What a mess of a DLC, here is my 3K DLC review:

The Good:

The addition of the Jurchen (Jin Dynasty) as a civilisation. This is the only reason I bought the DLC.

The Bad:

The three late antiquity Han Chinese factions (The Shu, Wei and Wu) being placed into the main game and not as a separate grouping like the ancient civilisations have been in the Return to Rome and Chronicles DLCs. These 3K factions do not belong in the base game, being factions and not distinct civilisations and occurred well before the age of empires 2 time period. The fact that they've been put into ranked multiplayer and have hero units, which simply isn't balanced or fair. No new Chinese / east Asian building set.

The Ugly:

The lazy and what seems rushed addition of the Khitians ( Khitanguts ), which are jumbled mess of the Tanguts (Castle visual and Camel unique unit) and the Khitian civilisations. The lack of new voice lines for the Jurchens and the Khitians. No new campaigns for the medieval Chinese, Jurchens, Khitians, Koreans or Japanese (very disappointing) only short 3K faction ones. The claim of 5 new civilisations, when in reality, there is only 2 new civilisations and 3 non medieval Chinese factions.

Conclusion:

I honestly don't recommend this DLC until they move the three kingdoms Han Chinese factions into a different game group. The DLC seems rushed for some reason, where the 3K factions campaigns received the lion share of the work. They really need to fix the Khitian civilisation (e.g a new more fitting castle design and the removal of the camel unique unit) and give the new medieval civilisations relevant voice lines. Lastly they could and should add the Tanguts as a civilisation as they have the unit assets in the game now.

