A lot of effort seems to have gone into the development of the Three Kingdoms "civs", and they look very well designed and fun to use, but do not fit in ranked play. Heroes don't fit AoE2's identity and, while not full on MOBA, it's a terrifying sight to this game's future. The lack of campaigns for most of the civilizations the playerbase had in mind (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and the new medieval sinosphere civs) is also unthinkable considering how long they were requested, with the only taste of the revamped chinese being a V&V scenario. And I repeat, a scenario, locked behind a unpopular DLC. It seems very strange that the team behind the new monks, castles, skins for unique units and balance changes is also the same team that brought this out of touch DLC. Disapointment is the word that can describe this whole stituation.

Originally posted by onibaku22:

A lot of effort seems to have gone into the development of the Three Kingdoms "civs", and they look very well designed and fun to use, but do not fit in ranked play. Heroes don't fit AoE2's identity and, while not full on MOBA, it's a terrifying sight to this game's future. The lack of campaigns for most of the civilizations the playerbase had in mind (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and the new medieval sinosphere civs) is also unthinkable considering how long they were requested, with the only taste of the revamped chinese being a V&V scenario. And I repeat, a scenario, locked behind a unpopular DLC. It seems very strange that the team behind the new monks, castles, skins for unique units and balance changes is also the same team that brought this out of touch DLC. Disapointment is the word that can describe this whole stituation.

Fun fact: There are LOTS of RTS games that have hero units. Hero units doesn't mean "MOBA"

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

Originally posted by onibaku22:

A lot of effort seems to have gone into the development of the Three Kingdoms "civs", and they look very well designed and fun to use, but do not fit in ranked play. Heroes don't fit AoE2's identity and, while not full on MOBA, it's a terrifying sight to this game's future. The lack of campaigns for most of the civilizations the playerbase had in mind (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and the new medieval sinosphere civs) is also unthinkable considering how long they were requested, with the only taste of the revamped chinese being a V&V scenario. And I repeat, a scenario, locked behind a unpopular DLC. It seems very strange that the team behind the new monks, castles, skins for unique units and balance changes is also the same team that brought this out of touch DLC. Disapointment is the word that can describe this whole stituation.

Fun fact: There are LOTS of RTS games that have hero units. Hero units doesn't mean "MOBA"

that and if we wanted MOBA in AoE. we'd have to use the workshop for the scripts and all'a that, otherwise in match games, we're not likely to get any hero units except the King

The Liao and Jurchen Jin dynasties were sorely needed, and I love the new regional units! It's cool to have the three kingdoms too, but that timeframe is really pushing it.

Sure, there's precedent with Huns, Goths, Romans, Celts, etc., but take the Dongwu, for example: the commandery was set up in the 100s and gradually became independent before Sun Quan's line declared sovereignty. But after 280 CE there was no more Dongwu. The Palmyrans in AOE 1 had a far shorter claim to fame as a world power, but at least they slotted in with the AOE1 timeline during the third century crisis (Yamato's the only AOE1 civ I can think of which really didn't exist until the middle ages).

Rome falls in 476. by then Dongwu had long been conquered by the new Jin (and everything that happened after). It's just hard to swallow this as an AOE2 civ when they would actually rise and fall before AOE1 comes to a close.

Other than the weird timeframe and the done-to-death "heroes" thing (really hope this gets walked back somehow for multiplayer), everything else about this looks pretty good. Definitely better than V&V and far more relevant than the (should've been RoR support) Greece diversion.

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

Mayans have 0 interaction with any other civs. Mayans are about 500 years before Aztecs and never meet the Spanish or any Europeans. So why do the Mayans get a free pass and the 3K don't? It's called hypocrisy.

