Ranking the AoE2 DLCs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- With five DLCs out now for AoE2 Definitive Edition, it's understandably getting to be a bit overwhelming for players looking to move out of the base game. In this video we'll spotlight each of the DLCs, highlighting what they bring, how their respective civilizations perform on the ladder, and the general consensus of their campaign quality.
0:50 AoE2 HD (2013) DLCs
1:45 Return of Rome
4:00 Mountain Royals
6:20 Lords of the West
8:40 Dynasties of India
11:20 Dawn of the Dukes
___________________________________________________________
Patreon: / spiritofthelaw
Background music from Epidemic Sound: www.epidemicsound.com
Game: Age of Empires II Definitive Edition 
Игры
Idk about yall, but when The Conquerors Expansion came out, and the main menu changed from daytime to nighttime, that single change blew my mind as a kid.
I remember seeing that, then playing in the jungles of the Americas and feeling like I was in some mystical universe.
Lol same, I still miss that old menu, it was way better than the DE one. Amazing campaigns in The Conquerors as well
@@a-a-ron3542the change definitely changed the vibe of the game and it did bring kind of a mysterious mystical element.
@@a-a-ron3542 I couldn't have expressed it better.
first time training an eagle and petard, ahhh good days
if we include every DLC since 1999, the best one is the original The Conquerors : Unique techs, Hussars and Halbs, 5 civs, automatic reseed, no tech for Hand Canoneers, higher pop limit, infantry can garisson in rams, caravan, heresy, bloodline, thumb ring, Furious the Monkey Boy, and the list goes on...
i am surprised he forgot to mention this one in the beginning
The Conquerors is an 'Expansion' rather than DLC cuz downloading contents was not really a thing back then, and the term 'DLC' did not exist yet.
@@user-jw5ik7pu3f if you want to get technical... I'd argue that DLCs are digital expansion packs, while the Conquerors was a physical expansion pack. If you check the wiki, they don't differentiate digital and physical expansion packs
@@user-jw5ik7pu3fDlc is just a name for addon, while you don't get a CD. So it should be in the list
@@mcgJernside There is a difference though. A DLC is a piece of downloadable content that only adds some new civilizations or cosmetics. An expansion on the other hand is a combination of DLC, patches, balance chages and hotfixes. We're getting patches, balance changes and fixes for AOE 2 DE for absolutely free. Back in the day though, you had to pay for the expansion to get access to them.
I swear Microsoft waits until I get within 5 achievements of 100% completion and then they release a new dlc.
I am missing just two - Rome was destroyed… and Masterpiece.
@@mattender8323 You get Masterpiece by going on Steam discussions and joining the one pinned at the top that's about the achievement, where people work to get it.
Destroying Rome is unsurprisingly the hardest one to date and the one with the lowest achievement rate. I wonder if the strat changed now that Romans get anti-infantry Legionaries. Perhaps a Cavalier based army is preferable. Still, it "should" be easier, as the Castles are no longer Byzantine Castles with double health.
It's not really an achievement if you agree to lose and vice versa.
Personally I like to maintain a solid 69%
@@mattender8323gotta grind the one about Rome, took me 3-4 tries. If you struggle with micro/macro, slow speed helps. I used this trick for the mongol scenario race some years ago.
"Perfectly square farms" That hits hard, ill have to get that dlc.
Dawn of the dukes it's a great dlc. Absolutely deserves the #1 spot
100%
The DotD campaigns really connect very well and mission 6 of jadwiga made me cry so yeah, nothing can beat that.
This here is the right answer.
Honestly Jan’s story really hit hard, asking to use his skin as drums so that his men know their commander is still with them? What a unit of a man.
@CallofDutyBlackOps28 why do I keep seeing fire emblem 4 profile pics everywhere?
For the entire span of the game (which isn't the focus of the video) I think I put Conquerors as the best. Felt like it doubled the game's meaningful content and fixed so many problems with the base game. I remember the first time I installed it, and spent weeks wondering why I hadn't installed it earlier.
