Age of Charlemagne - Your first impressions.

[tgoodenow]

The reviews of this DLC were good enough to the point where my curiousity got the better of me and I bit on buying it. I must say, I'm really impressed. This is the same game as Attila? I like that badass elements like climate change, homing missile CAI, insane imperium increases (for researching campfires), the retarded unit upgrade system, and death stacks are gone. That alone makes this campaign worth getting. It feels like you are in a new world and there's a lot to explore here. I absolutely love how "limited" the victory conditions are. I just finished a campaign as the Lombards and I barely explored the map beyond Croatia and the Italian peninsula. That means that this is going to have tons of replayability opportunities. The War Weariness system is perfect and it makes wars all the more interesting.. I love that the unit upgrade system has been removed and that more basic units are cheap enough that they can still make up the background of an late game army (mixed with a few elite troops.) That's how it should be...no more full stacks of Germanic Spear Masters.

This campaign is extremely good and I take my hat off to CA for creating a scenario that rivals Fall of the Samurai. If I have any criticisms it is:

1) I do not think that I can ever get over not including the Balkans and Norway into the campaign map. Even worse, the regions ARE on the map, they're just under a permanent fog of war (take a look at the area around Thessaloniki, it almost feels like trolling. If CA is not going to add the Bulgarian and Roman Empires to the campaign then at least crop those regions out the map so that people not have to think about it.

2) I'm not a big fan of a faction remaining under excommunication while the faction leader is still alive. It should be tweaked somehow to maybe last as long as the current Pope is still alive. It was really weird to have the Papal States as my ally, helping me take on my enemies while I was under their excommunication. I had to suicide charge my king into enemy spearmen just so that I could rid myself of Papal "anger."

3) I know that this is only a DLC and that it's a sort of one-off thing but CA should really consider continuing to support this campaign in the future. Nothing major of course, but there are a few factions on the campaign map like the Theme of Sicily that looks extremely tempting to play and have fully fleshed out rosters. I'm not suggesting DLC for DLC, but if CA were to make a few more factions playable (Theme of Sicily, Wales, Croatia, etc) via FLC then I think that it would be well received by the fanbase.

That's all that I can really think of now. I think that I will try out Mercia next.

Leaving out North Africa was a bigger problem for me. Adding a major Islamic Country instead of more Christian ones would have been a great counterweight trade wise for Muslim nations. It would have also made Theme of Sicily a much more interesting choice.

CA needs to take a look at Paradox game's DLC practices and copy them. If they would have looked at games that start in this age (especially CKII) they would have realized that everyone likes playing the Byzantine empire and they would have used that fact to develop Theme of Sicily as a major faction in the game. Just because I buy a game about Charlemagne doesn't mean I want to play as Charlemagne. Games like these are great for alternative history and the shrinking map sizes seem like a step in the wrong direction in my book.

[Darios]

Leaving out North Africa was a bigger problem for me. Adding a major Islamic Country instead of more Christian ones would have been a great counterweight trade wise for Muslim nations. It would have also made Theme of Sicily a much more interesting choice.

Quite correct. There is a handful of little things that could easily upgrade this campaign from being Very Good to AMAZING. It's sort of a sin to make the Roman Empire unplayable in a 8th-9th century campaign. Dealing with the threat of Arab invasions of Sicily would just add to the fun.

[ShadowMassa]

Well if they included the rest of the Balkans, Anatolia, a bit of north Africa and Fertile Crescent we should of seen 3 more factions. East Romans, Abbasids and Bulgars

My main complaints, there should of been adjustments and little more additions to city/model/architecture and new music should of been included. Would of made the game far more immersion..

[Darios]

Well if they included the rest of the Balkans, Anatolia, a bit of north Africa and Fertile Crescent...

I think that Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent is a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that this campaign is about Europe and that CA did not want to stray from that theme, but taking the map to Constantinople would not have taken the focus off of Charlemagne. In fact, it would have been an excellent end game - struggle with the Romans for the mastery.

[Yerevan]

I think that Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent is a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that this campaign is about Europe and that CA did not want to stray from that theme, but taking the map to Constantinople would not have taken the focus off of Charlemagne. In fact, it would have been an excellent end game - struggle with the Romans for the mastery.

Yes, this would be a clicmatic end-game. In the same time Charlemagne was a good christian, would he attack the sister-faith ?

[Lannes1]

Double message.

[Lannes1]

Has anyone noticed there are only half a dozen names for generals and governors? Aren't you tired of your armies being commanded by five Bosos, four Eggihards, three Odos, two Rolands and one Charlemagne? Does anyone know how to mod names?

[Darios]

Has anyone noticed there are only half a dozen names for generals and governors? Aren't you tired of your armies being commanded by five Bosos, four Eggihards, three Odos, two Rolands and one Charlemagne? Does anyone know how to mod names?

Definitely noticed that as the Lombards. It would be cool if once you transform into the Kingdom of Italy you would begin getting a mixture of both Lombard and Italo-Roman names for your family members. Being the "Kingdom of Italy" is a rather encompassing thing right?