Unfortunately, I have to give this DLC a negative review, because of what it represents and that the community has been yet again ignored. The majority of the playerbase is single-player only, and so my review will mostly reflect that. We DO want new civs. We DO want new campaigns...but not like this. There are, of course, some positives this DLC has to offer, such as some really good campaign scenarios (I base it on watching Ornlu's videos) and 2 brand new civs - Khitans and Jurchens...but that's about it. This DLC instead gives us 3 short lived (they lasted for 60 years at most) states/kingdoms from the ancient China (Shu, Wei, Wu), instead of civilisations, and these civs introduce heroes as trainable units (for ranked matches), as well as some very non-aoe gimmicky bonuses/playstyles (not a single one of these states/kingdoms has the ability to train trebuchets, but they have their own units instead). Additionally, only these 3 states/kingdoms have their own campaign, with Jurchens and Khitans having none - and neither we got new campaigns for already existing civilistions, like Chinese and Koreans. And not just that - even the new campaigns focus on...wizards and sacrifices? Sacrificing a pig to stop a storm? That is some fantasy stuff. In other words - this DLC missed everything it could have missed. First obvious miss, was the Victors and Vanquised DLC - we asked for campaign only DLC, but somehow, the people responsible thought "oh, but the customer does not know what they want, so we will give them something better - long RPG like scenarios, they will surely love those"...yeah, how did it go? And instead of learning from their mistakes, we got the battle of Greece chronicles, which were universally liked... not by me though. Why? Because it was yet another "experiment" unrelated to the nature of AOE - and because this experiment was well-received (which I still do not understand why, given that it was basically a long RPG campaign), we are getting a yet another "experiment" again. One experiment worse than the previous one. Take a few steps back and see how great the first 3 DLCs were (Lords of the West, Dawn of the Dukes, Dynasties of India) - even though Lords of the West had some gimmicky one time techs, (conversion of food to gold, refunding of killed units, paper money for Vietnamese from Rajas), these gimmicks have been mostly fixed (farmers produce gold along with food, hauberk, lumberjacks produce gold along with wood, and even first crusade grants a conversion resistance bonus), and these DLCs have been well received now. Even the Mountain Royals' civs have been well received lately (only the mass bonus for knights and monaspas for Georgians is way too gimmicky, but anyway). But this, this is exactly what is not acceptable. We’ve been begging for 25 years to add campaigns for every single civilisation that does not have one…we did get Persians, Britons, Lithuanians, Incas, Goths, Byzantines (thank you for that! Beautiful!), but we still need Romans, Mayans, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vikings, Slavs, Magyars and Turks (no, the last 3 cannot be seriously considered as having their own campaigns, given that Vlad Dracul is a mix with 3 civs and max 2 levels each)., as well as Celts (a 6 level Roman campaigns with 4 Roman, 2 Celt scenarios + Bannockburn to William Wallace sounds fine) - and now, Khitans and Jurchens. I have no issues paying 20 bucks for quality new content, such as 4 new campaigns and 2 new civilisations. But I have issues that the devs pump out nonsensical RPG scenarios (V&V), short-lived states (3 kingdoms), civs added to ranked play with super weird abilities and bonuses (heroes - build limit 1, aura effect, unable to be converted...or bonus that makes units produce food, missing trebuchets...), and civs without new campaigns (Romans, Jurchens, Khitans), while not adding new campaigns for existing civs. We got African kingdoms and Rajas for 10 bucks each, with 4 new civs and 4 new campaigns, each. Then we got the last khans with the DE - 4 civs and 4 campaigns (Pachacuti for Incas was the 4th campaign). Given the inflation and whatnot, it’s ok to pay 15 bucks, or to get 3 campaigns and 2 new civs…after all, what we all want, is for every single civ to have their own campaign where they can be properly showcased. Historical battles, and especially victors and vanquished, are definitely NOT that. So Khitans + Jurchens, as well as their own campaigns + a Chinese and preferably a Korean campaigns, for 20 bucks, would be a fair deal. Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts + 5 campaigns for 25 bucks would also be cool. But 3 kingdoms are not fine, and neither are Khitans and Tanguts with no added campaign. But...this can still be easily fixed... how? 1) Move the 3 kingdoms and their respective civs into the chronicles. 2) Add a cheap (10-15 USD) DLC that adds Tanguts, and campaigns for Tanguts, Jurchens, Khitans, and Chinese. Then, we can just keep on with this formula - add AOE2 like civilisations, as well as campaigns for those civilisations and existing ones. Examples: A) Add a Medieval transition DLC that adds Vandals, as well as campaigns for Romans (Ambrosius Aurelianus that would transition from Romans to Celts is a great idea..similar to El Cid), Vandals and Vikings. B) Add a Balkan/Muscowy DLC with Wends that would replace Vlad Dracul campaign, as well as campaigns for Turks, Slavs and Magyars. C) Add an east asian DLC with campaigns for Japanese, Koreans, as well as a new civ (Tibetans or something) along with a campaign for that new civ. D) Add an American DLC with a campaign for Mayans, as well as e.g. Tlaxcalans and Zapotecs, with a campaign for each of them, too. E) Go back to Africa and add some new African civs or something.... And only then experiment with Chronicles and unrelated stuff. Going this road, you can never go wrong, and I am sure that the community would mostly agree....but pumping out nonsense like this, is a road to retirement. I understand that this review might be a bit erratic, but I really had to be quick to post it as early as I did :D Hopefully you get the points I made and that you agree with them;)

The Three Kingdoms don't belong in the main game. Also, give Jurchens and Khitans their own campaign and voicelines instead of re-using the Chinese and Mongolian lines.

If I wanted Age of Mythology, I have such game. Active abilities, magical storms?!? damn...this is not feeling like AoE 2 at all, more like AoE 3... -_- Pro: narrative and feeling and pandas are cool. Cons: No campaigns for Khitans, Jurchens and other asia civs we would like to see...Koreans, OG China.. Return of Rome, Chronicles are separated tabs...now 3K among normal campaigns.. Consistency? 3K civs among ranked? Why not Chronicle civs? AoE I civs??? Heroes in ranked?? With activated abilites??? Plus 3K campaigns are again unhistorical, dead people alive, fictional events....

Disgrace to the AoE franchise, this is no Warcraft 3!!! Up until now, I've praised every single DLC, but this is just too much! It's a total mess on so many different levels. I'm sure others will explain in detail why it's so bad, I don't wanna waste another second on this. Don't buy until World's Edge takes accountability and actually listens to fan base. Refunding just now.

The new civs suck. I paid to WIN not to LOSE. Waste of $20.

Wtf is this?