That is already on "Expansion" level (yes DLC does not exist at that time but scope and price wise AOE:C it's more comparable to AoE2:DE) but yeah it was a really good expansion.
For eight years playing The Age of Kings without knowing an expansion existed (until I googled the game in 2008), the Conquerors meant the most exciting game in my life when I played it for the first time, and as a Mexican, playing the Montezuma campaign was thrilling.
The Conquerors indeed improved a lot of stuff from the base game. That being said, this tells more about how flawed Age of Kings was rather than how good Conquerors is. The only reason we don't have such a next level DLC like Conquerors nowadays is because the game currently doesn't have any glaring issues waiting to be fixed.
The Conquerors also felt massive because AOK had only 12 civs. By adding 5 new civs, Conquerors incresed the civ pool by almost 40%. To achieve the same effect nowadays we'd need a DLC with about 20 new civs.
By the way I'm not saying you're wrong about the Conquerors being great. Just wanted to analyze why is it getting harder and harder to release a good DLC for AoE2 as time goes by.
The main reason for not installing AOC was the fifty quid it used to cost to buy!
@@DaddyMouse"flawed", When Age of Kings, or even the original Age of Empires came out they were the best of the franchise.
Age of Conquerors just followed the path that Ensemble Studios set out with the Rise of Rome and Age of Kings😉.
I'm actually a Return to Rome enjoyer. I knew exactly what it was and bought it exactly for that reason (on sale for $6.99). It's he lowest rated Steam purchase I own and I enjoy it.
Considering the incredible value of the base game, I can tolerate a single overpriced DLC. Releasing AoE1 without any of the original campaign content was criminal though.
@@user-xo9ig8kc3uwell, they're there now. And others have been added by fans through the mod menu.
I'm sad that this expansion gets so much hate because it essentially guarantees we won't get any more aoe1 campaigns, though I'd love for an Alexander the great, hannibal, Cyrus the great campaigns and so on
Yes it was a bit disappointing, but they are slowly adding all aoe1 campaigns to RoR.
My main complaint is that they took out the post-game narrations.
I'm glad there are people enjoying this dlc. However my main complaint with it is that they should've focused on the base AOEDE instead. Now they have split the player base even further, and their target audience (vietnamese players) aren't even that interested, but rather play the CD version.
Return of Rome may not be popular among most Steam users, but I enjoy the nostalgia from my early childhood with the QoL of AoE2.
The campaigns are good imo, and having the Romans as an AoE2 civ also feels pretty nice
Yeah, love it too. Only thing is, most scenarios are pretty easy these days.
Steam community is basically just reddit gamers. They will trash anything for fun
I love the idea, Imagine play AOE 1 like AOE 2, but it was very poorly done!!!
The farms had this uglys jars, the towers dont shot arrows with units inside, there is a huge lack on counter units. The AOE 1 DE fail because of the way they try to keep it close to real release. Return of Rome should learned from this mistake, and turn age 1 into age 2, new units, new mecanics, new strategies.
Return of Rome only show me how bad was aoe 1 campaing, daaamn
it is...but not for that price.
it's almost the same price as the base game itself...what the....? -,-
Will they include all of the campaigns frome AoE 1? I am not interested in buying that game but with AoE 2s improvements I would give it a shot.
I totally agree that The Dawn of the Dukes is the best especially due to its campaigns. I spent years asking for Georgia and Armenia, so I was glad to see them covered. I really appreciate the devs listening to the fanbase. Now I would love to see the Dracula campaign improved with the Wallachians being added as a civ.
Do you think there is any hope that they add the Khazars and other nomadic peoples again in the future?
Yes it's possible. But maybe they will do a Chinese DLC first
Khazars are already covered by tatars. The biggest and most obvious missing civ is Tibetans.
@@EresirThe1st I would not say this. Khazars are quite unique with their foundation of cities, the jewish religion, the constant army, the long way trade. Besides, Khazars were in the Early Medieval Age, while Tatars were in the Late.
