For Thermopylae it was clear after a moment (at least watching and noticing color of objective) that you win no matter what and that what matters is how many enemy units you kill probably for the next scenario - the more you kill the easier next scenario gets I guess.
I don't understand the dislike for the scenario tbh It's very much a "current objective: survive" scenario, with an interesting switch in gameplay at the middle point The goal is both simple and impossible, so you can have some fun playing around with op naval units, then try out the Spartans for the first time in a kind of neutral situation where all u can do is build out army
The problem is that, that isn't the way Age of Empires 2 scenarios are designed. It's a deeply unsatisfing way to make a mission. You grind out against a no-win scenario, and then you lose anyway. Even in scenarios that are meant to represent a loss or set back for the campaign protagonists there are normally some more proactive side missions or interactive goals to achieve in order to make it feel like you're playing a stratergy game and not just spamming mouse clicks until the game decides you lose now.
@@DCdabest Okay, but here you are making two arguments I see faults with. First, you argue that because this is not the way things are usually done, then it is wrong to do so. However, not only is experimentation not inherently bad, but this dlc is very explicitly breaking from the standard way of doing things, so going against the standard is merely doing what it's meant to. Additionally, you say it is unsatisfying. Apparently, the basis for this argument rests on a similar concept to the previous one (that this is not the way things are usually done, which we have already settled), but also on its meaninglessness because you don't see anything to do in it. For one, I restate that you do get to experience the novelty of distinct gameplay in the manner I mentioned in my first comment. On top of that, we don't know if this is actually "meaningless". What you do in this scenario may have repercussions in the next one, as some other comments have pointed out.
@@christos49 See, that first argument I can understand The scenario not working properly is a legitimate problem that should be solved and undermines it considerably Whether or not it is enjoyable to a person in particular is another matter, and that's up to taste alone, so there is not much I can say on that
@bautipe9948 Ok, that's a fair reply. And I'll concede that experimentation is a good idea. I think that if I could refine my point, I'd say that when you don't give achievable goals as part of the game objectives it makes the game psychologically unsatisfying to play through. For example, if the game said; "Survive three days of Persian Attacks at Sea," then you could be be mentally ready for when 3 days are up, you are going to "win." Instead, the game makes you feel like you're set up to lose because when you ineveitably fail, the objective is when you actually progress the scenario. So, if they want to mix up the formula a bit, then they need to be more explicit. The reason I hate this kinda of design is that it fucks with my sense of satisfaction that I get from playing games. This isn't a personal opinion either it's a psychological fact. If you create a task without clear parameters and you purposely design it to be no-win, then the people performing it are gonna be demoralised when they complete instead of satisfied that they finished it. It's not good to have levels in your game that the player has to grit their teeth and bear because then the game isn't "Fun" anymore. It becomes a chore. I know there's a whole crowd of people for whom that kind of gameplay is rewarding; but I'm just not built that way.
I guess maybe adding a timer would make this scenario at least more clear in how *long* you have to hold out for. Personally I really enjoyed this scenario, partially because of the mythos around it and the historical significance. I can see why someone who is used to more "traditional" AoE2 wouldn't like it as much though.
I dont understand what apparently dissatisfied the judge in you. Thermopylae is an object of sentiment, lets be real we all know who lost, there's no point in showing 'victory' in lost battles as Aoe2 often does. Did you expect a Spartan victory? No, the glory is the amount of units you kill with that meager force. That, is the "victory". You see the "Soldiers killed" at the top, that is what makes the scenario replayable. It makes you challenge yourself on your biggest kill count. Otherwise you can simply delete all your Spartan army at the start and go to victory.
The problem when you go accurate with history is some players will find them 'boring'. I meant, if _Siege of Paris_ and _Battle of Falkirk_ were as close to history as possible, there would be nothing much to do. For a person who only played AoK and AoC until now, I highly praise the work on this Greece expansion. By the way, if anyone has played SC2, there was a hold-out mission where you're supposed to lose after killing a certain amount of units.
Thermopylae is not an accurate historical recounting. When Spartans send less soldiers than 4 other Greek cities and they send 1 back to tell this fantastical tale of how they held this massive force by themselves, you have to question if they weren't the wimpiest soldiers of all Greek city-states. None of the other cities sent anyone back. Pretty much all Spartan warrior stories are fictional. They were pretty much as battle-capable as the other Greek cities were and relied a lot more on their slaves than the other cities. I do like how the grand campaign ends with the Alexander teaser though. Macedonians had a professional army. Sparta did not.