[D@gget]

CA needs to take a look at Paradox game's DLC practices and copy them.

Selling portraits and soundtracks as DLC? As if the TW fans weren't enough with their "next time CA will sell patches as DLC" jokes.

[surg3on]

Selling portraits and soundtracks as DLC? As if the TW fans weren't enough with their "next time CA will sell patches as DLC" jokes.

Yerp. For some dumb reason Paradox's DLC policy is thought of as great.

[zsimmortal]

Selling portraits and soundtracks as DLC? As if the TW fans weren't enough with their "next time CA will sell patches as DLC" jokes.

You wouldn't have to pay for a single faction though.

[ikyu828]

You wouldn't have to pay for a single faction though.

in ck 2 u have to pay for playing non-catholic character + merchant republic
u'll also need to pay for unit sprites in ck2, eu 4, vic 2
paradox is not that different w/ ca

[zsimmortal]

in ck 2 u have to pay for playing non-catholic character + merchant republic
u'll also need to pay for unit sprites in ck2, eu 4, vic 2
paradox is not that different w/ ca

Yes, in CK2. That is 25% of the 4 GS games they produce. You're not just paying for factions though, there's additional features, like 200 extra years in the Old Gods. Additionally, there's free patches that add content over the years of development. And no, they're not much different than CA, because they still release DLC so that they can continue to release more content.

The one part they do differ is that Paradox constantly releases free content for everyone while updating the game regularly. Paying for skins and music is solely up to the player to enhance his experience and support Paradox, it's not content that adds a new layer to the game (the big DLC usually is where they make meaningful changes). Any major problems is usually dealt with, whereas I'm still looking at some provinces that are missing building slots in Attila close to the 1 year mark, or have units regularly re-forming wrong. That's inexcusable.

[ikyu828]

Yes, in CK2. That is 25% of the 4 GS games they produce. You're not just paying for factions though, there's additional features, like 200 extra years in the Old Gods. Additionally, there's free patches that add content over the years of development. And no, they're not much different than CA, because they still release DLC so that they can continue to release more content.

The one part they do differ is that Paradox constantly releases free content for everyone while updating the game regularly. Paying for skins and music is solely up to the player to enhance his experience and support Paradox, it's not content that adds a new layer to the game (the big DLC usually is where they make meaningful changes). Any major problems is usually dealt with, whereas I'm still looking at some provinces that are missing building slots in Attila close to the 1 year mark, or have units regularly re-forming wrong. That's inexcusable.

ck2 do have some serious problem though
- a lot of character have std, due to seduction focus
- retinues that is very unbalanced
- i've never seen female character ai using matrilineal marriage
i'm pretty sure ck 2 expert probably know more than me

eu 4 so far the only good one of the series, it still has problem but not as serious as ck2
vic 2 has broken late game economy
i don't play hoi

so, not that different than ca

[Darios]

I honestly have no problem with DLC, the more the merrier. As long as it's adding new content to a game and it's worthwhile (no Beasts of War crap) then sure why not. I wouldn't mind if CA went along the Paradox path and started selling unique music, portraits, voices, etc for certain factions/culture as DLC. I picked up most of the Byzantine, Slavic, and Alani oriented DLC for CK2 during the last Steam sale for something like a combined $5.

Charlemagne might not exactly be my cup of tea but I can appreciate the hard work and effort put into it by CA.

[Yerevan]

70 turns with the Danes (yes, for a TW game 70 turns in one campaign is still early impressions). The CAI is improved in comparison with the grand campaign, except the Franks which don't know how to devellop. It looks like a bug, or a glitch, call it like you want but CA needs to fix it. Because overall this feels really better than the grand campaign.
I also realised the CAI is much less obsessed with hating the player than in the grand campaign. It actually took me time to realise that because iused a mod that improves the building ofg the AI Franks empire but in the same tme gives huge diplomatic penalties to the player.

But the combats.. my god the combats... Yes, the unit rosters have been somehow well calibrated but everything is still much too fast and arcadish. I'm sorry, but battles dont need to be slow and boring a la DEI to feel weightfull, deep and realistic. Something is still definitively wrong in the way friendly units can just go throw each other without loosing speed, in the way ranged units works too. Of course, I'm not dreaming ; I'm not expecting CA to change it anyway, I 'm sure they are much satisfied with it and it's exectly the way they want it to be.
If only some genious modding team could take this game and design a battle system as precise, fun and immersive as EB1's or Napoleon3's. Because battles at the moment are so boring ! You need no plannification, you just need to react and click as fast as possible and you're good. There's vey little suspense (things are going too fast anyway) and surprises. It's a pity cause the BAI looks a tad better now.

Also, something feels wrong in the new experience system. Experience acquired in combat is not valued enough, troops just feel interchangeable.

I also something weird in the political events. A general with 9/10 loyalty tried to have his king assassinated. Wat ? Makes me wonder more and more how all this works, under the table.