Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (AKA AoE2 HD HD)

[Tacgnol]

I personally don't care much about new civs,but am interested in new campaigns. I assume that there is a decent number of people like me,that don't care about multi and such shit and only like to play a nice campaign and see new interesting maps/missions.

You definitely aren't alone, I really enjoy the AOE 2 style campaigns. I was really glad that they improved a lot of the "unofficial" expansion missions with the DE.

 

[fantadomat]

I personally don't care much about new civs,but am interested in new campaigns. I assume that there is a decent number of people like me,that don't care about multi and such shit and only like to play a nice campaign and see new interesting maps/missions.

You definitely aren't alone, I really enjoy the AOE 2 style campaigns. I was really glad that they improved a lot of the "unofficial" expansion missions with the DE.

Same here,it is a lot of fun to play them.

 

[Lacrymas]

Oh, and start working on that Age of Mythology DE! Remove the auto queue of units!

What's the point? There already is an "improved" edition (extended edition) that has the Exterminatus level assblast causing chinks in it.

АоЕ2 also had an HD edition before DE, as the title of this thread suggests. The EE of AoM is pretty terrible too. I'm sure they will start working on it after AoE3 had its share. They have to remove the auto queue of units.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

If this add-on will maintain the overall quality of DE then at $10 I really don't mind. Not feeling too hot on the new civs, but getting a briton campaign is cool.

The one thing I really don't understand about this is all the "events" and "challenges" they do all the time, switching main menu to something ridiculously cringe and then unlocking some utterly pointless shit like TC decorations. Are there actually people who want or enjoy this?

 

[sser]

The AOE competitive scene is a fun watch. I'm not really into competitive RTS myself anymore but even as just a spectator the revival has been great.

 

[Lacrymas]

If this add-on will maintain the overall quality of DE then at $10 I really don't mind. Not feeling too hot on the new civs, but getting a briton campaign is cool.

The one thing I really don't understand about this is all the "events" and "challenges" they do all the time, switching main menu to something ridiculously cringe and then unlocking some utterly pointless shit like TC decorations. Are there actually people who want or enjoy this?

I don't see the bad side to challenges and events. The main menu requires too many clicks, but that's not a symptom of the events and challenges. As for whether it's worth 10 bucks, eh. I'll wait for a sale because I haven't completed even a fraction of the campaigns either way and am not clamoring for more content.

 

[Endemic]

Fallen Knights return 50% of their gold cost

Burgundian Vineyards: Convert all food into gold at a 2:1 ratio

That's some interesting civ bonuses.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Deadyawn]

Gonna play the campaigns until they tone down the Burgundians for ranked. Right now they are complete bullshit.

 

[a Goat]

Gonna play the campaigns until they tone down the Burgundians for ranked. Right now they are complete bullshit.

I guess ranked is full on Burgundian mirror every game(can't play now, work travel), the civ is already all around nuts and people haven't figured out the metagame around the earlier eco tech upgrades thing, so it's not even their full potential yet.

Sicilians seem more or less fine, at least from what I've seen.

 

[Lacrymas]

I'd say the DLC is overpriced. I mostly don't play multiplayer and have a lot of campaigns to do anyway, so I'll wait for a sale down the road. How are the campaigns btw?

 

[Endemic]

Gonna play the campaigns until they tone down the Burgundians for ranked. Right now they are complete bullshit.

I expect they'll get rebalanced after enough people have bought the expansion, maybe in a month or two

 

[fantadomat]

Two campaigns in,the english one is meh,the italian one is pretty cool.....even if their nation is garbage and focussed on multi. The normand civ is really retarded,the campaign is a cavalery focused while the civ is multi focused with its all bonuses are about multi. Its unique unit is a champion more or less,while lacking the paladin upgrade. They should have made it full on cav civ. Now i am starting burgundy.

As for the writing...it is pretty good even if you play as some not that important historical people. Still,the sicilian campaign is the highlight for now.

 

[Lacrymas]

As for the writing...it is pretty good even if you play as some not that important historical people. Still,the sicilian campaign is the highlight for now.

I'm still quite perplexed they chose Ivaylo of all historical figures for the Bulgarian campaign.

 

[Narax]

Not sure why they went for Burgundians and Sicilians, they are very specific regional civs in comparison to the rest, and both are technically already covered by the franks and italians respectively.

Imo this is a missed opportunity for a Caucasus dlc, which was long overdue since HD. Civs can be; Georgia, Armenia, and some kind of north caucasian mutts.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

DE versions of original campaigns often do precisely that, although obviously not all civs are available.

Regarding the dlc and the campaigns - it's gud. I don't play multi bar some laid back games with friends from time to time so I'm not butthurt. At least they do some really new and interesting things with them.

Edit: Shame that they didn't add a lithuanian campaign. I believe they're the only civ that doesn't have either a campaign or a historical scenario and it's actually quite a cool faction.