@@jonathanking8800 I was just talking about the way they made this kind of mission, not complimenting on Spartan history. Spartans were not the only ones that fought at Thermopylae, but the fact that you knowing Spartan force was not the only one means that they didn't lie, no? The dialogue also mentions other cities.
_"Remember us." As simple an order as a king can give. "Remember why we died." For he did not wish tribute, nor song, nor monuments nor poems of war and valor. His wish was simple. "Remember us," he said to me. That was his hope, should any free soul come across that place, in all the countless centuries yet to be. May all our voices whisper to you from the ageless stones, "Go tell the Spartans, passerby, that here by Spartan law, we lie."_
I sorta enjoyed the spartan part of it, but I guess I agree with your assessment, there is very little gameplay depth. The outpost mechanic gets subverted by the fact that you can just grab them at the start and meatgrinder your way to victory. Then later you have to fight on two fronts but you can just ... send some army over. Maybe if I read up on the history of the battle I'd have ideas, not that it needs to be totally accurate anyway.
Actually the outpost mechanic is the only thing that makes it so that you have to fight on multiple fronts. If they weren't there, you could just wait the enemy at the camp and it wouldn't matter where the enemies come from (though it wasn't needed to have three of them, but it's not like it's a problem). I think the outposts is a good way to both "justify" having op units (as you would expect the spartans of Thermopylae to be) while making the second pass impactful.
@@jonathanking8800 they were trained as much as any greek could hope to be. they spent their time doing physical exercise and trained at the agora. while this isnt much by modern standards, most other greek units did not even have that much. they were a citizen militia.
It's interesting to hear spartans shouting "ite athinaioi" (forward athenians). Anyway , for historic accuracy and more just look it up on wikipedia. It was a fun scenario though.
Yes!! Working on the script now. It's going to be long, so it will likely be 2-3 videos. I've also been playing through the campaigns again on stream to get a perspective of the different choices you can make
@@OrnLu_AoE sorry, I'm not familiar with Twitch. The stream you mentioned about exploring decisions...was it live only or will I be able to watch it later ?
@@chucknoum23 Interacting with chat is always what makes streaming the most fun, but you can find the VoDs here: www.twitch.tv/ornlu_aoe/videos?filter=archives&sort=time
The trigger which swap you to the spartans is didn't work for me actually. I played this misson for 2 hours and i destroyed the enemy base, still nothing happened xD
This was fine I guess. Not really amazing, just adequate for what it is. This scenario really was just a last stand until you're defeated. What I'm wondering is the point of this. Is it that the more you kill here the less there are next scenario or something?
there was so much stuff on the screen the performance cratered for me... considering at that point i was waiting to lose it was... actually kind of tense, like the CPU was being sadistic.
480 BC Xerxes I's Persian army captured and burned Athens after defeating the Spartans at Thermopylae. The Persians destroyed the Acropolis, the Old Temple of Athena, and the Older Parthenon.
A scenario where you can't boom? Instant dislike from Ornlu lmao. Jokes aside, I kinda get it and this scenario is definitely out there. Yeah, it's Leonidas, it's supposed to be a cinematic epic last stand, but depending on what you like in your AOE2 scenarios, just endlessly grinding units with no clear purpose isn't much fun. They could have done "kill x units" or "hold out for x minutes" at the very least, and give you some side objectives. Personally, I also prefer stuff like Kotjan Kahn 2 and 3, where you clearly won't beat the main enemy, but you have objectives like fight your way towards freedom or rescue as many tribes as you can.
I agree with you. The scenario had no apparent purpose, nor aa clear reason to defend the positions. Maybe the enemy losses will be meaningful in future scenarios, but they could've done it better.
Yeah I pretty much felt the same way you did about the scenario. Not really clear, not very fun, way too forced and cinematic than something designed for fun. But hey, atleast you didn't get down to 1 FPS like I did when playing the Spartan part.
@@OrnLu_AoE I managed to defeat the Persians on the water, had unlimited resources and all upgrades, destroyed the entire Persian base, but new enemies kept spawning. What was annoying was that the sequence with Leonidas came up every now and then when I destroyed Orange buildings. You can even intervene a little in the battle with Leonidas and destroy 3 of the 40 damage towers and a few buildings behind them. What is really impossible, however, is to win with Leonidas.
This scenario was the first one I felt was really poorly designed. You're basically meant to lose the game but it doesn't tell you that. So you fight pointlessly against impossible odds. For all the reasons you mentioned too; gameplan was no existent and you spend time messing around until you just lose and then go to the next mission.