@@Doctor-strange98 That sounds very interesting as well.
The poles campaign is really great! ❤
POLSKA GUROM 🇵🇱⛰️💪💪
- Why is the Dawn of the Dukes DLC so great?
- It gives you the ability to place perfectly square farms, son!
Jadwiga was seriously the toughest campaign ever, followed by Rajendra.
having the heroes level up was so fun; having Jadwiga as a mobile monk that can level up and become a super missionary was truely fun to play with. the final mission was the toughest for me; the VA for Jagiełło really nailed the feels.
Dawn of the Dukes is such an amazing DLC, loved the Civs, the campaigns were amazing, the Polish campaign is my favorite. Truly my favorite DLC of them all.
I know you touched on this at the beginning and you're right it's more of an expansion than a DLC but to me Forgotten Empires will always be the piece of AoE2 content against which all other pieces of content are measured
These are all "Expansions" by AoE2 definition. DLC is a Steam term for 1-time buyable additional content.
What about the conquerors expansion, including Aztecs, Huns, Mayans and Spanish?
Conquerors easily the best expansion.
Conquerors would be my top pick as well, if that were to count.
Fe was awful, didn't had voice acting and broke the online play. I had to wait until DE to return to the game. Conquerors is best, then the order in this list except mountain royals which is not only the worse, but also the most expensive one.
If Rise of Rome allowed you the ability to play AoE1 civs against AoE2 civs and vice versa, I guarantee it would've been the #1 DLC on here. I don't see why they didn't try to pull that off. It would've been silly to fight the Hittites as the Ottoman Turks, sure, and that's exactly why it's a great idea.
Personally, I have all the DLC's. I spend a lot of time playing so I'm happy to support the studio
The Mountain Royals price problem is even worse in Brazil, here it costs 54,95 R$, by comparison all other DLC except Lords of the West are under 20 R$ and even Definitive Edition itself costs 36.99 R$, there is no excuse for a small DLC like Mountain Royals to cost almost twice as much as the base game, specifically if you concider that Definitive Edition contains the Conquerors and all the DLC from HD.
It's interesting seeing how many of Sandy Petersen's ideas made it into the DLCs including splitting up the Indians into multiple civs and adding the Poles
"Introducing single use techs in lords of the west was not well received"
Pre Patch Paper Money stares around nervously.
Feel like this is some thing a couple YT ppl dislike and not a real complaint
10 years of asking a full campaign for the Chinese and Japanese. 😅
Quote from a random steam thread: _"depicting Chinese history is always a massive pain if you expect the game to do any business in China. Their government has tons of rules on how you can tell the history of China"_
I think the issue is more that they'd have no new civs to introduce by making campaigns for existing ones. Probably best bet is to find a custom campaign?
But yeah, it's so strange how there's no campaigns for them.
@@edmis90that doesn't explain japan though... Considering there rich history.
I think they need to break Chinese into smaller factions, like Jin/Manchuria with cavalry focus, and Han/Song as current Chinese, perhaps we can also add Tangut?
@@VuLinhAssassin Chinese government don't like reminders that China wasn't always one whole country. They afraid that this may encourage separatism.
Medieval Japanese campaign is difficult, as they mostly just fight against themselves with only three potential external enemies (Korean, Mongols, and Chinese). The only plausible candidate is Toyotomi Hideyoshi I guess, which would be half Japanese Unification against other Japanese and two Korean invasions that would result in defeat. Pretty anticlimatic @@alg7115
The Jadwiga campaign is so good, I absolutely love it. So touching.
Thanks for your ever perceptive comments. Looking ahead I think that the devs should focus on developing new campaigns for existing civs, although I could see a DLC based on a separation of Chinese civs based on dynasty. For example an army under the Tang Dynasty might be very different from earlier or later dynaties, and it would open the door to the development of a separate Tibetan civ. One civ missing from the Europeans is the Swiss whose unique focus on infantry should deserve some attention from the devs.
