Why would you claim they don’t know anything about history?
They simply chose to push the timeline back to the events that started the Dark Ages, call it a prelude to AoE2 if you will.
You don’t like it? Though luck, because many people do, so its not fair to call it a mistake, it’s your opinion, and that’s it.
If anything adding the Romans makes things more consistent, the fact is the game starts in 394 AD, the fall of Rome is the first main event, you already have 2 of the main actors Huns and Goths, now with the Romans all the actors are in place.
You’re interpreting it as late Roman, and making a fairly good case, but you aren’t using any standard that couldnt be used to interpret other civs. Like I said, if we look at the UU, the Persians are only meant to be Sassanid, yet we know they can and do represent other Persian factions. If they already pushed the timeline back, why not push it further? If others decide to interpret the Roman civ more broadly, and try and use their presence to justify adding Ancient Egyptians or Carthaginians, would that bother you? And if it does, what consistent argument could you make that wouldn’t also apply to the WRE?
Yes, I am sure all those fans that have been playing the game since 1999 thanks to the gameplay and fun over historical accuracy will banish in a poof of smoke at your amazing godlike logic…aaaaaaaaaaany second now.
Look, if you want 2000% historical accuracy game thats cool, but how about looking for actual historical games instead of trying to turn a fun RTS game about Frank Paladins fighting Samurais into something that it was never intended to be?
Cause they gave celts a UU that isnt even in the correct millenium, or they gave Saracens a scimitar throwing bactrian camel. Or goths didnt have huskarls. Neither by name nor by skin. They werent even an infantry civ, but a horse civ mostly… Or chinese dont get gunpowder, or teutons had the worst ships, despite being the biggest naval power in high medieval times.
They just made a game where all their ideas for a second Aoe1 dlc and a medieval aoe2 game were combined.
When the game begins with the fall of rome, then were are the romans ? Right, they have been fallen into pieces, nothing but dust and ashes of an empire.
And they only add romans as SP civ, cause they are just meant for campaigns to enrich the single player experience for goths and huns campaign, as these will still needed to be around, despite it being better that they would just be moved into a seperate section of the game according to the timeline where they fit best.
What everyone forgets is that everything up to the 1600s is also within the AoE2 timeline, as Noryang Point takes place in 1598. So over time, the timeline of the game shifted from 476-~1450, now to 394-1598. Anything relevant in that time period is eligible for AoE2 as far as I’m concerned.
What would your argument be if it continued to shift? If they decide to add an official campaign with Hannibal, does the timeline now shift to 200 BC - 1598 AD? If it’s that far then would you be fine with another DLC with Carthage and other ancient cultures?
My answer would be simple: the game is based in the Middle Ages and it should remain that way. Individual campaigns or the odd exceptional civ notwithstanding. But if your only standard is what is officially portrayed in the campaigns, or what was contemporary to other civs in the game, then the line could just continue getting blurred couldn’t it?
Aww that’s disappointing. My buddies and I were looking forward to jumping in and checking them out. We don’t really care about the timeline, that went out the window a long ago… now it’s just about fresh exciting content that adds more content / depth to the game.
Ever since I was a little kid, and probably you too, I always thought the Romans were one of the coolest things ever. Even if other civs exist that “are like the Romans”… there is still should be an option to play as the “Romans” from the dropdown box.
Also, I read in this thread that people have been saying negative things or something? That’s been going since before the Romans even existed. Pay no attention to those Nancie’s…
The dates themselves seem arbitrary then. What’s special about those dates? If what’s special about aoe2 is the medieval setting, then it should focus on that setting, which would exclude Rome, since the shift from central imperial authority to decentralized feudal kingdoms is what the time period is defined by. If it is only supposed to be ‘late period’ Rome then I sure hope there is something either in the name or in the design of the civ which will make that clear.
Btw the dates of individual campaigns doesn’t seem binding to me for what the official timespan of the game is. You can do whatever you want in a campaign, and indeed, I don’t think even the most grumpy people here would object to Rome as a campaign civ.