I can't overstate how bad this DLC is for the game. What were they thinking? It's not just the transparent cashgrab nature of it, or how ridiculous it is to add three political factions of an existing civ that only lasted decades on a timescale that is supposed to encompass centuries, and that those decades were all in the wrong time period. It's not just that the hero units completely ruin team games (and have truly ugly, anti-immersive aura effects). All of that really ruins the experience for me. But the most offensive part of this DLC is how lazy it is. The civ bonuses are mostly re-wordings of bonuses they've used for other civs, and the actually unique ones are often just... ridiculous. Standing army generates food? Really? We're this tapped for ideas? Meanwhile, the Khitans are an unholy matchup of the Khitans and Tanguts, because they couldnt even be bothered to do that right. The 3K "civs" and the Jurchens all use the same basic Chinese voicelines, the Khitans use the Mongol voice lines, and a truly obscene number of civs now use the eastern architecture set. The 3K castle designs are *atrocious* as well! If you're gonna sell out, at least put some effort into doing it. I could at least respect that, even if I hated the anti-historicity of it all. It's so disappointing to see a game I love so fully jump the shark like this. It's like watching Game of Thrones Season 4-5 and realizing that, as bad as these are, it means even worse stuff is coming. Save your money.

you suck at ranked anyway so who cares what civs the bring

Another corporate ploy. This is an abomination of two dlcs merged into one. As Cao Cao said I rather burn the world than let it betray me. We have been betrayed once again by World Clown Studios. First AoE 3 dlc then here again as they have been taking notes. Instead of 5 civs we just get two real new civs and 3 "Chronicle" kingdoms. Even the Khitanguts know no honor. Buy this dlc if you want to be a clown.

where can i dowload the dlc three kingdoms. fuckkkkk

- Unfinished and lazy content The Jurchens and Khitans are unfinished, with no voice lines, recycled artwork that does not depict them and no campaigns. - Not fun Campaigns are the shortest on record, with the last mission being on the same map for all 3. - Deceptive marketing, not as advertised Marketing clearly showed Tangut units and castle, Tanguts not included. - Devalues the rest of the game/worried about the future The Wu, Shu & Wei do not belong in AoE2. They are short-lived Han Chinese polities, 200 years before the AoE2 time-frame (these are AoE1 civs) and have named heroes in ranked. Even if you do not buy this DLC, you are forced to engage with it. This is devaluing the game for me, and makes me no longer want to support it.

I should say that this dlc does not deserve the hate it is getting and here is why: a) you don't need to use the heroes abilities in the campaign. In no specific moment the game imposes these mechanics on you. You can either use them or not. It is up to you. Still on this note, i've no idea if the ai uses it, but bottom line here is i played so far the Shu and Wei campaign and barely touched the abilities. I mainly tried them out to see how the animation would look like; b) the heroes active abilities are not a game breaking thing, as i stated previously you are not forced to use them, you can just flat out ignore them. I'm addressing this again because certain youtubers made some jokes about this being an attempt to mimic warcraft, and although i hate how dependant warcraft is on the heroes abilities (although i love the classic warcraft games and lore) i don't think this game is becoming "warcrafty", otherwise we could say that this has become a trend with the burgundians, romans and all the other "charged" actives those units and other asian and indian units have. Can't recall the unit, but the one that ignores attacks trough a charge mechanic or shield...., it is an indian unit; c) the campaign is good and interesting. the last mission being the battle of red cliffs for all three factions is a bit dull... no need to have done this, since they could have easily picked other moments from the Three kingdoms history/romance. d) the campaign difficulty was a bit toned down i think. Used to play them on hard with no issues whatsoever and played them now on legendary and never failed a mission. Out of curiosity i did check some videos, after doing the Shu campaign and i m quite surprised how ppl that play this or are considered pros would lose... e) the missions and the new system introduced with Chronicles of Greece is a nice feature. I always wanted to have campaigns in aoe2 , since 2001, where our choices mattered. alas, there are a few bugs, since i killed lu bu, while playing as Cao Cao, and he still appeared on the last mission, alive, and probably going to betray me. Yuan Shao for making alliances a la total war, and lu bu for betraying everyone i guess. Jokes aside i love 3k total war, takes the same spot as M2TW, but thaqnk god they patched 3k yuan shao subjugating everyone back in the day xD; f) for those complaining about this game not being historical, well it never was, this is a game, not a book. Do feel like i can talk about this subject at length since i'm a legal historian and historian in my daily ( this mean i've a degree in Law, a Masters in classical roman law and a degree in History, and currently doing a PhD in Law - focused in history). I know that a lot of ppl tend to think that the "information" they gather from series, movies and wiki or youtube channels is accurate, but most is just miles away. Want real History go read loebs classical library. The books there, for those that do not want to buy them, because they are expensive, can be read via a subscription and the history there is far superior than anything you find in games, even though i love the age of empires franchise. There aren't accurate historical games, if games were historical accurate they would either be to long or to boring. This interpretation is just fine :). Could go on with more topics, but i think these are good enough. This is a game and meant to enjoy, not to use as a piece of work and as such ppl should enjoy it. This does nto mean that X or Y disliking the game is wrong, taste is subjective and everyone is allowed to express how they feel. I just think ppl are going over their head with the heroes abilities, since they are marginal. I do not play multiplayer, but i think this can easily be addressed with a check box before the match allowing these abilities or not. Problem fixed. I still think that Chronicles was better and more entertaining, but this dlc was also good, for me at least.

