No serious person would just say, the middle ages started exactly in the year 500. People will always say that it started with the fall of the western Roman empire and its trade routes and standardisation, which if I remember correctly, is the entire premise of AoE 2. Some places like Britain were affected earlier others later.
And what do you mean there was nothing of importance happening in China around that time? What about the Sui dynasty unifying the empire in 581/589 after about 400 years of changing dynasties and chaos, which later led to the Tang dynasty, which was probably the most prosperous time in China. At least the first half.
They could move the start of the time frame to around 250 CE or to the first division of the Roman Empire in 286 which fits also to Persians (representing pre-Islam Persia), Goths, Huns and Celts.
If they add West Romans, perhaps they could become the civ to play in the Bari campaign? Would that fit?
Then Byzantines could get a proper, more fitting campaign, like many fans want. Plus Greek language, preferably (Latin would switch to West Romans)
I find it a little strange that people are strongly against the “wrong” additions to the game.
It’s not like AoE2 has a strict defined timeframe like AoE4. AoE4 is clearly 1000 AD till 1500 AD and only little before and after that. All civilisations existed at the same time.
In AoE2 we already had a huge difference in the timeline for over 20 years. Huns and Aztecs are 1000 years apart. But Goths, Celts and Vikings are also much earlier then Spanish, Japanese or Turks.
Expanding the scope to Late Antiquity wouldn’t mean that there won’t ever be new Medieval Civilisations.
Because there is only so much you can do when adding more European copy past civs.
I didn’t say exactly 500 AD. I said around 500 AD.
AoE2 crosses the line multiple times already not just with the Huns.
It wasn’t a major historical turning point for China. Other events like the Mongol invasion could be considered something like that but that was much later.
The End of the Han Dynasty is also a little earlier.
Wow, got a little heated in here. Everything from “uninspired” to accusations of being “eurocentrists.” There are even some that have rebuked the idea of a DLC yet seem to contradict themselves in other threads. After all, what is a mod but a prototype DLC. If you enjoy or
contribute to R@W, have played and enjoyed the Alaric campagin or Attila the Hun, you have danced with these ideas already and see their appeal.
Rather than putting down the concept, have a little charity. Some want AoE on the AoE 2 game engine for all the QOL improvements and game mechanics (path finding, formations, etc). No one is talking down the other civs or future expansion ideas for Africa, America, Asia. Bring them on!
Still, it seems practical and economical to incorporate earlier Civs on the same engine and to do so thoughtfully to make everyone happy. If some don’t like them you don’t have to play them. However, I think getting more people on the same platform grows the pie for all. It also has network affects that has potential to make the franchise stronger and richer for all.
I wouldn’t mind them extending the timeframe a little bit and adding the Vandals or something considering we already have the Huns, but adding stuff like ancient Greeks or ancient Egyptians would just be stupid. There has to be some defined limits to the game’s timeline, whether that be 450-1600 or 400-1600 I don’t mind, but if we add civs from ancient times, why not add ones from early modern/modern period? I mean where does it end? And it’d suck for them to go back into history just to dig out more european civs when so, so much of Africa, Asia and the Americas is untouched.
Would love to see Age of Empires I civilisations updated and brought over to Age of Empires II quality with the better implementation as separate civilisations and a seperate game however, but would hate to see ancient civs brought into one shared pool/multiplayer experience with medieval civs. Would be such a waste of developer resources when so much of the medieval world is so far ignored because its not in Europe.
Let’s hope the developers have their heads screwed on properly.
It’s the usual stuff. People find new things that are different “wrong”, not realising how wrong their existing things are, they’ve just grown so used to it they don’t realise it.
Give it a year and most people won’t bat an eyelid at vandals.
Noisy. We don’t even have any credible evidence to establish that the so-called “ancient friends” are related to AoE1.
It’s true that because of Attila and Alaric, I wouldn’t think a Western Roman or Vandal civilization would be particularly incompatible with AoE2, but only these two, no others. However, I still sigh because of this, we have lost a chance to the medieval candidates for an AoE1 civilization. The number of potential slots will only get smaller, so we should think further.
If people want AoE1 to be better, then the most important thing should be to work hard in AoE1, such as selling new DLC, reworking existing civilizations, adding new civilizations, improving AI, etc. Wouldn’t it be weird to expect “help” from other games?
I don’t understand the limitations of the prior engine. However AoE is unplayable to me compared to AoE 2. Not sure if they just have some serious tech debt there or what.
My speculation is that it’s unworkable or harder to update and given finite resources they have chosen the platform where they have more resources and larger player base. As a result, the franchise will likely continue to get neglected unless it’s incorporated into the new engine in some form.
I am personally agnostic about how they do it, separate game on same Engine, DLC with some sort of partition, or some other thoughtful solution to incorporate a mix of civs. I see the merits to all. However, what seems clear is that having it on an island by itself has to date made it feel unloved.