Agreed, I think a Swiss pikeman as an alternative halb upgrade would be amazing. Maybe give it 1 range like kamyuks and steppe lancers!
Although splitting up Chinese civs is a possibility, I think the consensus is that a Tibetan civ will never happen because China would ban the game (see what happened to games like Guilty Gear Strive).
As a 90% campaign player, I like Mountain Royals a lot. The campaigns had some major bugs in the beginning, but they've fixed those and now they run quite well. I like the new civilizations, especially the Armenians.
I do think that DotD is one of the best expansions period, second maybe to Conquerors because that's the one I had as a kid on CD.
I think that if you had ranked all of the DLCs, including AOK and AOEIIHD, my near-total agreement with the list would be different, as I'm not a huge fan of most of the middle DLCs. I don't love The Forgotten, campaign-wise at least, although I do love the Incas and Slavs. Last Khans is also pretty mediocre, although again I do love the Bulgarians.
Sicilian campaign was pretty hype, with scaling heroes, a ton of interesting interactive mechanics and last but not least, covering a part of the history of Europe that's very unique and barely talked about.
I agree with having dawn of the dukes at #1, that was such a memorable campaign. I would have moved lords of the west to #2 spot for their campaigns as well but then again I'm one of those people who purely play these games/expansions for their story campaigns and the history while never touching online.
I really hope the next one focuses on more Mesoamerican civs, or at least adds a full campaign for the Mayans. And honestly, if they end up covering all possible civs from the time period, I would be willing to pay for campaign & maps only DLCs, but of course, they would have to be lower than $15 sheesh.
That would be so awesome
Then again, some of us loved Return of Rome because it introduced us to AoE 1, which is awesome (and often my preferred game of the two, at this point). I never would have played it otherwise, but after experiencing it I'd consider buying AoE 2 DE + RoR worth it for the AoE 1 content alone. Simpler and rougher, maybe, but tons of fun in single player.
So, yeah, maybe the worst AoE 2 DLC, but AoE 1 is a great game in its own right.
Awesome vid! And a very well-made list, totally agree with the arrangement.
I have only the dawn of the dukes dlc, and i love it, Jadwiga campaign is so well made, also the Poles as a civ is my favorite. Its Perfect
Personally I would have rated DoI as the best DLC, as not only gives you 3 new civs, but overhauls an existing one (Indians -> Hindustanis) quite a lot.
Also I like the approach to civ design with giving them a very spotty tech tree, but compensating for it by strong civ-boni and lots of unique and regional units. Makes these civs feel quite a bit more distinguished from the rest.
My favourite was the Jadwiga campaign. Had me sad over a long dead lady lmao
As someone recently returning to AOE, I appreciate the insight, happy to see you still putting out nice content Spirit :)
Conquerors brought Mayans, Aztecs and Spaniards, for original AOE2 players, there won't be any better DLC ❤
You are very good at these videos. Thanks.
Btw, perfect farms listed as a Pole pro is very funny!
It made sense to just rank the current purchasable DLCs in this video, but I would love a follow up video that ranks, The Conquerors, The Forgotten, African Kingdoms, Rise of the Rajas, and The Last Khans too.
After watching until the end, I think in terms of uniqueness Rajas is better than AK because it gave you a lot of unique things from battle elephant, an archer that counter other archers, a unit that only cost 1/2 pop, a new map that is both land and water, a cavalry archer that always got nerfed every time even though it's only have 30% accuracy.
Fair enough, and good point about the cool hybrid maps Rajas added. I think I'm just used to how much better Khmer and Vietnamese are now that the original just feels lacklustre. The most played civ from the two DLCs is also Ethiopians, so it feels like the safer recommendation broadly speaking, but you bring up valid points.
Thx for this overview and briefly summarizing the Civs.