 

[fantadomat]

As for the writing...it is pretty good even if you play as some not that important historical people. Still,the sicilian campaign is the highlight for now.

I'm still quite perplexed they chose Ivaylo of all historical figures for the Bulgarian campaign.

I am not,they are sjws,even in the sicilian campaign you play as some cuck in the last mission,a king of tolerance,progress and acceptance . It was like playing a fanfiction lol. In both campaigns the tellers are a lot worst than the people you play. The english story teller is a literal faggot and a craven,one of the weakest kings of england,the sicilian story teller is some wise arab teacher and young boytoy to the arabs,and later king that lead to the fall of the kingdom . Now i am hyped to find out what kind of sodomite will i hear when playing the burgundians. That said the campaigns are pretty good,i am having fun with them,tho the english one is a bit boring. The last sicilian one is really fun if you decide to play for conquest and on hard .

 

[fantadomat]

Not sure why they went for Burgundians and Sicilians, they are very specific regional civs in comparison to the rest, and both are technically already covered by the franks and italians respectively.

Imo this is a missed opportunity for a Caucasus dlc, which was long overdue since HD. Civs can be; Georgia, Armenia, and some kind of north caucasian mutts.

Ahh they are not the same people lol,it makes sense since most other wester nations had been done. A byzantian campaign will very fun to do,it will go well with the caucasian nations.

That said,there is plenty of better historical people that those fuck they chose.

 

[Lacrymas]

Not sure why they went for Burgundians and Sicilians, they are very specific regional civs in comparison to the rest, and both are technically already covered by the franks and italians respectively.

Imo this is a missed opportunity for a Caucasus dlc, which was long overdue since HD. Civs can be; Georgia, Armenia, and some kind of north caucasian mutts.

Yeah, it's kinda weird to have both a Slav civ and the other more specific Slavic nations like the Bulgarians. I think they just ran out of abstract all-encompassing concepts for civs. Tbh, I'm not a fan of this kind of addition of basically the same faction with a few extra/fewer techs here and there. I'd have preferred a more asymmetric balancing, but I'd guess that's harder to do.

 

[hello friend]

 

[a Goat]

Not sure why they went for Burgundians and Sicilians, they are very specific regional civs in comparison to the rest, and both are technically already covered by the franks and italians respectively.

I think I know why but I don't know how to explain it. I'll try in a spoiler.

Spoiler

Burgundy, the one the new civ is meant to portray(historically there's about 20 different organisms called "Burgundy", sadly I don't have the book with the full list nearby) is a perfect example of a situation in which we're talking about feudal state without nation, held together by the loyalty of its subjects to the ruling house(for various reasons) more than anything else. It also disappeared from the maps as a result of what was basically an inheritance row.

Sicilians would make a little bit more sense if they were meant to be "southern Italians"(kind of like, in my mind, Bulgarians are partially southern Slavs and Goths are also Longobards and Vandals) since you can somewhat clearly see the divergence starting there by the end of Charlemagne's life, but instead it's just representing Norman kingdoms after their reconquista of the island and parts of southern Italy. As such the civ represents a result of elite replacement.

So state without nation and elite replacement, two concepts very dear to leftist visions of history cherry picked into the game. Obviously this was a choice pitched by people interested in history and as you can see - dominance in institutions of higher learning is bearing its fruit in popculture.

Also I've said Sicilians are going to be more or less ok in MP - after watching some more gameplay(still work travel) I'm not convinced anymore. The bonus damage reduction just makes their cavalry very hard to counter once you get to the critical mass of them. Lack of paladin doesn't really hurt in 1v1 so... yeah. Not as bullshit as Burgundians(strong cavalry civs will be on very equal footing against them), but still very, very strong.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Sicilian unique tech seems by far the most silly thing about them. Suddenly spawning 50 strong infantry units out of thin air in castle is really crazy.

Burgundians seem to be strictly castle knight civ, as they don't have bloodlines.

 

[fantadomat]

LoL i had to take a shower after the burgundian campaign. The first three campaign that were pretty chad and fun,it turned in to sjw garbage,muh feminism,muh nobility evil and merchants are oppressed and good,religion evul burn jean d'arc. Really disgusting!

 

[fantadomat]

Suddenly spawning 50 strong infantry

you need a town center from i saw. Their tech is a meme,same as the burgundian,it is for multi.

 

[a Goat]

Burgundians seem to be strictly castle knight civ, as they don't have bloodlines.

It depends. In practice, paladin is rather rare sight, even if you play Franks or Lithuanians, so the deal with Burgundians is that the upgrade comes up earlier and is more affordable and without bloodlines it's still better than cavalier with it. So assuming you and your opponent have both lots of time and resources, it's not great, but in normal situation when both of these are limited it's pretty strong.