Even if AoE1 is considered to have failed, this failure is not something that AoE2 needs to bear.
Your island is not good, you want to move to the another good island, don’t you need to care about the feelings of the local people on that island? Not all of you are suitable for this island, and not to mention that the island has its own problems, which the remaining space is likely to face fierce competition. Do you think they have to make room for you?
Even remaking the entire AoE1DE is fine, but we shouldn’t think other games are obligated to do something about it.
That’ pretty much exactly what I want.
Make it separate matchmaking but still the same game. So all civilisations are available if you choose to enable them in a private lobby/singleplayer. And you can use all the content of both games in the Scenario Editor.
That is a pretty pessimistic mindset.
I have given up hope for the Devs to pick up AoE1DE anymore.
Yes maybe some minor balance patches once a year but that’s it.
AoE1DE uses an older version of the engine that doesn’t have a lot of the improvements of AoE2 and all the things that have been added to AoE2DE.
Porting over AoE1DE to the same engine as AoE2DE would be a dream.
But if they are on the same engine why not allow us to share content between those games. Imagine all the terrain, Gaia units, trees, random maps from AoE2DE being available for AoE1DE.
Both games are made by the same team so they always have to share development resources.
If AoE1DE would be ported to the AoE2DE engine. All the work that goes into improving AoE1DE also improves AoE2DE because they use the same engine.
Now every hour spend on AoE1DE is one hour not spend on AoE2DE because none of the work can be transferred.
Or are you one of those people that cry every time a new DLC is released that they didn’t add exactly what you wanted because you are afraid that they will stop making new content and you won’t get all the civilisations on your wishlist.
I agree with @laserbear25 and I like this idea of adding aoe1 units to the editor to make scenarios. I think it’s the best thing to do. Imo aoe1 DE unfortunately missed the opportunity to improve the game by changing the engine.
My suggestion in another thread to extend the timeline a little further for African (and American) civs is based on the fact that up until ~1700 they were still fighting in the medieval European style (with swords and bows and cavalry) of the game. And also in the understanding of this book of the African Middle Ages.
Interestingly, Nubians are a good choice for the early period of the European Middle Ages. But in the book referenced above, they would be civs* of antiquity.
I seen to see some people asking for the entire game of AoE1 to be part of AoE2, to be reproduced in AoE2. It’s not just about having AoE1 use 2’s engine. This is for AoE2 to do tasks that are not part of it.
Having more AoE1 units in the scene editor is already an efficient way.
This also does not mean that AoE2 is obliged to make changes for AoE1’s problems.
Before and after AoE3DE was released, neither AoE2HD nor DE served it.
I’m not, but that doesn’t mean my opinion and caution are wrong.
After AoE1, should we discuss AoE3?
Why should AoE2 be an almighty game?
Not to mention that unlike AoE1, AoE3 is in good shape.
That’s a different discussion yes. There are threads about that in the AoE1 forum.
tbh, they should just add all of them. It’s not that many.
There are 44 units over all in AoE1 (including ships, civil units and all units that share sprites). 6 don’t have unique sprites.
Not counting cheat units or heroes.
AoE2 already has 2 of them (Broad Swordsman and Priest) plus 2 ancient Roman ones with unique skins (Legionary and Centurion).
So 36 to go.
I think all Gaia units were already added to AoE2DE.
And then why not just make one Scenario Editor civilisation that can simply just train all of them. Then map creators could create unique civs by disabling units and technologies as well as overwriting the architecture set.
Medieval Civs for AoE3?
Sounds like a plan.
Already has 2.
AoE3 Japan is also kinda the same time frame as AoE2 Japan same with the Spanish.
Great I’m a pessimist, then what? The reasons for our caution remain there, won’t go away due to your optimism.
You can already use the editor to allow Byzantines to train legionaries, Sicilian to train camels, Lithuanians to build pagan shrines, and so on. The editor can already do a lot, it’s even not a problem to have new tech trees or bonuses for existing civilizations. Why do you need such an editor civilization?
Wrong, he’s talking about making AoE2 cover more AoE3, just like someone wants AoE2 to cover more AoE1.
In any case, what you’re saying here isn’t a good idea either. Stop the slippery slope.
Convenience.
The AOE2 editor is a pain to use. Setting up a full techtree of units would literally take hours. And that for multiple players would be even more of a pain.
I like slippery slopes!
Let’s go. Vikings for AoE3!
See Rome was in sharp decline before the start of the timeline and Vandals were rockstars for longer than Huns.
Thing is the Vandals are like that one European civ that is like most influenced by something non-European right down to their Tunisian starting spot. Also cool stuff like the games first civ that actually focused on demo ships (seriously) meaning as a European civ they have something uniquely them that doesn’t feel rehashed.
Western Rome is kinda like an empty figurehead that has empty status symbol of a broken husk.
