.
.
