What campaigns would you like to see in future expansions?

Quintillus

Archiving Civ3 Content
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
7,481
Location
Ohio
I was thinking the other day, the base game has the Carthaginian campaign, and Heroes of the Aegean has the Greco-Macedonian campaign. Which ones might you want to see in a future expansion?

Currently, I'm keen on the idea of a Persian campaign. Start with a Medean precursor, playing as Cyaxares, working with Babylon to bring down Assyria.

Then fast forward to Cyrus the Great, have a couple scenarios where he's working to build up Persia, conquering the Lydrians and King Croesus and conquering Babylon. Becoming the King of the Universe. Maybe include his ill-fated adventure against Tomyris of the Scythians and see if the player can fare better than he did in real life.

After that, there'd have to be a scenario around Cambyses II conquering Egypt.

Finally, it could wrap up with Darius I entering and taking over Greece. Or perhaps Xerxes I; I believe one of the Greek scenarios gives the opportunity to play the opposing side of that one?

So that would be six of so scenarios, off the top of my head. Involving all of the Old World civilizations except Rome and Carthage, if you could the Lydians as a successor to the Hittites, geographically at least. There may be an opportunity to have a scenario around Persia taking over the Phoenician territories and the Phoenician navy, although I'm not as well-acquainted with those events.

The other great thing is that thanks to Herodotus, we have great stories around some of these events that could be incorporated into the game. They may not all be 100% true (his stories about Cambyses's sacrilegious acts in Egypt appear to be countered by other records found by archaeologists carved in stone), but they'd be great flavor.

----------------

Probably my next-favorite candidate would be Assyria. They haven't received a lot of love in 4X games prior to Old World, and they didn't receive a lot of love from their neighbors in the actual Old World, probably for good reason, but they have a long history in the area and I wouldn't be surprised if there's sufficient material to make a good campaign for them. We don't have as colorful of records for them as we do for Persia or Greece, but both they and the Babylonians were good about keeping factual records.

----------------

Any Egyptian/Roman/Hittite/Babylonian fans out there? Whose campaign would you like to play?
 
Last edited:

Pfeffersack

Deity
Joined
May 10, 2003
Messages
3,132
Location
Germany
I think a campaign for Old Egypt would be great :egypt: Developing a cilization around the Nile, building Pyramids, uniting the state, keeping it together vs. foreign powers (like Hittites or Rome) or internal unrest, playing famous characters like Ramses II., Hatshepsut, Echnaton or Cleopatra...my feeling is that OW would be a perfect place to tell some of their tales :queen::king:
 

Xyth

History Rewritten
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
4,106
Location
Aotearoa
The Battle of Kadesh. Egypt vs. Hatti. Largest chariot battle in history. Ended in the world's oldest known peace treaty.
 

uhu

Warlord
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
130

Forster

Prince
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
521
Location
Columbus, GA
Unless they radically change OW, I don't see how you could get any Asian campaigns other than those in the area of the game now.
I would love a Rome campaign. Of course, if you are playing Rome now, you are already in one. :D
I spent 4 1/2 years in Germany and 3 in Italy while in the army and got to visit many ancient sites. It was an amazing feeling to stand in the forum and the acropolis.
 

Dale

Mohawk Games Developer
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
7,426
I think a campaign for Old Egypt would be great :egypt: Developing a cilization around the Nile, building Pyramids, uniting the state, keeping it together vs. foreign powers (like Hittites or Rome) or internal unrest, playing famous characters like Ramses II., Hatshepsut, Echnaton or Cleopatra...my feeling is that OW would be a perfect place to tell some of their tales :queen::king:

Not exactly "Old" Egypt. Except for the Pyramids (which were Old Kingdom) everything else you mentioned is New Kingdom up to the Roman conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt. :)
 

Pfeffersack

Deity
Joined
May 10, 2003
Messages
3,132
Location
Germany
Not exactly "Old" Egypt. Except for the Pyramids (which were Old Kingdom) everything else you mentioned is New Kingdom up to the Roman conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt. :)

Yes you are right here of course - I was sloppy with language here and using "old" just in the meaning of not refering to modern-day Egypt (which was, thinking about it now, unnecessary...because probably no one would have though of that, if I would have just wrote "Egypt" ;) )
 

uhu

Warlord
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
130
Unless they radically change OW, I don't see how you could get any Asian campaigns other than those in the area of the game now.
Thank you very much. It was quite interesting and educative to think about stuff around the time of 1st and 2nd Punic War, but beyond the given leaders & geographical area, in terms of radically change.

 
Last edited:

King Jason

Fleece-bearer
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,040
Battle of Kadesh absolutely - Age of Empires will forever have a soft spot in my favorites purely on account of being one of the few ancient themes strategy games that left out Rome at first and included The Hittites. They even had a Kadesh campaign.

One thing I would hope to see in future DLC is some thematic alignment. Heroes of the Agean offers neat scenarios and the new dynasties are cool but felt a little late to the party for the release. Then of course it adds The Hittites. I feel like the new faction is a huge draw for most consumers so for future DLC it would be nice to see the scenarios be centered around the new factions if they're included. That said, nothing wrong with scenario packs. I'd pay some money for a Kadesh campaign.

