Which civs would you like to be portrayed in their own new campaigns?
I understand that there are plenty of topics/reddit posts regarding new campaigns - for civilisations that do not yet have their own centered campaigns. However, given the fact that, after all these years, we only got about third of such campaigns (Alaric - Goths, Bari - Byzantines, Edward Longshanks - Britons, and Algirdas & Kestutis - Lithuanians), i believe that posts/threads like this still need to be created.
Let’s start with the negatives - why this kind of “campaign packs” should not be implemented:
Money - plenty of players will refuse to buy simple “campaign packs” that do not add anything to the game, except for a few campaigns. Bear in mind though, that this is nowhere near the EA level and “The Sims 4” that would require you to pay above 1000 (!!!) USD to get everything the game offers. Let’s say that 1 campaign pack would consist of 3 campaigns, so we could get 3 campaign packs in total (1 having 4 campaigns)
…And that’s about it. Now positives:
Continued support for tournaments and updates/fixes - developers need to be paid, and this kind of DLCs would help maintain the game
Appreciation of single-player players. More than half of all AOE2 players are actually those who play mostly single-player. Only a fraction of them would be on the forums, so that’s why this topic is not mentioned even more regularly - but all of us (yes, i have been, given my work schedule, also a “campaign only player” for a few years now) coved new campaigns that would let us control some of the more “obscure” civilisations.
Multi-player players would not miss out on anything. That’s right - if you’re only interested in multi-player, then you won’t need to buy these packs at all, and you won’t miss out on any civs.
With this being said, let’s (once again) discuss the possibilities. Here are some ideas for campaigns:
Chinese - Plenty of events and phenomenal characters deserving their own campaigns. As thisishardcore_ mentioned on reddit, Taizong might be a great choice.
Japanese - We already have Tokugawa covered in Aoe3, Genpei war in “Kurikara”, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi in “Kyoto”. However, there are still exceptional commanders, like Takeda Shingen, Uesugi Kenshin - or Oda ######## himself, that could be covered. Maybe a campaign narrated by Hideyoshi himself, that would focus on Oda ########## during the Sengoku Jidai, with the final scenario being centered on Toyotomi Hideyoshi and would portray the Japanese invasion of Korea → which would also let us fight against Koreans.
Koreans - Kaesong is a scenario that was supposed to be included in Korean campaign, but was ultimately removed. What better choice could there be, than to finish the planned Korean campaign, and “rejuvenate” this scenario?
Magyars - Magyars do NOT have their own campaign, they are only present in 2 scenarios in Vlad Dracul (just like Slavs) campaign. Stephen I, as thisishardcore_ suggested, would be a great and classic choice.
Mayans - yes, we already have Tikal-Kalakmul wars covered, but something could definitely be made. thisishardcore_ suggested Hunac Ceel, and that’s probably the best one we can get. We got Pachacuti, so why not Hunac?
Persians - Khosrow II - the last Sassanid king of Persia. Died in a war against Byzantines - this might be some kind of a “tragedy” campaign portraying his struggle, death, and subsequent civil war and downfall of Sassanid empire.
Slavs - we do have “Rise of Muscowy” portrayed in AoE4, but there is still a hero unit - “Alexander Nevski” - that could be not only used in this campaign, but also considered a central figure. Or maybe Vladimir the Great could be a great choice, too!
Turks - Mehmed 2 - the conquereror who finished off the Byznatine Empire…what better choice could be there? Maybe Suleiman the magnificent, but I think that Mehmed 2 would fit AoE2 perfectly!
Vikings - well, this is a bit tricky one, Greenland and America are portrayed in “Vinlandsaga”, whereas Viking raids of British isles are the subject of “York” scenario, which can be as long as an entire campaign. Flóki Vilgerðarson could be considered - as the first person who intentionally sailed to Iceland - or maybe even Ragnar Lothbrok (which would greatly interlude with York, just like Tariq campaign interludes with Tours).
Romans and Celts. The trickiest for the last. I don’t expect anyone seriously considering “William Wallace” as a proper showcase of Celts. No - it’s not. Maybe 1 or 2 scenarios could be considered fine, but they are so ridiculously easy that…well…you don’t even enjoy them. We could have a 6 scenario campaign centered on: Ambrosius Aurelian(us) or even “King Arthur” (yes, we push it a little too far in here).
Maybe this campaign could be inspired by “King Arthur” movie from 2003 (just like El Cid is inspired by 1961 movie - El Cid), and make a first few scenarios (let’s say 4) played by Romans, and then the last 2 as Celts, to fend off the Saxon invasion of Britannia. We have plenty of Arthurian characters - King Arthur, Lancelot, Gawain, Tristan and even Mordred as “hero units”, that could be potentionally used in this campaign…or not, since they are way too “fictional”.
Alternatively, we could get a campaign centered on Majorian for the Romans, and Battle Of Bannockburn added to William Wallace campaign.