Hands down! The best add-on to the game was back in 1999 with the Conquerors adding Mayans, Aztecs, Spanish, Huns and Koreans as well as four new campaigns, 11 new units, 26 new technologies mechanics. However, these civs have been nerfed to death despite being very popular in tournament, but underperforming.
Second all time best add-on was African Kindom: I love the Serengeti map and the baobob trees. Ethiopians, Malians, Berbers, and Portugues are fun civs with current mechanics and average performance 50-51%. Especially, Portugues needed a lot of change to actually being competitive…
I still wish a new expansion would sometime add a more generic new unit or upgrade, we have not seen that since the Conquerors. I won't mind new regional units either of course, but it could be nice to maybe see an additional barracks unit since nothing has been added there since the Conquerors while there's a lot of cavalry and archery units, several regional ones for both.
Personally I think they should split the militia line into two chains, one with sword and shield through all the ages, and the other coming in at the castle age wielding a two handed sword from the start. Since it's a bit odd they change equipment like that, and this way one could be more defensive and the other more offensive.
A regional unit with spear and shield could also maybe be a great alternative to the spearman, having more pierce armour but less melee armour, moving faster. Could be great for an African infantry unit that the Berbers and Saracens could also have aside from the African civs.
Or maybe some sort of fast infantry raider unit armed with axe and shield that's cheap cannon fodder that deals bonus damage to villagers and buildings and could nearly instantly be recruited to serve a purpose against raids too despite being weak. They'd have a little protection against archers with their shields and would be more a nuisance to cavalry to deal with, a distraction than a real challenge. But their speed would make cavalry work a bit more to grab them.
This speaks to how desperately games need EXPANSIONS back.
DLCs are just too little.
It's neat, of course, to have a small amount of content added regularly, keeps the game alive and everything
But there's just no denying it. The Conquerors added five civs (including a whole new architecture set), three full campaigns as well as the Battle of the Conquerors scenarios, three common units (if we include Eagles) and a plethora of new techs. For the price of the Conquerors, the Mountain Royals added... two civs and three campaigns, and it's debatable how much work exactly the devs put into these civs.
@@fulguratingbean9489 There's no way Mountain royals costs close to as much as the Conquerors did if you adjust for inflation.
@@Mosil0 That's fair, although, back then it wasn't uncommon to see the Conquerors in the same box as Age of Kings, getting both for the price of Age of Kings, for example.
They don't do that because they're catering to the multiplayer crowd and are being extremely careful about balance.
@@EresirThe1st Which seems like a huge mistake to me. All the multiplayer crowds ask for is nerfs nerfs and more nerfs until the knight/crossbow meta is as bland and boring as it could possibly be. The Gurjaras and Hindustanis were sticking out, too original, so the ranked players demanded nerfs, rather than learning how to play around these exciting new civs.
Poles have been one of if not the biggest civ theres been demand for. If it wasnt number 1 id be shocked.
Nice review, but I wish you hadn’t skipped The Last Khans which introduced new real world maps, or the original HD expansions. It was a bit mind-boggling when The Forgotten and The African Kingdoms came out. As a side note, the latter two expansions had a really positive impact on my life in those years!
That's not the point of the video though (surprised how many talk about older, pre-DE content). This video is specifically for situations of "Okay, I bought AoE2:DE and loved it, and would like to get something more. Which of the 5 do I get?". That tosses the older content out of the window, for the assumption is already that the hypothetical person has spent enough time with it
i absolutly loves the new dlc mule cart, i even created a custom scenario where you start a game with just 3 villager and a mule cart regardless of civilization and having a lot of fun with it
My list:
5. Return of Rome
4. The Mountain Royals
3. Dynasties of India
2. Lords of the West
1. Dawn of the Dukes
All are fantastic, though, and worth it if you are a big fan of the greatest video game of all time.
Thanks for this, Im looking into buying the game and this really helps with what DLCs to prioritize!
I am happy with all of them. Keep them coming! :)
Yeah, I'm pretty interested to see what the top and bottom poles are
It really can't be emphasised enough what incredible SP value you get from the $20 basegame.. at the very least a year's worth of campaigns.