I also thought this scenario was a bit disappointing. We do have some campaign scenarios where you play through a historical defeat, but this is a hard battle to adapt for AOE2. This was a defeat for the Greeks in every sense & did not contribute in any meaningful way to the later Persian defeats at Salamis and Plataea. And so it's hard to make "objectives" for a Thermopylae scenario that make any historic sense. They could have done a "survive for X amount of time" or "hold out against X number of waves" mission, I guess. Or maybe they should have been more up front about the objective. This probably would have worked better playing from the Achaemenid side. They could have fortified the pass some more & made it fun to play as the attacker. The real battle probably resembled a siege more than it did a field battle & this would have translated well to AOE2. But it's hard to make the Achaemenids the "protagonists" with how mythologized the battle has become in western pop culture.
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
I mean, it's Thermopylae and Artemisium, what made you think you would win?
“The Persian arrows will darken the Sun”
“Then we shall fight in the shade”
For Thermopylae it was clear after a moment (at least watching and noticing color of objective) that you win no matter what and that what matters is how many enemy units you kill probably for the next scenario - the more you kill the easier next scenario gets I guess.
I don't understand the dislike for the scenario tbh
It's very much a "current objective: survive" scenario, with an interesting switch in gameplay at the middle point
The goal is both simple and impossible, so you can have some fun playing around with op naval units, then try out the Spartans for the first time in a kind of neutral situation where all u can do is build out army
The problem is that, that isn't the way Age of Empires 2 scenarios are designed.
It's a deeply unsatisfing way to make a mission. You grind out against a no-win scenario, and then you lose anyway. Even in scenarios that are meant to represent a loss or set back for the campaign protagonists there are normally some more proactive side missions or interactive goals to achieve in order to make it feel like you're playing a stratergy game and not just spamming mouse clicks until the game decides you lose now.
@@DCdabest Okay, but here you are making two arguments I see faults with.
First, you argue that because this is not the way things are usually done, then it is wrong to do so. However, not only is experimentation not inherently bad, but this dlc is very explicitly breaking from the standard way of doing things, so going against the standard is merely doing what it's meant to.
Additionally, you say it is unsatisfying. Apparently, the basis for this argument rests on a similar concept to the previous one (that this is not the way things are usually done, which we have already settled), but also on its meaninglessness because you don't see anything to do in it. For one, I restate that you do get to experience the novelty of distinct gameplay in the manner I mentioned in my first comment. On top of that, we don't know if this is actually "meaningless". What you do in this scenario may have repercussions in the next one, as some other comments have pointed out.
I had 1 FPS when playing the battle of Thermopylae and I have a good PC. That aside, it still just wasn't fun to play.
@@christos49 See, that first argument I can understand
The scenario not working properly is a legitimate problem that should be solved and undermines it considerably
Whether or not it is enjoyable to a person in particular is another matter, and that's up to taste alone, so there is not much I can say on that
@bautipe9948
Ok, that's a fair reply. And I'll concede that experimentation is a good idea.
I think that if I could refine my point, I'd say that when you don't give achievable goals as part of the game objectives it makes the game psychologically unsatisfying to play through.
For example, if the game said; "Survive three days of Persian Attacks at Sea," then you could be be mentally ready for when 3 days are up, you are going to "win." Instead, the game makes you feel like you're set up to lose because when you ineveitably fail, the objective is when you actually progress the scenario.
So, if they want to mix up the formula a bit, then they need to be more explicit. The reason I hate this kinda of design is that it fucks with my sense of satisfaction that I get from playing games. This isn't a personal opinion either it's a psychological fact. If you create a task without clear parameters and you purposely design it to be no-win, then the people performing it are gonna be demoralised when they complete instead of satisfied that they finished it. It's not good to have levels in your game that the player has to grit their teeth and bear because then the game isn't "Fun" anymore. It becomes a chore.
I know there's a whole crowd of people for whom that kind of gameplay is rewarding; but I'm just not built that way.
SPARTA!
HELLAS!
Then, and again, sing of 300 men
I guess maybe adding a timer would make this scenario at least more clear in how *long* you have to hold out for. Personally I really enjoyed this scenario, partially because of the mythos around it and the historical significance. I can see why someone who is used to more "traditional" AoE2 wouldn't like it as much though.
BEHOLD SPARTANS TODAY WE WILL DINNER IN HADES!!!!!!!
AUHHH ! AUHHH ! AUHHH !
