Same way Prithviraj’s campaign works.
But Prithviraj is part of the base game. You don’t have to buy a separate DLC.
2 Likes
No, but the way it works is, if you don’t have the DLC, you still get to use the civ. Same way you could potentially do it with a future Roman campaign.
That could be done. The question is if it should. That would be splitting the single player and multiplayer components of the civ in two separate DLC, which apart from being confusing to the average player, it is kind of an anticonsumer practice and a bad predecent for the future.
They could add a Romans campaign to RoR for free at the same time they add other relevant civs in a separate expansion. So it’s not part of that DLC, but RoR, but still comes at the same time as the newer expansion.
I’m thinking that maybe pairing a late antiquity DLC with the Romans, as in, you can get the Romans buying either Return of Rome or that DLC, and adding a Roman campaign in that DLC.
Maybe Nubians, Alans, Romans and a Roman campaign*. People who already own Return of Rome would get a discount.
*Queue 50 posts discussion of who would be the nest character for the campaign and why is he Majorian
2 Likes
The disrespect for my man Aetius
1 Like
It would be cool if the Roman campaign centers around someone who was also involved with Goar, the Alanic king who would be the center of their campaign.
1 Like
Mark my word next DLC is American. Because there hasn’t been any dlc named from that region yet.
1 Like
Precisely because Aetius is a more well known figure is that I would like a Majorian campaign
1 Like
Thats a fair point
Imo Aetius would have a better campaign because theres more stuff about him, and honestly, I think choosing the obvious choice is fine when its interesting. But Majorian is good too
1 Like
Not sure why you group the Siamese or Tais with Japanese, the two shared almost no similarities in culture back then, they weren’t even part of the same cultural sphere.
Ideally, the Siamese should be introduced in a DLC with other Southeast Asian civs such as Mons or Chams, whereas campaigns for Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese could be introduced in a DLC that focuses on East Asian civs (such as Jurchens, Khitans, and Tanguts).
1 Like
It’s honestly a pity Celts will just be William Wallace but at the same time what can you do? Make them the only civ with two campaigns? Or either scrap William Wallace entirely? I guess every game needs a learning campaign but maybe not anymore at this point. Just cram basics in the art of war maybe where you don’t play a specific civ but then nostalgics would lament William Wallace campaign disappearing I guess…
The mistake was to take Bari seriously when DE came out instead of making a new one. Not saying Bari is a bad campaign in itself, it just feels more of a mod.
Honestly I don’t see the issue here. Just make a late antiquity DLC which is a thing that’s never been done btw with vandals, Alans and Lombards plus respective campaigns plus the Roman campaign. You didn’t buy RoR so you can’t play Romans? Well at this point if you haven’t you won’t cause you don’t care about aoe1 so I’d say just sell Romans with the new DLC.
1 Like
While not ideal, offering the Romans as a civ in a different DLC could be a viable compromise.
But William Wallace is not really a campaign, it’s merely a tutorial. Only the last mission can really be consideres a scenario (and a very simple one).
I think a full Celt campaign is more than justified. The good thing about usung Robert the Bruce is that it would be a direct continuation of William Wallace.
I like the idea some users here had about making an anthology campaign with Majorian, Aetius and Stilicho, the Last Romans. They all share similar traits, they saved the Empire in their lifetimes but they were all betrayed and killed, dooming the Empire in the process.
I want a proper William Wallace campaign!
This will make me hate RoR even more.
And you’d be right. That whole DLC was a mess
1 Like
My hangup with Majorian is that his career got cut short by Ricimer, who arguably could feature in the Roman campaign as a counterpart to Malay’s Gajah Mada. Period hopping with late Roman generals/leaders sounds like the smart approach, though, if MS/FE wants to compromise and not give players a total downer of a campaign.
I think it’d be fitting if the very last DLC campaign revisits the Celts to bookend what ‘Ol Billy Wales kicked off in 1999. Part of me springs for Robert the Bruce immediately, but you should consider Brian Boru’s conquests in Ireland as well. That would expand the Celts away from just Scotland and cover part of the British Isles’ late early medieval period.
1 Like
Because there is nobody else. Japan is pretty isolated from everyone else, and anybody even remotely close to them is already in the game.
1 Like
If Celts get a proper campaign, either William Wallace or Robert Bruce, I think it will be on the occasion for a British isles DLC. Let’s admit, nostalgia aside, Celts is kind of a joke for a civ, inspired by Braveheart etc.
So I’d say split Celts into Picts and Scots plus split Britons into Welsh and English for that DLC. Other options for the same DLC could be Irish, Saxons and Normans, specially the first two are very missing.
With Picts in game you can keep the pagan woad raider as their UU and give them a campaign (from 300 to 900 AD circa) while redesigning current Celts to be Scots with a new UU and remake of willy.
Then add Welsh to the Edward campaign which is now an English (better would be Norman probably) campaign and add a Welsh campaign to choose between 400 and 1200. English / Normans would need another UU of course. If longshanks goes to Normans add a proper British campaign set later, like the war of the roses (basedteuton made a good one about that).
In Hastings historical battle you could FINALLY play with the correct civ meaning Normans against the correct civ meaning Saxons. Then give Saxons their campaign set before Hastings and Irish too.
Here you are, a DLC actually worth 15 bucks!