Love your videos
Nice idea! Thanks!
Of course... because since the release of HD, people always asking for poles civ because they want winged hussars.
Even if base hussar and Magyar huszar have wings it doesn't matter because it's not winged hussars.
Dude, campaigns wise, I love how you can see the other side of the conflict in the ones from Lords of the West; but Jadwiga's cutscenes have the biggest plot twist I've seen in years (and I've seen Marvel/GOT)
Got the top 3 DLCs as a black Friday bundle for $10 🙌🏽
Return of Rome is really for folks like me who would've liked to see AoE1 brought up to speed with other AoE games. If we're looking at just AoE2 additions then yeah, it's weak. But getting a Roman civ for those late Antiquity scenarios rocked, and really, the one thing it's missing is a Roman AoE2 campaign. That would've gone a long way towards giving it some extra AoE2 stuff. But I think that AoE1 should've been developed more, with a stronger push to AoE2-ify it. UUs and UTs at the least, probably with the Academy serving as the UU and UT building as is the Castle in AoE2. And the campaigns to be updated to a more AoE2-style narrative and design, rather than just porting over 25 year old campaigns from very early RTS era. The difference in quality between the backported campaigns and new ones is just too massive. It's honestly kinda annoying that the most recent overhauled version of AoE1 feels like it could use an overhaul again.
Mountain Royals is definitely the black sheep among standard AoE2 DLCs. The price hike cuts deep. It does however mark the first time the Persians actually get a campaign, after having existed for 25 years in both AoE1 and 2, and not even being added in any other Age of games for whatever reason.
Lord of the West is pretty much the middle of the pack here. But I like Burgundians in any form they take in any game, so I can't complain about anything in this DLC. It could use Normans as a separate civ from the Sicilians but it's overall alright either way.
Dynasties of India feels like the strongest DLC to me, by far. Aside from adding three civs and reworking one other, they also did the correct move and made the Gurjara campaign remain as Gurjaras, rather than attempt to limit access to it just because they're a DLC civ. The Dravidians are also playable in the coop version of Suryavarman 4, as the second player slot. I only wish they would've made the Normans playable in Hastings the same way.
Dawn of the Dukes holds one of the strongest narratives of the game, imo. Lithuanian and Polish storylines being interlinked and the grand campaign of Jan Žižka against the HRE are nothing to scoff at. But I would still rank it lower than Dynasties of India. The competitive strength of a civ doesn't matter as much to me because it's very volatile, given a course of several updates, so I'm not sure how reasonable of a rating it is here. Like the Bohemians, who a couple updates ago were underperforming, but are now top tier off of essentially just a unit rework.
That "overhauled AOE1" is essentially a cash grab that failed hard, don't expect Microsoft to bother with it again
Not sure what else you were expecting from Return of Rome. I grew up on AoE1. I wanted AoE1 campaigns, as I remembered them, with AoE2 quality of life updates. And that's exactly what we got. AoE1 DE was the true failure. But Return of Rome hits exactly how the original campaigns should be. If they changed it too much, it wouldn't even feel like AoE1 anymore.
@@PsychoSpartan7 I think that SotL did make a video on this back when RoR was just announced, about making something closer to how AoE1 works, compared to how AoE2 works. That AoE 1.3 or AoE 1.7 argument.
I personally wasn't sure myself what I would've desired. In general I considered 1.3 argument to be preferable. But in retrospect the big things missing from that notion are:
1. Unique units
2. Unique techs
3. Reworked campaigns with a central narrative. (Not necessarily change the campaign or scenario design too much, but at least make it more consistent with AoE2 and RoR campaigns)
4. Unique Wonders for all civs
5. Making a tutorial campaign that's a solid campaign rather than a glorified tutorial.... although this applies to William Wallace as well.