Are you blind or just new here? Almost every typical DLC for years now, we've gotten two or so new Civs to play in multiplayer and a few campaigns to go along with them. Most of them have done just fine with criticisms mostly coming down to historical accuracy of the campaigns or MULTIPLAYER balance.
Then we have Return of Rome with 1,724 reviews yet only managing 48% positive. What were the main criticisms? Oh that's right, the con of trying to sell AOE1 for the 3 or 4th time, while also leaving Romans OUT OF MULTIPLAYER. What were people demanding in droves? "We want Romans in Ranked". I wonder if you were one of the people protesting "But they're in the wrong time frame" back then too. They weren't but lame excuses die hard.
With Victors & Vanquished.. we had an ENTIRE DLC dedicated to JUST singleplayer scenarios. It's currently sitting at 31% positive reviews from 1,260. Does that sound like a major success to you? Nuff said.
But what about Chronicles? That had multiplayer and did much better at 88% positive reviews... yes... but there's only 838 of them. That shows 422 bought and left a review on V&V, a DLC they hated, but didn't buy Chronicles, a DLC that was 88% positive. Factor in that only 10% of purchasers tend to leave reviews at all, and that 422 turns into over 4,000 sales that never happened. But Chronicles has multiplayer, right? Yes but nothing that adds to Ranked.

Now lets look at a random DLC... Dawn of the Dukes. 83% positive, only 572 reviews though. But clearly this was good enough for AOE2 since they've been pumping these things out for years now, 25 years to be exact.
In fact, The Forgotten, 78% positive from 1,042 reviews.
African Kingdoms, 80% positive from 579.
Rise of the Rajas, 86% positive from 405.
Dynasties of India, 79% positive from 358.
Lords of the West, 78% positive from 628.
The only outlier is Mountain Royals with 65% positive and reading the reviews, "Overpriced and Georgians are straight up Pay to win", "AI for campaigns is so broken", "4/6 of the campaign boils down to 'destroy enemy TC and castles'".
What does this sound like to you?
Sounds like AOE2 had the winning formula, for a LOOOOOOOONG time, and it's only in the last 2 years with all these wacky and funky DLCs that the reviews have been mixed or even negative. It sounds like you want to sell a good DLC, it comes down to how much is added to Ranked multiplayer, with some concerns of singleplayer campaign on the side, but then again, we have workshop scenarios for FREE so it really is just the Ranked multiplayer at the end of the day.

Next time you say "You are claiming a lot of things I have a hard time believing that you have actual data on." you might want to check and see if there IS data, save you from looking stupid when proven wrong.
What's worse, for you, I haven't even had my morning coffee yet so I'm only 10% awake and yet I could still deduce all these facts from simply looking at some Steam pages. Try putting in some effort instead of bandwagoning whatever people say on Reddit to keep your Karma up..

Number 1, Aztecs became extinct long before Maya even though Maya is older than Aztecs who most likely had contact with the Spanish eventually at some point because the Spanish colonized Mexico in addition to all of Central America, number 2 I personally like Chronicles: Battle for Greece a lot more than RoR and V&V, number 3 I like V&V at least somewhat where I do not necessarily hate this dlc but it is a tie for me personally with my least favorite dlc for RoR (5.5 out of 10 from my Steam review and would just barely recommend it) and V&V (would probably give it only a 5.5 Steam review similar to RoR even with the Chinese being added and other changes made from an update), and number 4 which is my final point I am not expecting 3 kingdoms to be one of the best dlc in the entire game but I am expecting it to be better than V&V and RoR.

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

Mayans have 0 interaction with any other civs. Mayans are about 500 years before Aztecs and never meet the Spanish or any Europeans. So why do the Mayans get a free pass and the 3K don't? It's called hypocrisy.