Awesome. Keep on being great content. I don’t mind the hero being in the game but it would be great if every civilization had a hero unit and then making it an option to disable the hero feature if needed

Almost finished whole shu and did 1 missions of wei and its really well made and i like the expension so far. chronicle is by far my favorite campaign ever with the way its done and this one the second. i really like that decisions you made are shown in the missions tabs and impact the other missions. 10/10.

Inventor of History 历史发明家

The Three Kingdoms don't belong in the main game. SHOULD BE CHRONICLES!!! Don’t get it. Save your money. (WILL CHANGE TO POSITIVE ONLY AFTER THEY MAKE IT A CHRONICLES) There are 1. Hero units 2. unbalanced content 3. 3 civilisations that based literally the same Chinese civ, but have their own unique unit. 4. Does not fit the tone of the "main" AoE2 game. 5. Costs higher than other DLC upon launch. It needs its own separate tab like Chronicles of Greece. It just shows that the devs don’t listen to user feedback. If World's Edge does change it, it better be sooner than later. Also, give Jurchens and Khitans their own campaign and voicelines instead of re-using the Chinese and Mongolian lines. LAZY

So I was greedy, optimistic, and had a tiny surplus in my budget. Now I have a bad dlc and gave ms money for the trouble. I was extremely hyped for the dlc when they teased jurchen and khitan/tanguts(tanguts were teased, don't tell me otherwise), conservatively guessing we would see 2 new civs and a Chinese rework. Then the news of 5 entirely new digs dropped and I was actually getting curious if we'd really see a Tibetan civ, which Ido not fault ms for not making. But then the signs piled up... When the game hit steam I wanted to sus out all the civs from the screens alone, then I recognized something on the last screenshot, a banner with a familiar sign. I barked "enhance!" Towards my assistant and recognized the mark of the trickster: Cao Cao!!! Then I saw that the dlc was actually called "three kingdoms" huh... Well I guess that's on me :Do I'm familiar with the setting and certainly interested so I was not quite as angry as some others, but still I was very disappointed by MS' decision to not only go with this rather than actually doing Chinese history justice but also feeding us misinformation. But I really wanted to play jurchens and I love singleplayer campaigns... And don't get me wrong jurchens are awesome, even without unique architecture or voice lines easily worth 5 or 10 bucks. The steppe lancers are op, but that is bound to be patched, may e in conjunction with the horse archer. But all that civ does is fun and the decay bonus is great for new players, love the jurchens! Khitan, dunno, they seem very wonky to me but fun. And I adore the castle. Wu and Wei seem a bit boring but at least quite playable/strong. Heroes ... Uh... Fine...whatever But the Shu?!?!? They are so bad! Not just weak, but they have only one gameplan, and can't even do that right, there are some nice timing spikes with them, but god are they shit! Fitting with Liu Bei, who is a garbage character! (Yes I have Spicey Rot3K opinions!) And the campaign.... Uhhhhhgh, bad. Passable and being able to play the other campaign stages before the first is nice(looking at you there chronicles!) and the slides are sweet and the keep your stuff from previous missions is rad and will be for at least one other campaign pack. But he'll this is obviously a bootleg version of chronicles. And MS is telling us it ain't. You select the campaigns the same way you go to other regions but instead of turning the page to a different map like with all other campaign theatres, a new UI loads. How does this fit in with the rest of the game ms?!? And the missions themselves are bland, there is soo much drama in the story but we get this slog. Boring storytelling, boring Missiondesign, horrendous framing. Not to speak of how this is a slapin the face for anyone who wanted a more diverse China the same way India got it. Thank you for two civs without a language. And three short lived han one trick ponies. This dlc is disappointing, insulting and a monument to corporate greed and meddling. If you, Microsoft, want to improve your sales and consumer trust again you need to fire your exec suite not the people who actually do the work, plus those arseholes earn much more so you can get away with less layoffs.

