An analogy for adding the Romans

Sure, but with a simple name change, they could fit perfectly fine into the same timeframe as everywhere else.

Just leave them as the Romans in the campaigns and change them in Ranked play to something more realistic, like the Corsicans. Everybody wins!

Honestly, I’m a bit confused as to why this is controversial. Seems obvious to me.

Two can play that game…

If ages represent literal periods of time and nothing else, why can you advance through the ages in single campaign missions? Why are you not confined to the Dark Age in the Attila the Hun campaign?

This is obviously true. But as much as it represents chronology, it also represents stages of technological development. It is not strictly chronology; otherwise, 90% of the civs in the game wouldn’t make any sense at all.

Just chill out and stop overthinking how the game works.


Not necessary. Plenty of civs have a specific identity confined to one chronological period.

This is controversial because you’re completely wrong. And it’s only obvious to you and not everyone else because, again, you’re completely wrong.

Obviously no game is going to be completely historically accurate; fun needs to come first, after all. But that doesn’t in any way justify new historical inaccuracies. The real mistake was doing the Atilla the Hun campaign in the first place, rather than reserving it for a Rome-type DLC.

It’s a simple change to make me and others like me happy; that’s worth a little thought, don’t you think?

Finally, we agree on something. But the Romans are unified Western Rome pre-fall, while all those other civs you mentioned have their own separate medieval identities.

It’s not a simple change. It’s a completely unnecessary one that would entirely change the civ’s identity. And if every change was made solely to make players with minority opinions happy, the game would suck. Just accept that you’re wrong and move on.

1 Like

That, by contrast, is an unnecessary complete historical inaccuracy. They could easily be added as a differently-named civ, though, without an unnecessary break of the realism of timeframe of the game.

In what way is a name change not simple, lol?

It wouldn’t change the identity whatsoever. They would be the same people from the same place in the world with the same cultural identity.

Just accept that you’re wrong and move on.

It’s not a historical inaccuracy. Just an expansion of the game’s represented timeline. Actually, it’s not even that, as the pre-fall time period was already represented in campaigns.

Yes, it would. It wouldn’t even make sense to have a civ not named the Romans but clearly have everything designed around being the Romans.

I’m not wrong, so I can’t move on. You’re wrong, so you should. It’s that simple.

1 Like

Sure it would. Every single one of those civs claimed to be the romans to prop themselves up. Heck, that’s the whole origin of the Holy Roman Empire.

That’s literally historical inaccuracy, lol. IE, Burgundians WERE romans. Having the burgundians fighting romans using cannons and halbs is about as realistic as cobra cars.

Seriously dude, you cannot possibly think this is in any way reasonable.

Just accept that you’re wrong and move on.

It wouldn’t make any sense to have pre-medieval Roman armies as part of civilizations that represent medieval kingdoms. The way it is now is the only way that makes sense. Please understand this.

It’s not any less realistic than the Bengalis fighting the Aztecs on Arabia.

This game is an abstraction. It doesn’t really matter what unit types go up against which civ in the long run. You’re overthinking it way too much.

PLEASE just accept that you’re wrong. PLEASE. You are objectively wrong in every possible way, and you’re just stubbornly refusing to admit it. That attitude is everything wrong with this forum. This kind of thread is actively making the forum worse rather than improving it. I don’t want to see this attitude again from you.

1 Like

You’re instantly going to lose all the “Roman pop culture fan” appeal they have, which is basically their whole reason for being. Pretty much nobody cares about all these small states (you seem to be a massive minority here, I’ve literally never seen anybody else ever bring up Corsicans), but everybody’s heard of the Romans. They aren’t going to cash that in for what you may consider to be a more accurate name, despite most people seeming to disagree with you here. If it really annoys you that much, just make a text mod to rename them in your version of the game.


Except they’re clearly not pre-medieval, as you can see from the troops they field. They’re clearly a Romanesque medieval civilization…just like many of the civs that descended from the fall of the western roman empire.

This is the only thing that makes any sense. Unless you think Romans should lose anything from this time period, like Trebuchets.

Much the contrary; they absolutely could have fought each other. In fact, there were impressive seafaring voyages in that timeframe, and massive convoys and trade voyages that could easily have led these disparate civs to meet.

Because they actually existed in the same timeframe.

Stop pretending like your viewpoint is in any way reasonable. Just accept you’re wrong, and go.

True. You could give them a name that fits both, though. Corsican Romans, or Romani, or something of that nature.

After all, most of the cultures that descended from the Romans kept calling themselves Romans for hundreds or thousands of years afterwards.

There’s a reasonable middle ground in there.

That argument completely falls apart once you realize the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas are in the game. 90% of the units they can train in-game they never used at all.

Once again, even the unit selection itself is an abstraction, and is not any kind of indicator as to the exact time period or even technological strength of a particular civilization.

No, it doesn’t make any sense at all. The way things are now makes perfect sense when you consider that unit types in AoE2 only represent generic types of troops. BTW, every single Siege Workshop unit in the game, aside from the BBC, is something that the Romans built and used. So their unit selection is not even particularly implausible.

Completely discounting the fact that they were thousands of miles away, of course…

Believing that a very abstract game is abstract isn’t reasonable? That’s news to me.

1 Like

No civ has more than a one word name now, and they are still meant to represent the Empire from Diocletian’s split until the fall of Rome, not really the other little pockets of Rome. I also wouldn’t consider anyone other than the Byzantine Empire to be a “True Roman” claimant, due to literally coming from it. Corsican Romans is just wordy, doesn’t fit with the game, and straightup isn’t necessary, when just “Romans” is much simpler, has far greater fan appeal, and overall just sounds cooler.


Romani have nothing to do with rome :person_facepalming:

1 Like

Not true; after they met the Spanish, they rapidly appropriated much of their technology. Which was possible, because they existed in the same timeframe.

So no, it’s really not an abstraction. A stretch in some cases, sure, but like we’ve already agreed, one historical inaccuracy does not justify another.

So? The vikings crossed the ocean. The chinese did, too. Heck, little tribes on islands did the same. An expeditionary force traveling a long way makes vastly more sense than the romans traveling across time to fight their own descendants.

Indians was also simpler, but didn’t change the fact that swapping over to Hindustanis was still better.

People would get used to it.

Actually, the ancient romans did call themselves the romani. It would probably be a bad civ name due to the more recent people with the same name, but something along those lines would still work.

After they met the Spanish. Not before. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but you can play as the Aztecs pre-Spanish conquest. Your own argument implies that the Aztecs and other Meso civs represent the specific period after Spanish conquest, which not only contradicts your previous argument about the Romans being medieval, but completely destroys it. So which is it? Do civs represent specific time frames or do they not? You can’t have it both ways.

1 Like

They weren’t conquered instantly. There was plenty of time for them to get the normal age timings in and still fit just fine.

And before they met the spanish, things are pretty dang realistic overall. Militia? Archers? Spearmen? All realistic troops for them. Different names, sure, but no technology particularly out of keeping with them. Even men-at-arms were fairly realistic; using glass swords, perhaps, but that’s still just fine.

Best way to fix this issue is the remove them from the game not rename them to something else.If you really want to rename them Papacy is the best term as they are the direct successor to the city of rome.

1 Like