6. I guess making trash units better?
7. Historical Battles section so that each civ has at least one scenario where it's playable.
Everyone here says that the Conquerors dlc was the best. And i can't disagree. The ability to garrison units in my Ferrari Mongol rams is soo good. But the Conquerors switched the melee damage of bombard towers to pierce damage. That made a very powerful defensive building a useless pile of stone
great stuff!
The interconnected campaigns is great, but to me the Algirdas and Kestutis campaign is the highlight of Dawn of the Dukes. It's kind of the closest you get to a string of co-op campaigns in the game at this point, and they have high number of reasonable paths to victory. Overall the DLC definitely feels like it has some of the most variety; going back and playing the original AOEI and II missions you realize how far the game has come in mission design.
Nice list
I have to admit I did not know the Rome DLC came with AOE1 Content and Campaigns.
Definitely going to get it now
Hey SOTL, i have an idea for a video
When are you better off building fishtraps rather than long distance fishing?
I'm a big fan of your content
Cheers From Brazil
When life gives you lemons, watch Spirit of the Law
AoE 1 is a game I played a ton in high school so the dlc for it is top tier for me to relive the nostalgia. When AoE2 came out I barely looked back at 1 until now.
1:57 as someone who doesn't play DE i almost shit myself when the subtitles said return of rome cost $115 USD
I LOVE AOE1, and I LOVED playing the Return of Rome DLC yet I gotta say that I also think that the Return of Rome DLC must be placed at the end
I play full random all the time, every time. So i just like having dlcs to see what i'll get.
SAying this though, i'm doing all the campaigns and it surprises me even after all this time... most of them haven't been played still!
Now... release the starwars galactic battlegrounds as an updated dlc and i'll buy that.
i definitely wish you hadn’t skipped over the earlier expansions
As someone who hasn't bought any DLCs (barely even play DE) I was able to guess the order of all 5.
Not sure what that means exactly, probably that I need to get outside a bit more...
13:17
As a Sabaton fan I see what you did there.
This actually shows HOW AWESOME the base game is. I took years of deelopment and years of funding from players and devs etc but at $20 it has lots of civs, game options, campaigns
I want Lords of the East now, with extended Japanese and Chinese dynasties
I love return of rome dlc the most, its my most favorite
And also dawn of the dukes dlc
I'll rank it this way
5. Ror
4. Tmr
3. Dotd
2. Low
1. Doi
I bought Dawn of the Dukes just for the poles. My new favorite civ
To be fair I'm already waiting for the next DLC to be released.
Really wish we could get an update to the Aztecs. Would also love a DLC with the Polynesians as a more water-based civilization along with more unique civilizations.
I grew up with the original game, before the conquerors expansion and I have to say, as great as all the new campaigns are, none of them are able to imprint such unforgettable memories as the original William Wallace campaign, or Joan of arc. Partly of course due to age, when first playing at such a young age it becomes somewhat of a core memory. However partly it feels the original style was more raw, more unpolished, even more extreme in some ways, and I am only talking about the voice acting here. It's the way these stories were told in such an emotional way that made them so unforgettable for me. The new campaigns sometimes lack this passion for me, I can always tell it's a voice actor doing his/her job. But with the storyteller of William Wallace, you had the impression that he is part of the Scottish resistance, with la hire you had a similar impression, even Bertrand and de metz!
Sure it's Microsoft these days, and the people behind might have a different focus on whats important for a good game, but I somehow deeply wish, for the next dlc they could look at the original voice acting, throw a bit of that polished correctness over board and create yet some more campaigns that don't allow it's player to forget them their whole life only due to how it's story is told.
The Conquers have been around for so long (and came out so early following the OG) that in many (if not most) people's minds they are one and the same with the OG.
I'll admit I didn't expect to see it any higher, but I am still a bit disappointed to see Lords of the West at 3. Personal favorite since I just love both Burgundians and Sicilians; they're two of my top five civs, if not top three.
I’m amazed how big AoE 2 got in content-wise thanks to DE. So much new stuff for the best RTS ever… I buy every dlc they release because I can’t have no fun in this game.
