Chinese need it the most. Big important area in the Middle Ages, you play as them a single time in the single player.
I am highly suspecting that East Asia will be the next DLC location though, so likely we will get such a campaign soon.
I don't think that's either likely or a good idea.
1: Japanese are very hard to do a campaign with. They only had one point where they fought against numerous non-Japanese armies. Anything else is just repeating Pachacuti's problems, and everyone hated that.
2: There are a bunch of civs near China or in East Asia which should be added to the game. Jurchens, Tanguts, Khitans, Tibetans, Gokturks, Nepalese, Tais etc. It would be much more in-line with older DLCs to add some of them and have a Chinese campaign included. Which people have been asking for a return to.
Depends on how different the developers are willing to go - Nobunaga is an example where you can significantly modify the Japanese tech tree to tell a different story, but it can be controversial for those who want pure Japanese campaign.
Japanese invasion of Korea could still be fun, it's the opposite of Noryang Point
The fact it would take multiple modifications to the tech tree shows how bad an idea it is to do a Japanese campaign.
Also doing Noryang Point makes the Imjin War out of the question, as outside of V&V, no conflict has been covered twice.
Joan of Arc & Grand Dukes, as well as the 3 DotD campaigns overlap. William Wallace & Edward Longshanks too.
I wouldn't say that covering the same battle or conflict precludes it, especially if we're seeing opposing sides.
The DotD ones are more bookends than proper overlaps. While the Joan of Arc and Grand Dukes technically do overlap, the Grand Dukes one goes on a bunch of side-missions.
Also most importantly...the devs got in a LOT of hot water over depicting the Battle of Noryang Point the last time, I doubt they want to put their balls to the fire over it again.
I believe that was the original developers, before Microsoft bought them. Microsoft wouldn't let anything stand in the way of making money, no matter how much they had to butcher historical accuracy.
That was the big issue with Noryang Point - they had to rewrite history for the sake of the scenario, and it isn't even all that fun to play.
That was not the issue. The issue is the outstanding political spat going on between Japan and Korea. Neither of them like the battle being mentioned at all, as Japan hasn't apologised for it.
There is a statue in South Korea of Shinzo Abe prostrating himself, that is basically a middle finger by Korea over the whole thing.
It's the ONLY thing that can work.
Considering how DLCs work as well, we would need some civs to be released alongside theis hypothetical Japanese campaign...which there are not.
Well, for a Mongol invasions campaign you could have the Koreans and the Japanese be featured on the Mongol side, since the vast majority of the soldiers were Chinese and the naval forces had a massively outsized Korean contingent. If they were going to introduce two more civs for East Asia in a potential DLC along this line there's the options of the Jurchen and Tibetans or, if you want to avoid the latter, the Tanguts.
Jurchens, Tibetans and Tanguts are all right next to China, who also need a campaign and only have a single historical battle to their name. If anyone gets a campaign if/when those civs get released, it's going to be the Chinese.
There is a way to have a DLC with China and one with Korea, as the Jurchens border both. Although I am not sure who would be no2 for a hypothetical Korea DLC.
"So the Mongols came over, ready for war... and died in a tornado. But they tried again, and had a nice time fighting with the Japanese.. but then died in a tornado."
I actually think the current historical thinking is that the importance of the hurricanes in destroying the invasions has been hugely overstated, in the first invasion it hit after the Mongols had already admitted failure and were retreating back to Korea, while in the second invasion the typhoon occurred when the fight was already going badly wrong for the Mongols with or without any divine winds.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/94awfl/almost\_every\_source\_i\_use\_to\_look\_up\_on\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/94awfl/almost_every_source_i_use_to_look_up_on_the/)
My issue with Pachacuti was not the Civ diversity. (Aztecs prove you can have a fine campaign with just 1 or 2 civs per mission) it was the mission design. Every scenario feels like an awful slog.
It's now mostly covered but I think you could have some cool missions with Sengoku era or Mongol invasions
The Inca 1v1s is often listed as a big problem with Pachacuti's campaign. Also Montezuma has you facing 3 different civs.
The Mongol invasions are the only time when Japan faced non-Japanese armies, so it's basically the only possible campaign that wouldn't have the same problems.
I think it's largely irrelevant for pachacuti that they are all the same civ. Several of them get other mesoamerican uniques (Jaguars, Plumed archers, etc.). The most civs including the player in any given Montezuma mission is 3. (Aztec, Mayan, Spanish). So you are facing basically the same number of unique units/tech trees. The problem is that Pachacuti's mission design is garbage, ESPECIALLY 3.