But Heroes of the Agean was like "relive the glory of Greece!" --- "...and also here's the Hittites which have absolutely nothing to do with this"

As for an idea;

The end of the tech tree lends itself to some late game scenarios. So I would say The First Crusade would be a strong candidate that edges itself into the timeline.

In that case you could introduce The Byzantines or Seljuks --- or "Arabia" (similar to how "Persia" is sort of an amalgamation of 3 different empires; Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian).

In this way you'd have have a whole thematic bundle where you get a new faction to play in the game, and some scenarios that flesh out some of the history around the faction(s).

I hope The Hittites didn't miss the chance for a spotlight - sorry fellas I just feel Rome is so tired and overdone. There's hundreds of games where you can relive the glory of Rome. Greece too, frankly; I'm just over it.
 

King Jason

Fleece-bearer
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,040
Also re: Asia.

They could theoretically do the unification of China; all they *really* need to do is just introduce one China faction. The Cao'an already has a Chinese building model and was located in SE china - so for aesthetic they just need to reskin some of the buildings - but even then it's not necessary.

Zoom in on Macemen. I don't think Persians and Egyptians were fielding huge battalions of Blonde-bearded mace wielders back in the day.

So for China they really wouldn't need to make too much unique art beyond the UU, perhaps a culture skin for the base tile art/some buildings - and then of course all of the character portraits would have to be Chinese/adjacent.

Having said that - if they manage to create just a single "China"/Xia/Shang/Zhou playable faction.... A scenario doesn't need anything more than that as they can just reuse all of the stuff for the different factions.

Also on the note of other Cultures - India went up against Greece; twice - and won, twice. Alexander may have just ran out of steam the first time, but the Maurya took the eastern Satraps back from Seluecus --- so an India faction is also totally fair game.

On that note; one thing I would REALLY like to see is a step away from western centrism; again - there are a million games where we roleplay Rome or Greece Conquering everyone.

...why don't we get to play Persia conquering everyone? The Achaemenids empire was literally the same size as Alexander's Greece, sans Greece... We always get to play the story of Alexander - but not the story of Cyrus-Xerxes. It's lame.

I remember reading stories about Alexander endlessly as a kid - a love of Greek history is what turned me into a history buff; my father even named me after a Greek mythological character... But every time a new historical game comes along and serves us a dish of Roman or Greek ego stroking I get the feeling like most of are just trying to live out childhood fantasies of riding off to conquer the world as a teenager rather than having an actual appreciation for history.

There's endless potential in the old world; tap into it.
 
Last edited:

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
8,813
The Trojan War would be high on my list.

Anything involving naval battles, I really enjoy them and just don't get enough of it in the core SP experience.
 

Xyth

History Rewritten
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
4,106
Location
Aotearoa
In that case you could introduce The Byzantines or Seljuks --- or "Arabia" (similar to how "Persia" is sort of an amalgamation of 3 different empires; Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian).

I'd love to see an Arabian nation added, but not Islamic Arabia. That would be a mistake and missed opportunity in my opinion. Arab peoples have a rich history prior to Islam that basically never gets covered in games. The Sabaeans, the Himyar, the Nabataeans, the Lakhmids, etc. Maybe an amalgamation, like with Persia. But please no Abu Bakr or the likes. That's not Old World, that's Medieval world. Likewise Byzantium.

Adding Islam as a (very) late-game religion would be fine though.

sorry fellas I just feel Rome is so tired and overdone. There's hundreds of games where you can relive the glory of Rome. Greece too, frankly; I'm just over it.

100% agree. Great that we get to fight against the Romans as Carthage too.

I hope The Hittites didn't miss the chance for a spotlight

Given the Battle of Kadesh was somewhat inconclusive, it would great to play it as either Egypt or Hatti.

Also on the note of other Cultures - India went up against Greece; twice - and won, twice. Alexander may have just ran out of steam the first time, but the Maurya took the eastern Satraps back from Seluecus --- so an India faction is also totally fair game.

The Mauryans (or a precursor) would be perfect for Old World. Much more so than China. I would like to see China added eventually, but I really want to see nations from Arabia, India, Africa (Kush, Axum) and Central Asia (Sogdians? Kushan?) first.

On that note; one thing I would REALLY like to see is a step away from western centrism; again - there are a million games where we roleplay Rome or Greece Conquering everyone.

...why don't we get to play Persia conquering everyone? The Achaemenids empire was literally the same size as Alexander's Greece, sans Greece... We always get to play the story of Alexander - but not the story of Cyrus-Xerxes. It's lame.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

The Trojan War would be high on my list.

Could be fun to play as the Trojans and try to survive as long as possible. Otherwise it's yet another Greek campaign. (Though I do wish the Greeks in Old World were the Mycenaeans instead of the Macedonians).
 
Last edited:

King Jason

Fleece-bearer
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,040
Not that I disagree with any of the above points - but I think it's important to remember that the distinction between classical and medieval is a blurred line, and "late antiquity" and "early medieval" overlap to the tune of several hundred years. Mostly because these eras are just made up. The fall of western Rome and the collapse of European power pretty much being the defining shift that draws a line across the eras.