@@misutahowaitodesu AUHHH! AUHHH! AUHHH!
I dont understand what apparently dissatisfied the judge in you. Thermopylae is an object of sentiment, lets be real we all know who lost, there's no point in showing 'victory' in lost battles as Aoe2 often does. Did you expect a Spartan victory? No, the glory is the amount of units you kill with that meager force. That, is the "victory". You see the "Soldiers killed" at the top, that is what makes the scenario replayable. It makes you challenge yourself on your biggest kill count. Otherwise you can simply delete all your Spartan army at the start and go to victory.
The problem when you go accurate with history is some players will find them 'boring'. I meant, if _Siege of Paris_ and _Battle of Falkirk_ were as close to history as possible, there would be nothing much to do. For a person who only played AoK and AoC until now, I highly praise the work on this Greece expansion. By the way, if anyone has played SC2, there was a hold-out mission where you're supposed to lose after killing a certain amount of units.
Thermopylae is not an accurate historical recounting. When Spartans send less soldiers than 4 other Greek cities and they send 1 back to tell this fantastical tale of how they held this massive force by themselves, you have to question if they weren't the wimpiest soldiers of all Greek city-states. None of the other cities sent anyone back. Pretty much all Spartan warrior stories are fictional. They were pretty much as battle-capable as the other Greek cities were and relied a lot more on their slaves than the other cities. I do like how the grand campaign ends with the Alexander teaser though.
Macedonians had a professional army. Sparta did not.
@@jonathanking8800 I was just talking about the way they made this kind of mission, not complimenting on Spartan history. Spartans were not the only ones that fought at Thermopylae, but the fact that you knowing Spartan force was not the only one means that they didn't lie, no? The dialogue also mentions other cities.
The naval battle was the acatual difficult part, Leonidas farmed 1666 kills before going down
I imagine how many people will try to make it a full on challenge to kill as many as they can XD
This is Sparta !!!!
This Is Sparta!
Ornlu likes scenarios where he can spam vills 😂
Your ships appear to need to be closer to the docks to heal.
I didn't just need a restart, I needed to redo the previous athenian missions to get the bonus for the ship I wanted lol
THIS IS WHERE WE HOLD THEM!!! THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT!!! THIS IS WHERE THEY DIE!!!
*EARN THESE SHIELDS, BOYS*
_"Remember us." As simple an order as a king can give. "Remember why we died." For he did not wish tribute, nor song, nor monuments nor poems of war and valor. His wish was simple. "Remember us," he said to me. That was his hope, should any free soul come across that place, in all the countless centuries yet to be. May all our voices whisper to you from the ageless stones, "Go tell the Spartans, passerby, that here by Spartan law, we lie."_
I sorta enjoyed the spartan part of it, but I guess I agree with your assessment, there is very little gameplay depth. The outpost mechanic gets subverted by the fact that you can just grab them at the start and meatgrinder your way to victory. Then later you have to fight on two fronts but you can just ... send some army over. Maybe if I read up on the history of the battle I'd have ideas, not that it needs to be totally accurate anyway.
Actually the outpost mechanic is the only thing that makes it so that you have to fight on multiple fronts. If they weren't there, you could just wait the enemy at the camp and it wouldn't matter where the enemies come from (though it wasn't needed to have three of them, but it's not like it's a problem). I think the outposts is a good way to both "justify" having op units (as you would expect the spartans of Thermopylae to be) while making the second pass impactful.
GIVE THEM NOTHING! BUT TAKE FROM THEM EVERYTHING!
I'm here for the hot single palisade gates in your area
While they have lost they held out to give their allies much needed time
THIS IS MADNESS! THIS IS SPARTA!
SPARTAANS!!!!...WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION???
"Unemployed!" Doesn't have the same ring to it but they were not a trained military lol
@@jonathanking8800 they were trained as much as any greek could hope to be. they spent their time doing physical exercise and trained at the agora. while this isnt much by modern standards, most other greek units did not even have that much. they were a citizen militia.
That feels like waaaay too much resources spent on upgrades and not enough on ships.
it was indeed too much res on upgrades and not enough on ships.
It's interesting to hear spartans shouting "ite athinaioi" (forward athenians).
Anyway , for historic accuracy and more just look it up on wikipedia. It was a fun scenario though.
Artemis upgrade and more galleys! You won't regret
In this scenario, we relive the famous battles of Artemisium and Thermopylae. There is lots of fighting hopeless odds.
Don't forget to use different formations in this mission it is going to help.