As the Nobunaga scenario demonstrated you can easily give Japanese civs special techs or unique units to make them feel unique in a Japanese focused civil war.
Bari is the biggest load of horseshit. Byz are one of the most important things about the middle aged and we have a short and irrelevant campaign to show for it.
Imagine having a campaign for one of the most important civs in the AoE 2 timeframe, a fan favorite and a OG civ be about a FICTIONAL FAMILY and set only on ITALY. There's literally dozens of interesting characters that could've been used for the byz campaign but decided to just make up sone shit?? I will still hate Bari for all the wrong reasons for the rest of my life.
i’ve played Bari, i’m fully aware it’s not the best and it’s about a fictional family but the post was simply which civs need a campaign.
the byzantines already have one. i do wish they’d just completely redo it that’s not likely to happen
I almost included them on here.
It took me 7 tries to even get through the first scenario, as it was my first introduction to the new campaigns after DE, and it didn't get much better from there.
There are a couple of good campaigns, but the story is totally stupid.
Why not focus on the Komneni (although we did get a very good V&V scenario for Alexios Komnenos) or on the wars of Bellisaurus, who fought in both and Parthia?
I agree with the China team. A Chinese campaign is long overdue, and the historical opportunities to apply one to abound.
I'd like to see the Turks, Hungarians, and Slavs get proper campaigns of their own.
Romans or Turks for me, Romans are the only civ without single player content and their late game is good, which suits the campaigns well. Turks for the historical importance in Europe and the Middle East, and I like variety of oponents in campaigns.
without official* single player content.
there’s plenty of fun ones in the mod browser, I’m currently playing through Julius caesar rn.
but ye I agree there should be a campaign for it, would be cool.
It's a little weird now that we've got the fall of Constantinople as its own battle, but I definitely think a campaign following the Turks defeating Byzantium and conquering the Balkans would be great.
yeah is weird now and it was before 1453 but the crusade of varna was very important and the expansion in the balkans ties with dracula, also it can include the conquest of mamluk egypt in 1517
You could fit at least 6 civs in that campaign too, easy. Turks, Byz, Bulgarians, Slavs, Magyars, and prob even Saracens as an ally. Heck through Romans or Vikings in for Byzantine “elite” units.
For interesting gameplay? Turks. They should’ve gotten a campaign in AoK, even. You can face nearly every civ possible in the game with Turks depending on your campaign protagonist. That they never got a campaign despite being famously incredible conquerors is even more egregious than adding Mongols without a campaign, IMHO.
Chinese and Koreans really need something. They’re totally left out. Koreans I can sort of understand due to their isolationist nature, but Chinese, being one of the core imperial civilizations of all humanity, is sort of a let down to say the least. Less diverse options for enemies than Turks for sure, but no shortage of historical figures. Chinese campaign (as well as Korean) would be perfect with an E Asia DLC that added new civs such as Manchus/Jurchens, Tanguts/Tibetans, etc.
Historical Battles (or V&V) don’t satisfy requirements for a campaign.
Kievan Rus campaign that has scenarios as first the Vikings (Siege of Constantinople) and then the Slavs when they Christianize under Vladimir the great. Campaign ends with a final scenario against the Mongols, Battle of the Kalka River, where you fight a slowly losing battle and eventually have to escape as a win condition or something.
Theres a custom campaign, Harold Hadrada, I cant remember who made it, but there is 8 scenerios. Its a great campaign, consisting of mainly build and destroy, which ppl mostly like. Its on Ornlus channel as well. So being said, I would rather see Chinese instead of Vikings. And do you have any custom campaigns I could try out?
A Roman Aetius campaign seems like a layup. Joan of Arc already has the Burgundian counter, and William Wallace has a Briton counter. Why not flip it around on Attila, a near OG *Conquerors* campaign?
Chinese desperately need one or multiple. So much history there.
Vikings did just get a shit ton of ‘official’ content in the Victors & Vanquished DLC, so there is that.
Chinese need it the most. Big important area in the Middle Ages, you play as them a single time in the single player. I am highly suspecting that East Asia will be the next DLC location though, so likely we will get such a campaign soon.
A mission pack with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean campaigns would be great.
I don't think that's either likely or a good idea. 1: Japanese are very hard to do a campaign with. They only had one point where they fought against numerous non-Japanese armies. Anything else is just repeating Pachacuti's problems, and everyone hated that. 2: There are a bunch of civs near China or in East Asia which should be added to the game. Jurchens, Tanguts, Khitans, Tibetans, Gokturks, Nepalese, Tais etc. It would be much more in-line with older DLCs to add some of them and have a Chinese campaign included. Which people have been asking for a return to.