Are you blind or just new here? Almost every typical DLC for years now, we've gotten two or so new Civs to play in multiplayer and a few campaigns to go along with them. Most of them have done just fine with criticisms mostly coming down to historical accuracy of the campaigns or MULTIPLAYER balance.
Then we have Return of Rome with 1,724 reviews yet only managing 48% positive. What were the main criticisms? Oh that's right, the con of trying to sell AOE1 for the 3 or 4th time, while also leaving Romans OUT OF MULTIPLAYER. What were people demanding in droves? "We want Romans in Ranked". I wonder if you were one of the people protesting "But they're in the wrong time frame" back then too. They weren't but lame excuses die hard.
With Victors & Vanquished.. we had an ENTIRE DLC dedicated to JUST singleplayer scenarios. It's currently sitting at 31% positive reviews from 1,260. Does that sound like a major success to you? Nuff said.
But what about Chronicles? That had multiplayer and did much better at 88% positive reviews... yes... but there's only 838 of them. That shows 422 bought and left a review on V&V, a DLC they hated, but didn't buy Chronicles, a DLC that was 88% positive. Factor in that only 10% of purchasers tend to leave reviews at all, and that 422 turns into over 4,000 sales that never happened. But Chronicles has multiplayer, right? Yes but nothing that adds to Ranked.

Now lets look at a random DLC... Dawn of the Dukes. 83% positive, only 572 reviews though. But clearly this was good enough for AOE2 since they've been pumping these things out for years now, 25 years to be exact.
In fact, The Forgotten, 78% positive from 1,042 reviews.
African Kingdoms, 80% positive from 579.
Rise of the Rajas, 86% positive from 405.
Dynasties of India, 79% positive from 358.
Lords of the West, 78% positive from 628.
The only outlier is Mountain Royals with 65% positive and reading the reviews, "Overpriced and Georgians are straight up Pay to win", "AI for campaigns is so broken", "4/6 of the campaign boils down to 'destroy enemy TC and castles'".
What does this sound like to you?
Sounds like AOE2 had the winning formula, for a LOOOOOOOONG time, and it's only in the last 2 years with all these wacky and funky DLCs that the reviews have been mixed or even negative. It sounds like you want to sell a good DLC, it comes down to how much is added to Ranked multiplayer, with some concerns of singleplayer campaign on the side, but then again, we have workshop scenarios for FREE so it really is just the Ranked multiplayer at the end of the day.

Next time you say "You are claiming a lot of things I have a hard time believing that you have actual data on." you might want to check and see if there IS data, save you from looking stupid when proven wrong.
What's worse, for you, I haven't even had my morning coffee yet so I'm only 10% awake and yet I could still deduce all these facts from simply looking at some Steam pages. Try putting in some effort instead of bandwagoning whatever people say on Reddit to keep your Karma up..

Number 1, Aztecs became extinct long before Maya even though Maya is older than Aztecs who most likely had contact with the Spanish eventually at some point because the Spanish colonized Mexico in addition to all of Central America, number 2 I personally like Chronicles: Battle for Greece a lot more than RoR and V&V, number 3 I like V&V at least somewhat where I do not necessarily hate this dlc but it is a tie for me personally with my least favorite dlc for RoR (5.5 out of 10 from my Steam review and would just barely recommend it) and V&V (would probably give it only a 5.5 Steam review similar to RoR even with the Chinese being added and other changes made from an update), and number 4 which is my final point I am not expecting 3 kingdoms to be one of the best dlc in the entire game but I am expecting it to be better than V&V and RoR.

The Mayan Empire was 250AD to 900AD.
The Aztec Empire was 1325AD to 1521AD.
The first Spanish to land in North America was 1492, that's 592 years after the Mayan Empire fell. The Spanish Aztec war lasted 2 years, starting 1519 and ending August 13th 1521.
In short, not a single Mayan existed during the time the Spanish landed in North America and were separated from the Aztecs but several hundred years. If you DO think the Mayans existed, it probably comes from a widely discredited source since the cause of the collapse of the Mayan Empire isn't 100% confirmed

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

Originally posted by James3157:

Number 1, Aztecs became extinct long before Maya even though Maya is older than Aztecs who most likely had contact with the Spanish eventually at some point because the Spanish colonized Mexico in addition to all of Central America, number 2 I personally like Chronicles: Battle for Greece a lot more than RoR and V&V, number 3 I like V&V at least somewhat where I do not necessarily hate this dlc but it is a tie for me personally with my least favorite dlc for RoR (5.5 out of 10 from my Steam review and would just barely recommend it) and V&V (would probably give it only a 5.5 Steam review similar to RoR even with the Chinese being added and other changes made from an update), and number 4 which is my final point I am not expecting 3 kingdoms to be one of the best dlc in the entire game but I am expecting it to be better than V&V and RoR.