The devs can decide that they only want civs in the game that have their roots in the ancient era, sure - but the game itself already extends into the early medieval in quite a lot of ways.

So if they wanted to, I think early-to-high medieval is a very viable cutoff for an entry point as far as civs go.

Especially in a game where Hattusili, Romulus, Hatshepsut, Cyrus, and Ashurbanipal can all conduct Diplomacy together; none of those people were alive within even 100 years of each other. Some of them were a thousand years apart.

So, not that I'm rooting for Abu Bakr specifically - but if he showed up, or Constantine, or Charlemagne... They're only another thousand years in the future from the latest ruler/civ in the game, which surprisingly isn't event "Rome" - it's "Greece" since they went with Alexander.

The empire of Alexander and Constantine's Byzantium are a meer 600 years apart.

Most of the rulers in the game didn't even found the kingdoms or civs that would grow to become the eventually empires; the only actual founders in the game are Romulus, Dido, and Hattusili.

Not that I'm rooting for more Romans - but just from an argument's perspective; Constantine at the helm of a Byzantium civ would not totally be out of the question - Byzantium the city was founded in 600 BC (ish)

Compared to Babylon, which was founded around 2,000 BC - and the in-game founder didn't even exist for another 1500 years thereabouts.

Of course it becomes a question of "theme" - and I guess theme exists in the minds of the consumer. Everyone is going to have a different opinion of what content is too late or too distant when it comes to the theme.
 

Quarz

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
41
I would like to get "Old Old World" campaigns.Something like this:
  • Egypt
    from the birth of Egypt the unite of Lower and Upper Egypt, to Old Kingdom and it's Wonders
  • Bronce Age/End of Bronce Age
    with Mycenian Greek, Hittities, Egypt, Phoenicians (Karthago "replacement"), Babylonians, Minoans (<- replacement of Persians maybe just for this campaign?) and a flood of Sea People at the end of this campaign.
 

Quintillus

Archiving Civ3 Content
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
7,481
Location
Ohio
I checked the timeline for the rulers in the game; some were a thousand years apart, but some did have lifespans that overlapped, and reigns that nearly overlapped.

In chronological order:

Hattusili I: Reigned 1650 - 1620
Hatshepsut: Born 1507, Reigned 1479 - 1458
Dido of Carthage: Born 839, Founded Carthage 814, died 759
Romulus of Rome: Founded Rome 753, died 716
Ashurbanipal: Born 685, Reigned 669 - 631
Nebuchadnezzar II: Reigned 605 - 562 (in-game his father is Nabopolassar, so the Nebuchadnezzar is the Second)
Cyrus the Great: Born circa 600, Reigned 559 - 530
Philip II: Reigned 359 - 336

Of course the leaders don't tell the whole story, as many of these civilizations lasted a long time. But I think the geographic and timeline theme can be said to be the Middle East and Mediterranean, from the Hittite times to the establishment of Christianity. Which is a pretty wide window. Still, I'd put a thematic midpoint around the Neo-Assyrian Empire, given the concentration of leaders from around that time period and the geographic choices centering around Assyria.

The late tech tree definitely hints at a medieval end point, should the game play out that far, however. Crossbows in particular. Cataphracts perhaps are meant to represent Seleucid armored cavalry, but at least to me the term evokes the Byzantines. The Bodkin arrow also belonging to the medieval period. And yet the Swordsman also is late game, and yet was well-established in the "Old World" period. The line indeed is blurred.

Ultimately it's up to Mohawk what they want the theme to be and how far they think is reasonable to extend it. They could add a Charlemagne campaign, but it would noticeably push the theme forward in time; maybe they'd rather have that be the theme of their next game? They could add a campaign and a couple nations in India, and have a campaign theme that would be fresh to the majority of their (presumably mostly) Western audience, who is more familiar with the likes of Alexander and Augustus. But there are also less-widely-known stories within their current geographic area, and they may prefer to at least alternate lesser-known stories with better-known ones, or do like they did with the Carthage campaign and have it start with a lesser-known bit of history and later include well-known history (if diverging to favor Carthage more than historically). I'd reckon sales are probably higher for tales the audience has at least a passing familiarity with, though I agree that having something a bit less well-trodden would be nice.

In the end, I like that there's a rough geographic and timeline theme, and I suspect focusing on that box helped Mohawk create a compelling game (versus aiming for a worldwide, all-of-history competitor as their first entry in the genre). I could see them going back to the "Old Old World" more easily than going forward into what's often considered to be the "medieval world", thematically. While the leaders may not overlap, many of the civilizations (or their predecessors, e.g. Phoenicia, Medea) would have interacted. They could throw in a Mesoamerica campaign, but thematically it would be a significant diversion. Sure, I enjoyed dealing with the Mayans as the Persians in Civ, but Old World isn't Civ.

Overall, I just hope the game continues to sell well, and there is gradually more content added. It's the most fun I've had with a new 4X in a long time.
 
Top Bottom