Friendly reminder that English is not my best language. So, let’s get straight to the point. This DLC is probably the worst DLC I’ve ever played. Probably the most insulting one too, if you think about it. I will break down a few key points why, so here it is: 1) I believe the first main point is the most important one because people AOE reddit and forum don’t know about it. The game took place after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, not before, and ended at the beginning of the Age of Renaissance. That is the period original developers focused on when they designed civilizations. So, if some people try to argue that Chinese medieval age was started before the Western Roman Empire, then I have very bad news for you. Regardless of what Chinese scholars said, it does not change the fact that the game started between that period. There is no point in bringing your argument telling people Chinese has different medieval period since the game already set the period for the players. If you took that off, then we have a massive problem. Can we add Republic Rome to the game? Can we add Parthians to the game? But why not? We already have Three Kingdoms in the main game. When Cysion said it is not a split DLC, I would agree because his team has been creating civilizations based on existing culture, the Chinese. I don’t know what their main idea of approaching a new path, but this is ridiculous. This breaks the first identity of the game by not staying within the period. Without the first identity, players can demand whatever civilization they wanted regardless of time period and culture. 2) The second main identity of the game is for each culture identified as civilization fighting one another, so the French as Franks fighting the English as Britons. If you try to cover the whole history of Franks or Britons in the game by adding civilizations based on existing culture, then we also have another massive problem. Can we add Charlemagne Frank to the game? Can we add Saxons to the game? It is impossible to cover the whole history of a culture. Instead, each culture-based civilization covered in a small-time frame, such as from Charlemagne Frank to high medieval Frank. Original developers didn’t focus the whole-time frame of Britons history and add Saxons infantry for them because that is not their main identity. Instead, Britons have better archers due to their famous longbow in the Hundred Year’s War. Three Kingdoms DLC basically breaks this identity because this DLC in the main game are telling people they can add other civilizations like Charlemagne Frank or Saxon Britons to the main game. 3) This game is not Dynasty Warriors fantasy. This game is based on simplicity and balance, not magic healings or attacks. If I have a group of knights and a monk attacking my enemy’s base, I have a monk healing that unit because there is a “cost”, such as resources and time. The monk needs to heal individual unit. When your opponent scouted your army, they could tell how long they can wait and how to counter you with. With heroes in the game, it is impossible to tell because Liu Bei can heal nearby units without doing a single thing (passive ability). I know each hero cost 500 food and 500 gold, but in a competitive perspective, death match, and other games, heroes can break the game in the long term because players can no longer calculate ways to counter opponents once heroes popped out. This removes the simplicity and balance nature of the game. The game is about fighting on good or bad terms, your choice and your result. 4) Let’s talk about the unreasonable Three Kingdoms DLC price. Before some DLCs became free for players, Dynasties of Indias have three campaigns for each civilization added to the game: Bengalis, Dravidians, and Hindustani, for only $9.99. If I bought this DLC along with Dawns of the Dukes with two new civilizations and three new campaigns, the total should only come out to be $19.98. That is with five new civilizations and six new campaigns. Three Kingdoms DLC price cost $19.99 on steam right now. Some people might argue about inflation, but let me tell you this, inflation was only around 2-3% for each quarter since 2023. For Three Kingdoms DLC, only Three Kingdoms have campaigns, not Jurchens or Khitans. The worst part is that Jurchens or Khitans don’t even have their own voice lines. Original developers have a Jurchens voice line for a single mercenary unit in AOE3. I understand that Khitans language is dead and Jurchens language is rare but at least have the decency to add the language close to these languages. If you truly respect Chinese culture, then at least invest your time and money to keep the language alive to the game, to us, and to the Chinese community. It is not that hard. There are tons of people in the community willing to find data for you and create voice for you. 5) Chinese is a gunpowder civilization without any actual gunpowder unit. Why is the description of the civilization said Chinese is archer and gunpowder civilization, but there is no hand cannoneer and bombard cannon? If there is no gunpowder unit with a bonus, then just don’t even mention it. Fire lancer does not count since it is not really a gunpowder unit but mainly used for anti-cavalry purposes. When designing a new civilization, it is common sense for developers to follow 1st and 2nd main point I mentioned above because that was how AOE2 civilizations were created. The more I think about it, the more I wanted to ask developers, “what were they thinking? Did they eat magic mushrooms before designing Three Kingdoms DLC? Or the executive invited/forced them to eat magic mushrooms before discussing about the new DLC?” There is a reason why people still love this game even until today, just like me. We love how the game was designed without gimmick stuff adding to the game. We love the simplicity and balance of the game. If we wanted to play AOM, AOE3, and AOE4, we would continue playing these games. However, many players, like me, came back to AOE2 because AOE2 is special to us all without AOM, AOE3, and AOE4 gimmick stuff added. We didn’t ask for AOM, AOE3, and AOE4 gimmick stuff to be added to the game. We just wanted to play our AOE2. With the addition of Three Kingdoms DLC, this game would never be the same because it completely broke what AOE2 was designed for. Once that line broke, developers would add more gimmick stuff to the game and by the time they made a lot of money, we don’t know why this game turned into Frankenstein game. In the end, we will look like idiots because we did not stop them from doing it.