This will be controversial, I hope we'll see DLC for the Return of Rome DLC. The classical period of AoE1 is just a rich in history as the medieval period of AoE2 and is worth exploring. India of this era definitely would be interesting. China can be reworked into multiple civs for the Three Kingdoms and Warring States periods. Northern Europe, Southern Africa, and the Americas of this time period are fairly brushed over by media in general.
I don't understand why the return of rome dlc isn't in its own game called aoe1 de. It feels like a cheap trick to tag it onto aoe2 with a single throwaway civ. It's actually discouraging me from buying all of the other dlc's to have the most complete version of the game, because I'll never have all civs unlocked anyway because I'm not paying 15 bucks for "the romans"
I really hope they do one for the east like the Chinese or Japanese.
I bet we'll see at least 2 more before it's over
Got return of rome for like 50% off, wasnt gonna buy it until my cousin told me “hey its only $7.49” Thats when i finally gave in and bought it, and now i can finally play as romans 😌
Return of Rome #5 is crazy
"The arrival of Winged Hussars"
You cheeky devil
@Spirit i think something with your Return of Rome settings is wrong.
I bought the DLC recently and i see plenty / few game lobbies across different countries.
"The arrival of winged hussars"
I see your Sabatons slipping up SOTL. I see it.
I feel like the region that needs the next DLC expansion is the Saracen civ. They should to be broken up into more specialized civs like the Indian civ was. Maybe: Abbasids, Mamluks, Emirate of Cordoba, etc...
I would have been more satisfied if Return of Rome beside the Roman civ added a Roman campaign for AoE2. I think that there will be no campaign for them 😔 There won't be a dlc for a dlc. ( fingers crossed it will be added later to return of rome with an update )
they probobly didn't want to make it unfair that one civ got two bonuses; for some people it probobly looked like two already, much less if they thought if they got a AoE2 campaign.
The Roman dlc is the first I bought, I got it for 10 dollars.. during a sale. The calvary is fun and powerful... and the legionaires is super!... and its intimidating.
I bought the Mount Royal before it came out, on a pre purchase package. Super fun. They are very good, but I never get them on randoming, my civ, so I have to manually pick them. I think itsa host thing if the host doesn't have it. Armenians are fun, and georgions.. Mule cart, needs help but I guess its minimal micor, but yo uca have a cart follow a villager, but this causes issues sometimes.. I think the cart, should be treated with zero collision for villagers on them, Meaning villagers can walk through mule carts. THis would solve my only technical grief of the new civs...
I'm dissapointed what they did to civs from Lords of the West DLC. They changed them entirely. Nerf after nerf until the civs stopped being unique.
It also feels bad that Lithuanians and Persian campaigns are locked behind DLC.
Briton campaign too
@@devangnivatkar2649 yes you're right.
Not to be a nit picker but the title really should be “Ranking the AoE2 DE DLCs”. I like how this vid approached the topic, like a consumers guide, but I thought we were going to get a comparison of every DLC from the title.
THE CONQUERORS!!
I honestly don't understand the negative reviews about the unique units having special abilities. I applaud the developers for trying to push what is possible in the world of AoE2. Saying that it has no place in AoE2 is just weird to me
Hey guys! Spirit of the law here!
Hey Spirit Of The Law, guys here.
I think i will grab rome, idk if I'd label myself a super fan, but i am interested in playing rome as i am trying to master the Byzantine. Also i grabbed the other dlc to play AGAINST the new civs, and not as the new civs.
Nice how you acknowledge AoE 1 being more famous than AoE 2 in Vietnam. Personal exp they still play old AoE 1 in internet cafes but I imagine more people are playing on Steam now.
Damn!
I wanted to make a video abbout that, the next days.
Well look at that I own one DLC and it is the best one. Bohemians rules the wagons! I should try those campaings.
I like them all.
Of all of these DLCs, the Conquers will always be the best to me.