I don’t mind paying 10 bucks for a pack of 3. But 5 bucks might be a viable choice for everyone, and i bet everything that Lord Basse, HockeySam18, Bassi, Freeman1302, Filthydelphia would be delighted to have new campaigns to work at
I would probably pay that as well, however I can see that being too high, as 10$ used to give you 2 civs and 3 campaigns, or even more back in the HD days. I would probably price a pack of 3 campaigns at 3.99$
For me, I would buy a Campaign DLC ( 3 Campinas) for the same price ( 10,-€)as the other DLC ( 2 civ 3 Campinas). Because in a DLC only the campaigns have playable value for me. New civss are nice and i like how creative the devs are, but in the end, news civs I will only play them one or two times in skirmish, that’s it. With Campinas came fun and playtime.
The best would be a Campaign only DLC with 5 Campinas for 10,-€
I think what matters is the principe that we should get the campaigns - regardless of which character/family/city/approach is chosen. Sure, why not Robert the Bruce. However, the reason i did not suggest it, is that we already have William Wallace, which follows more or less the same narrative. Furthermore, Celts have their own complete campaign, so getting a new one might be a little weird/tricky, hence why i offered a late Britannia centered campaign played as Romans at first, and finished as Celts…or to add Battle of Bannockburn (which is basically “Robert the Bruce”) to William Wallace.
But i would not mind AT ALL to have Rubert the Bruce campaign, and I’m sure noone would either;)
I agree with your reasoning and suggestion. I support your idea wholeheartedly.
Taizong of Tang is indeed a great choice, since he was at war with different nations, not just civil wars in China. Tang Dynasty has many great rulers and generals, so you can choose from many.
For Japanese I prefer Mongol invasions of Japan since it also included, Koreans, Jurchens and Chinese. I dislike mirror match-ups especially in campaigns.
There are many custom campaigns in the game for Koreans. I think there are many stories to choose from. As a Hungarian I firmly believe Nagy Lajos and Matthias Corvinus are the best candidates. I also like Khosrow I for Persians. Harald Hardraada would be epic for Vikings. Robert the Bruce is a decent candidate for Celts. Romans I am not familiar with.
Bari doesn’t show Byzantine history well. Spanish designed based on the 15th and 16th centuries. Montezuma is almost like fiction even though he led many wars against neighboring kingdoms. I think these civs need a second campaign the most.
I am also always willing to pay money for new campaigns. It does not have to be a new DLC, but a simple “Campaign package update”, would fit also very well. The campaigns can be offered in a package, as the theme creator says. 3 campaigns for 1 package and so on. Thumbs up for this topic , what hitting to the core the grievous failings of the game. And I hope, something will come of it in the future.
Flavius Maiorianius as an later Western Roman Emperor would certainly be a good choice to introduce him as a Hero with a new campaign.
But I could also well imagine a campaign with the first Western roman emperor Gaius “Diokletian”, who was emperor from 284 to 305 AD. Under him there was numerous reforms and it was also important to secure the empire. Through the leadership of Diocletian, Rome overcame finally the imperial crisis of the 3rd century.
I like this idea: Celts are a silly fantasy civ, and if they have a campaign, it should be a silly fantasy one. King Arthur famously painted himself with woad and used his furious siege weapons to fight off the invading Saxons from his stronghold on Solsbury Hill – just ask Gildas.
I’ll raise you starting as Romans and slowly add stuff from the Celt tech tree.
I’ve read plenty of times that Bari is not a good Byzantine campaign. I would argue for a Belisarius/Justinian/ N
campaign or Heraclius or Alexios I. Be brave and you can even have a Constantine XI campaign
I know that the original Age of Kings started with the End of Rome as an Age of Empires 2 game and brought into play civilizations that came after.
But since Microsoft recently added the Romans (West Romans), the campaign period from the founding of the new empire means, that 293 AD fits in well. I mean, in AD 476 the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist with the deposition of Emperor Augustulus, almost 200 years is appropriate for a campaign period.
Atm the earliest campain start date is 395, which incidentally correspond with the last and definitive split between Eastern and Western Rome. I think we can keep it as a good starting point, though I agree if it was extended further the Crisis of the Third Century would be the ultimate limit.
That’s like AoE1 campaigns time periods. MOST of AoE2 campaigns follow one or two characters
With that argument, you could argue that since 1997 the earliest campaign date available is the start of the Sassanian Empire. I believe that that’s too early, though, and that we shouldn’t go earlier than the Battle of the Frigidus
I want to be edgy and make it one of the Sassanid wars of the Fifth century
Now that the developers are bringing the Western Romans into Age of Empires 2, it is Age of Empires 2 time age… Basically it was it also before that, since Age of Empires 2 covers all of Antiquity, which corresponds to the Dark Ages.
So the Yamato campaign of the Japanese in Age of Empires 1 is settled at the time of Age of Empires 2 in ancient times, which is incorrect. You can complain there.