I have played this game since it released on day one. I'm 10000% sure I know better than a new dev that has only worked on the game for a short time. 25 years of game experience tells me that the devs are trying to push heroes and turn it into a MOBA/Hero Rush type of game that NO ONE WANTS. Please just stop with the changes. YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE GAME FOR THAT CALLED AGE OF MYTHOLOGY. Jesus guys.

The Hero's are shit, the civs are shit, its all poorly designed. the campaign mode is different to the other campaigns! its inconsistant and its garbage.

New DLC is the most ouf of spirit of classic AoE2. Tons of heroes, units with abilities making it more complicated, campaign is underwhelming (it is way too say, even on legendary difficulty). Overall after a long time I feel dissapointed.

This is a mixed bag but decidedly negative due to what it represents for the game. This is not AoE2. Many of the things added in this DLC do not fit AoE2's theme/setting and would be more at home in AoM (or rather already exist in AoM), or at least segregated under the Chronicles section which they have very deliberately & conspicuously chosen not to utilise here. The whole thing reeks of an executive thinking they can make a mountain of cash off the chinese market, but from what I've heard even the chinese playerbase is clowning on this DLC for how blatant it is. This ain't it chief.

I like a lot the new civs designs and the campaigns are amazing. My bad review comes from the fact that the three kingdoms aren't medieval civs (200AC - 300AC) in a medieval game and they are not civs at all because the three "kingdoms" are Warlords states fighting to become the next emperor of the Han dynasty which doesn't correlate to the etnic representation of the old civs. Also Heroes are a campaign only thing for me, when picking a civ im choosing which culture im going to rule over but when i pick for example the Shu i feel like im picking the "Kingdom" of someone else because i can call the Legendary Liu Bei in a castle that is definetly not mine. The hero mecanic inside the civ trivializes the feeling that is to use them in an epic campaign where you can see the story and context of the hero unit. I wish the Age Of Empires devs and designers don't forget and listen to all feedback from the community because this is a old traditional game that stayed alive for over 24 years because of the community, its not a new game that needs radical changes and flashy trending stuff to keep itself alive and be a great game, it already is thanks to your effort but this time it took a bad step for my liking.

I will make Cao Cao the emperor! Good addition for single player campaign. It's not that bad.Get it with sales or get it now if you are impatient like me. As for history accuracy, i don't think it correct but game are fiction anyways. Last review notes: Did i njoy this? Yes!