The First Step Toward a Better Three Kingdoms DLC: Reworking Historical Identity Through Names
Quick Summary
The problem with the AoE2 Three Kingdoms DLC isn’t that it can’t be fun. The problem is whether the current design truly represents the weight of the Three Kingdoms as a historical theme.
The Three Kingdoms era is more than just three famous names. Players expect Wei, Shu, and Wu to represent the military traditions, cultures, and identities behind those states.
As a long-time Koei Tecmo community member with nearly 20 years of experience managing related game discussions, I understand how important this historical theme is to many players.
We want to play the Three Kingdoms, not civilizations that only use Three Kingdoms names and appearances.
A complete redesign would require time and resources. However, the first step doesn’t need to begin with balance changes or DAT modifications.
At the current stage, simply changing civilization names, technology names, hero names, and historical descriptions could already improve the experience.
This wouldn’t affect current balance, gameplay, or the existing ecosystem.
Modders can already create TXT replacement packages themselves. However, an official change has a different meaning.
A player mod changes an individual’s experience. An official change defines how the game itself presents these civilizations to everyone.
Larger discussions, such as DLC restructuring or splitting content, can come later. The important thing is to start with the simplest and least disruptive improvements first.
Renaming alone will not solve every issue with the Three Kingdoms DLC.
However, it carries symbolic value. It acknowledges that the current historical identities don’t fully match the existing gameplay, while opening the door for a more authentic Three Kingdoms redesign in the future.
Wei → Xianbei
Wei is the clearest example of the current identity problem.
The issue isn’t that a cavalry-focused civilization can’t exist. The issue is that the name and the gameplay identity don’t match.
The current design focuses on cavalry, mounted archers, and mounted combat. At the same time, it lacks parts of the armor technology line and uses unique technologies to compensate for some defensive ability.
This can work from a gameplay balance perspective.
However, under the name “Wei,” players naturally ask why.
Wei is usually associated with a centralized state, organized military forces, and large-scale administration.
The current design feels much closer to a northern cavalry civilization: strong mobility, strong mounted warfare, but a different equipment tradition.
In fact, the current design already hints at this direction. The Wei unique Cavalry Archer unit is called the Xianbei Raider, which suggests that the civilization’s gameplay identity is already influenced by Xianbei military traditions.
The problem isn’t that the current mechanics can’t work. The problem is that a civilization named Wei needs additional explanation for why it fights this way.
The problem is that a civilization named Wei needs additional explanation for why it fights this way.
If the same design were presented as Xianbei or Western Xia, it would immediately make more sense.
A northern horse-based civilization could naturally emphasize cavalry skills and mounted combat without having the same armor development as a centralized Chinese dynasty.
Technology names could also be adjusted.
For example, “Ming Guang Armor” could become something like “Mounted Combat,” representing a fighting tradition rather than a specific piece of equipment.
Likewise, “Tuntian” could be renamed to something like “Hunting and Gathering” for a nomadic civilization.
This doesn’t mean nomadic peoples lacked supply systems. They simply maintained armies through different methods.
Hero names could also be changed to figures matching this identity, such as Tuoba Gui (拓跋珪), Gao Huan (高歡), or Yuwen Tai (宇文泰).
These changes would not require DAT modification.
Shu → Dali
Shu could also be reconsidered.
Some parts of the current design, especially regional culture, religion, and support abilities, may fit Dali more naturally.
The Duan (段氏) royal family and Buddhist traditions would make support-oriented heroes and healing abilities easier to understand.
This doesn’t mean rejecting Shu. It means finding a historical identity that better matches the existing mechanics.
Wu → Liang Dynasty (Southern Liang)
Eastern Wu has a southern identity, including naval power and combined arms between different unit types.
However, the current design’s strongest features lean heavily toward cavalry, while the archer side is less complete.
This creates a gap between what players expect from Wu and what the civilization actually plays like.
The Liang Dynasty provides a more natural connection.
Although Liang was also a southern state, it had famous elite cavalry traditions, especially through Chen Qingzhi (陳慶之) and the White Robe Army.
Chen Qingzhi is remembered for highly mobile campaigns and elite cavalry operations.
Replacing the current hero with Chen Qingzhi would make the existing cavalry bonuses and movement-focused abilities much easier to understand.
Players familiar with Chinese history would recognize the connection, while others would still understand him as an elite cavalry commander.
Future True Three Kingdoms Rework
Repositioning the current civilizations doesn’t mean removing the Three Kingdoms.
Instead, it creates space for a future Three Kingdoms design that truly reflects Wei, Shu, and Wu.
The current version can still have value, but it should not limit future possibilities.
Age of Empires has already shown that existing content can be reconsidered.
AoE3 DE is an example. It originally focused on maintaining the existing game, but later received new civilizations, DLC, and major content updates.
The split of the Indian civilization into multiple civilizations also showed that existing civilization identities can be reconsidered.
The Inca rework showed that large-scale civilization redesign is possible.
Reworking content doesn’t mean the previous version had no value.
Being imperfect doesn’t mean failure, but if problems can’t be acknowledged, meaningful improvement becomes difficult.
The Three Kingdoms theme itself carries too much weight, and the current design has not fully realized its potential.
And the first step could be as simple as changing the names.