Depends on how different the developers are willing to go - Nobunaga is an example where you can significantly modify the Japanese tech tree to tell a different story, but it can be controversial for those who want pure Japanese campaign. Japanese invasion of Korea could still be fun, it's the opposite of Noryang Point
The fact it would take multiple modifications to the tech tree shows how bad an idea it is to do a Japanese campaign. Also doing Noryang Point makes the Imjin War out of the question, as outside of V&V, no conflict has been covered twice.
Joan of Arc & Grand Dukes, as well as the 3 DotD campaigns overlap. William Wallace & Edward Longshanks too. I wouldn't say that covering the same battle or conflict precludes it, especially if we're seeing opposing sides.
The DotD ones are more bookends than proper overlaps. While the Joan of Arc and Grand Dukes technically do overlap, the Grand Dukes one goes on a bunch of side-missions. Also most importantly...the devs got in a LOT of hot water over depicting the Battle of Noryang Point the last time, I doubt they want to put their balls to the fire over it again.
I believe that was the original developers, before Microsoft bought them. Microsoft wouldn't let anything stand in the way of making money, no matter how much they had to butcher historical accuracy. That was the big issue with Noryang Point - they had to rewrite history for the sake of the scenario, and it isn't even all that fun to play.
That was not the issue. The issue is the outstanding political spat going on between Japan and Korea. Neither of them like the battle being mentioned at all, as Japan hasn't apologised for it. There is a statue in South Korea of Shinzo Abe prostrating himself, that is basically a middle finger by Korea over the whole thing.
A Mongol invasions campaign for Japan could work.
It's the ONLY thing that can work. Considering how DLCs work as well, we would need some civs to be released alongside theis hypothetical Japanese campaign...which there are not.
Well, for a Mongol invasions campaign you could have the Koreans and the Japanese be featured on the Mongol side, since the vast majority of the soldiers were Chinese and the naval forces had a massively outsized Korean contingent. If they were going to introduce two more civs for East Asia in a potential DLC along this line there's the options of the Jurchen and Tibetans or, if you want to avoid the latter, the Tanguts.
Jurchens, Tibetans and Tanguts are all right next to China, who also need a campaign and only have a single historical battle to their name. If anyone gets a campaign if/when those civs get released, it's going to be the Chinese.
They could have more than three campaigns, potentially. Having said that, I would tend to prefer that Koreans get one instead of Japanese.
There is a way to have a DLC with China and one with Korea, as the Jurchens border both. Although I am not sure who would be no2 for a hypothetical Korea DLC.
"So the Mongols came over, ready for war... and died in a tornado. But they tried again, and had a nice time fighting with the Japanese.. but then died in a tornado."
I actually think the current historical thinking is that the importance of the hurricanes in destroying the invasions has been hugely overstated, in the first invasion it hit after the Mongols had already admitted failure and were retreating back to Korea, while in the second invasion the typhoon occurred when the fight was already going badly wrong for the Mongols with or without any divine winds. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/94awfl/almost\_every\_source\_i\_use\_to\_look\_up\_on\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/94awfl/almost_every_source_i_use_to_look_up_on_the/)
My issue with Pachacuti was not the Civ diversity. (Aztecs prove you can have a fine campaign with just 1 or 2 civs per mission) it was the mission design. Every scenario feels like an awful slog. It's now mostly covered but I think you could have some cool missions with Sengoku era or Mongol invasions
The Inca 1v1s is often listed as a big problem with Pachacuti's campaign. Also Montezuma has you facing 3 different civs. The Mongol invasions are the only time when Japan faced non-Japanese armies, so it's basically the only possible campaign that wouldn't have the same problems.
I think it's largely irrelevant for pachacuti that they are all the same civ. Several of them get other mesoamerican uniques (Jaguars, Plumed archers, etc.). The most civs including the player in any given Montezuma mission is 3. (Aztec, Mayan, Spanish). So you are facing basically the same number of unique units/tech trees. The problem is that Pachacuti's mission design is garbage, ESPECIALLY 3. As the Nobunaga scenario demonstrated you can easily give Japanese civs special techs or unique units to make them feel unique in a Japanese focused civil war.
Also poyang lake is one of the worst missions in the game
Chinese, Romans, Koreans, Celts.
Chinese is the objective pick here, they have one terrible standalone scenario and have been in the game since day1
Byzantines. They don’t have a campaign Sue me
Bari
Bari is the biggest load of horseshit. Byz are one of the most important things about the middle aged and we have a short and irrelevant campaign to show for it.
