The technology names are not realistic. Nothing about anything the Aztecs can train outside of basic archers is realistic.
This is the problem with your mindset; you assume that the game is meant to be realistic and approach everything with that angle. It’s not meant to be realistic at all; it’s meant to be a fun game that takes inspiration from history.
OP, please go get a life.
THANK YOU! Thank you thank you thank you thank you THANK YOU!!!
No civ uses their own language to refer to basic units. Doesn’t mean they weren’t referring to basically the same things, appropriate to the time period.
The Aztecs would probably have said Yaotl instead of Man-At-Arms. But given the timeframe, they meant the same things.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t have access to the same exact tech once they met the spanish.
The Papacy has nothing to do with the Roman civ design though.
Thats true but Papacy is a way better name than corsicans.
That is correct. It would therefore make absolutely no sense.
What we have in the game is fine.
Romanians could almost work.
How do you propose to call Romans instead?
Romans are an ethnicity/identity and this game represents ethnicities/identities.
Romans are not Burgundians lol. This is just wrong, Burgundians are Germanic people. Maybe you got confused by the romano barbaric Kingdom stuff: the meaning of that is that both Romans and Germans coexisted for a while, usually Romans representing the civil aspect and Germans the military.
So Romans actually survive after the fall of the western empire as an identity/ethic group among others (it’s not they disappeared in 476 to make historians happy), they just were not anymore in power (they were not for a long time even before 476 to be fair).
Roman identity gradually disappeared in the west in the 7th and 8th century. By the time of Charlemagne it was insignificant and the experience of late antiquity mix of romano Germanic Kingdoms can be said to be over. So speaking of medieval Romans make sense if you refer to post 476 Romans. But this game don’t do this anyway since ai names for Romans just range from Theodosius to odoacer so mostly the 5th century. And they didn’t put Romans in Tariq, leaving Merida and other cities either represented by Italians or Spanish (very questionable choice).
I suggest you to take a look at this very detailed wiki:
And this is a (not complete) list of medieval (post 476) Roman vips:
Notice how they’re separated from byzantines.
No, Romanians could not work. The Romanians were completely separate from anything to do with Rome!
Your entire post, and especially this comment, shows me that you have absolutely no good ideas at all, and don’t seem to understand how the game works.
Erm, no? One of the major theories for their history, the Daco-Roman continuity theory, is that they are the descendants of romans living in Dacia. It wouldn’t need to be the actual city of rome to still carry on the cultural identity of the romans.
The Romans covered a huge area of the world, so many cultures have the right to claim the Romans as their people, not just the actual city of Rome. If the goal is to represent them accurately, then we already have them in the Italians.
But if the goal is just to have a roman lookalike, then there’s no reason it needs to be from Rome itself. Much the contrary, if anything; some of the longest holdouts of the Western Roman Empire were from far away.
So using something like the Romanians would work just fine AND would be recognizable.
Isn’t this a futile discussion at this point?
The Romans are in the game and I highly doubt they would take them out.
I wasn’t too happy with their addition in the first place, but I kinda am ok with it, as there are Huns and Goth, which not only are from the same time, but also are empires that occupied the same land where other civs in the game are located. Take for example northern italy: Rome → Goth → Teutons (HRE) → Italians (Venice, Genua, Florence, Milano, etc.)
Or another example: The Tatars, which were a mongolian tribe and ancestor to the turkic tribes (I think, don’t quote me on that 
)
They’re still tweaking them to get them ready for ranked; changing the name as part of that would be a relatively minor tweak, on the whole. They could even leave them unchanged for scenarios!
Which is likely anyway, since the scenarios are balanced around their current strength, but they’ll doubtless be tweaked down for ranked, and you wouldn’t want to make the campaigns too hard. I imagine we’ll have two separate versions of the civ, one for ranked and one for single player.
You cant make a civi like that in this game.
Calling romans romanians is hilarious How can medieval romanians represent romans which live in italy?
Nah doesn’t convince me. You could have Romanians as a civ for the Dracula campaign which is just confusing. Also it’s very unfamiliar and unintuitive.
So if I’m getting this right your confusion spurn from the fact that you think Romans are from Rome alone and the term does not justice to Gallo Romans, hispano Romans, Roman Berbers, romano Britons etc…
Well would you go as far as to split Romans into this? Otherwise what’s the point? They are all referred to Romans and they in fact were until they fade out and mix with Germans.
Again I think you’re taking things too literally, Romans until 700 circa meant any Roman descendant in ex western Roman domains, then it became extent to the sole Italy and finally to just the city of Rome but that’s way later (I imagine at least 10th century). Italians wasn’t a thing until even later. In fact I personally think Italians as a civ doesn’t make much sense in middle ages but that’s debatable I guess. It’s an umbrella at least.
@DemiserofD, setting aside issues of what ‘Roman’ means for a moment… You’re proposing renaming Romans to either Corsicans or Romanians. What is it about the Roman civ design that makes you think it would be a suitable design for a Corsican or Romanian civ?
Note that to make your proposal convincing, you need to be able to argue that the civ design is a better depiction of medieval Corsica/Romania than it is of the late Western Roman Empire.
Where is that Roman post count guy lol.
Unlike the civs that made up the former Indian civ, the Romans in AoE2 represent a one singular nation.
Right now I’m picturing the people who exclusively bought RoR for AoE2 Romans being told this civ will be removed from the game and replaced with Corsicans. I don’t see anyone being happy with it aside from Corsican independantists and Napeoleon fans xD
Okay, the entire thing about Franks, Burgundians and Sicilians is… just wrong. By this logic, Byzantines should be removed from the game because we also have Turks, Saracens, Bulgarians, Slavs and Sicilians again as they all settled in previously Byzantine territories and mixed with the local population. Also, the Ottoman Empire saw itself as successor of the Byzantine Empire and kept holding onto its titles for centuries.
I didn’t want Romans because I think we already have Romans but we are way past the point of complaining. I just want campaigns now.