The Mayan Empire was 250AD to 900AD.
The Aztec Empire was 1325AD to 1521AD.
The first Spanish to land in North America was 1492, that's 592 years after the Mayan Empire fell. The Spanish Aztec war lasted 2 years, starting 1519 and ending August 13th 1521.
In short, not a single Mayan existed during the time the Spanish landed in North America and were separated from the Aztecs but several hundred years. If you DO think the Mayans existed, it probably comes from a widely discredited source since the cause of the collapse of the Mayan Empire isn't 100% confirmed

In fact if you really want to know the only time things really cross in actual history:
You can have a samurai, an elderly pirate captain, a Zulu warrior, a cowboy, and a Victorian gentleman detective, all in the same room together, and have it be 100% historically correct because of that strange as hell window in the 1800s.

Originally posted by ItsDaKoolaidDude:

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

The Mayan Empire was 250AD to 900AD.
The Aztec Empire was 1325AD to 1521AD.
The first Spanish to land in North America was 1492, that's 592 years after the Mayan Empire fell. The Spanish Aztec war lasted 2 years, starting 1519 and ending August 13th 1521.
In short, not a single Mayan existed during the time the Spanish landed in North America and were separated from the Aztecs but several hundred years. If you DO think the Mayans existed, it probably comes from a widely discredited source since the cause of the collapse of the Mayan Empire isn't 100% confirmed

In fact if you really want to know the only time things really cross in actual history:
You can have a samurai, an elderly pirate captain, a Zulu warrior, a cowboy, and a Victorian gentleman detective, all in the same room together, and have it be 100% historically correct because of that strange as hell window in the 1800s.

To be fair, depending on how cursed your TikTok feed is, you can STILL see all those people at the same time, today lol

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

Originally posted by ItsDaKoolaidDude:

In fact if you really want to know the only time things really cross in actual history:
You can have a samurai, an elderly pirate captain, a Zulu warrior, a cowboy, and a Victorian gentleman detective, all in the same room together, and have it be 100% historically correct because of that strange as hell window in the 1800s.

To be fair, depending on how cursed your TikTok feed is, you can STILL see all those people at the same time, today lol

Well thats IF you use tiktok
thankfully i have too many braincells to meet the requirement using it.

Originally posted by ItsDaKoolaidDude:

Originally posted by Nicksy129r:

To be fair, depending on how cursed your TikTok feed is, you can STILL see all those people at the same time, today lol

Well thats IF you use tiktok
thankfully i have too many braincells to meet the requirement using it.

Same. Friends occasionally send me links and I have to remind them I don't have TikTok lol

i loose all my medals

Judging by the steep decline in quality for these dlcs, I fear for the AOE franchise...

We'll see if this one reinforces the pattern, or shows that the devs haven't fully slipped yet.

Originally posted by The Viral Divinity:

Judging by the steep decline in quality for these dlcs, I fear for the AOE franchise...

We'll see if this one reinforces the pattern, or shows that the devs haven't fully slipped yet.

Lol, stop lying

Originally posted by The Viral Divinity:

Judging by the steep decline in quality for these dlcs, I fear for the AOE franchise...

We'll see if this one reinforces the pattern, or shows that the devs haven't fully slipped yet.

Bro mistaking "quality" for "giving me what I personally want"

Originally posted by 业火长缨:

覆水难收，真心建议出之前问一下玩家意见。
这边建议唐宋明清

不喜欢别买，问哪个玩家的建议？问我就是三国非常棒