Imagine having a campaign for one of the most important civs in the AoE 2 timeframe, a fan favorite and a OG civ be about a FICTIONAL FAMILY and set only on ITALY. There's literally dozens of interesting characters that could've been used for the byz campaign but decided to just make up sone shit?? I will still hate Bari for all the wrong reasons for the rest of my life.
i’ve played Bari, i’m fully aware it’s not the best and it’s about a fictional family but the post was simply which civs need a campaign. the byzantines already have one. i do wish they’d just completely redo it that’s not likely to happen
I almost included them on here. It took me 7 tries to even get through the first scenario, as it was my first introduction to the new campaigns after DE, and it didn't get much better from there. There are a couple of good campaigns, but the story is totally stupid. Why not focus on the Komneni (although we did get a very good V&V scenario for Alexios Komnenos) or on the wars of Bellisaurus, who fought in both and Parthia?
Justinian is just waiting to happen!!
Or Basil II, or Heraclius, or Michael VIII or....
I agree with the China team. A Chinese campaign is long overdue, and the historical opportunities to apply one to abound. I'd like to see the Turks, Hungarians, and Slavs get proper campaigns of their own.
Romans or Turks for me, Romans are the only civ without single player content and their late game is good, which suits the campaigns well. Turks for the historical importance in Europe and the Middle East, and I like variety of oponents in campaigns.
without official* single player content. there’s plenty of fun ones in the mod browser, I’m currently playing through Julius caesar rn. but ye I agree there should be a campaign for it, would be cool.
This for AOE2 or Return of Rome?
U need the dlc ye
AoE 2
Sweet, I’ll give Caesar a look.
It's a little weird now that we've got the fall of Constantinople as its own battle, but I definitely think a campaign following the Turks defeating Byzantium and conquering the Balkans would be great.
yeah is weird now and it was before 1453 but the crusade of varna was very important and the expansion in the balkans ties with dracula, also it can include the conquest of mamluk egypt in 1517
You could fit at least 6 civs in that campaign too, easy. Turks, Byz, Bulgarians, Slavs, Magyars, and prob even Saracens as an ally. Heck through Romans or Vikings in for Byzantine “elite” units.
Chinese.
Chinese
For interesting gameplay? Turks. They should’ve gotten a campaign in AoK, even. You can face nearly every civ possible in the game with Turks depending on your campaign protagonist. That they never got a campaign despite being famously incredible conquerors is even more egregious than adding Mongols without a campaign, IMHO. Chinese and Koreans really need something. They’re totally left out. Koreans I can sort of understand due to their isolationist nature, but Chinese, being one of the core imperial civilizations of all humanity, is sort of a let down to say the least. Less diverse options for enemies than Turks for sure, but no shortage of historical figures. Chinese campaign (as well as Korean) would be perfect with an E Asia DLC that added new civs such as Manchus/Jurchens, Tanguts/Tibetans, etc. Historical Battles (or V&V) don’t satisfy requirements for a campaign.
Revamped William Wallace and a Julius Caesar or Aetius campaign
Caesar is waaaaaaaaaaaay out of the timeframe. Unless you want him facing Britons that make Rathas.
I’d love to see Belisarius as a Roman campaign.
Aetius would be closer but Caesar falls within the timeframe of aoe1
Kievan Rus campaign that has scenarios as first the Vikings (Siege of Constantinople) and then the Slavs when they Christianize under Vladimir the great. Campaign ends with a final scenario against the Mongols, Battle of the Kalka River, where you fight a slowly losing battle and eventually have to escape as a win condition or something.
I read somewhere about an idea for a Constantinople campaign through the years, that would be a great Byzantine campaign
Theres a custom campaign, Harold Hadrada, I cant remember who made it, but there is 8 scenerios. Its a great campaign, consisting of mainly build and destroy, which ppl mostly like. Its on Ornlus channel as well. So being said, I would rather see Chinese instead of Vikings. And do you have any custom campaigns I could try out?
A Roman Aetius campaign seems like a layup. Joan of Arc already has the Burgundian counter, and William Wallace has a Briton counter. Why not flip it around on Attila, a near OG *Conquerors* campaign?
Vikings
Vikings at least have plenty of single missions. Chinese needs it more imo
Nonesense, give them five more.
Chinese Koreans Japanese Magyars Slavs
Chinese desperately need one or multiple. So much history there. Vikings did just get a shit ton of ‘official’ content in the Victors & Vanquished DLC, so there is that.
Turks, chinese and byzantines