Hey Ornlucles, will you make a video of Chronicles' campaign review ? 🙏
Yes!! Working on the script now. It's going to be long, so it will likely be 2-3 videos. I've also been playing through the campaigns again on stream to get a perspective of the different choices you can make
@@OrnLu_AoE sorry, I'm not familiar with Twitch. The stream you mentioned about exploring decisions...was it live only or will I be able to watch it later ?
@@chucknoum23 Interacting with chat is always what makes streaming the most fun, but you can find the VoDs here: www.twitch.tv/ornlu_aoe/videos?filter=archives&sort=time
its a survival mission, what's not to get
The trigger which swap you to the spartans is didn't work for me actually. I played this misson for 2 hours and i destroyed the enemy base, still nothing happened xD
Is there a list of what the various special Athenian naval technologies do?
Any elephants?
i enter only too see Ornlu score with Spartans :D
This was fine I guess. Not really amazing, just adequate for what it is. This scenario really was just a last stand until you're defeated. What I'm wondering is the point of this. Is it that the more you kill here the less there are next scenario or something?
Tip. Make all Elite War Galleys. One shot everything.
there was so much stuff on the screen the performance cratered for me... considering at that point i was waiting to lose it was... actually kind of tense, like the CPU was being sadistic.
480 BC
Xerxes I's Persian army captured and burned Athens after defeating the Spartans at Thermopylae. The Persians destroyed the Acropolis, the Old Temple of Athena, and the Older Parthenon.
A scenario where you can't boom? Instant dislike from Ornlu lmao.
Jokes aside, I kinda get it and this scenario is definitely out there. Yeah, it's Leonidas, it's supposed to be a cinematic epic last stand, but depending on what you like in your AOE2 scenarios, just endlessly grinding units with no clear purpose isn't much fun. They could have done "kill x units" or "hold out for x minutes" at the very least, and give you some side objectives. Personally, I also prefer stuff like Kotjan Kahn 2 and 3, where you clearly won't beat the main enemy, but you have objectives like fight your way towards freedom or rescue as many tribes as you can.
This is level was so amazing I managed to get 1820 kills with Leonidas😃
I agree with you. The scenario had no apparent purpose, nor aa clear reason to defend the positions. Maybe the enemy losses will be meaningful in future scenarios, but they could've done it better.
I think this would have made a better scenario from the Persian perspective, or at very least it would have had a clearer win condition.
Who watch movie 300 and 300 rise of the empire
👍
Turkish transport ships...! Don't let them land!... I mean, Persian ships.
Yeah I pretty much felt the same way you did about the scenario. Not really clear, not very fun, way too forced and cinematic than something designed for fun. But hey, atleast you didn't get down to 1 FPS like I did when playing the Spartan part.
i lost but i win
Is there a way to really win?
I don't think so. The Persians have super OP fortifications that prevent you from getting to their spawn points
@@OrnLu_AoE I managed to defeat the Persians on the water, had unlimited resources and all upgrades, destroyed the entire Persian base, but new enemies kept spawning.
What was annoying was that the sequence with Leonidas came up every now and then when I destroyed Orange buildings.
You can even intervene a little in the battle with Leonidas and destroy 3 of the 40 damage towers and a few buildings behind them.
What is really impossible, however, is to win with Leonidas.
they prefer to be called "the beautiful gates", it's more respectful
Disappointed the devs didn't make any reference to the comic/movie 300 or even the Sabaton song
This scenario was the first one I felt was really poorly designed. You're basically meant to lose the game but it doesn't tell you that.
So you fight pointlessly against impossible odds. For all the reasons you mentioned too; gameplan was no existent and you spend time messing around until you just lose and then go to the next mission.
I also thought this scenario was a bit disappointing. We do have some campaign scenarios where you play through a historical defeat, but this is a hard battle to adapt for AOE2. This was a defeat for the Greeks in every sense & did not contribute in any meaningful way to the later Persian defeats at Salamis and Plataea. And so it's hard to make "objectives" for a Thermopylae scenario that make any historic sense. They could have done a "survive for X amount of time" or "hold out against X number of waves" mission, I guess. Or maybe they should have been more up front about the objective.
This probably would have worked better playing from the Achaemenid side. They could have fortified the pass some more & made it fun to play as the attacker. The real battle probably resembled a siege more than it did a field battle & this would have translated well to AOE2. But it's hard to make the Achaemenids the "protagonists" with how mythologized the battle has become in western pop culture.
This is Sparta!!!!!