Dear Age of Empires Developer Team,
First of all, thank you for the recently released DLC for Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition Return of Rome. I had some fun with playing all 3 campaigns. I have accomplish all the Roman missions successfully completed, 4 of the Macedonian missions and 3 of the Sumerian missions out of 5 each. However, I also noticed some negative things about both the DLC and the main game, which should surely be improved, if the game is to be reasonably reasonable. Bugs to the game I have posted into the bug theme.
AoE 2 DE: DLC: Return of Rome: New Suggestions for the AoE 2 Definitive Edition:
-Give the new civ of the “Romans” in Age of Empires 2 a new, more appropriate name for the “age of antiquity” I am thinking of “Late Romans” or “New Romans” to be historically correct, since from around 250 AD can no longer speak of the classic “Roman Empire” of the “Iron Age”, but of the above-mentioned designations. You should also use the new name so that there is no confusion with the civs of Age of Empires 1, which depict the “Roman Republic” and the classic “Roman Empire”.
-Give the Late Romans or New Romans a “new campaign” in the near future in order to do justice to the whole scope of this DLC, including a new leader (a Late Roman emperor) for the campaign.
AoE 2 DE: Further DLCs: New Suggestions “relating campaigns”:
-We have already a European campaign with the Vlachs, although we do not play with the Vlachs at all, but we play with the Slavs, Turks and Hungarians. It would be good, if you recreated this civ and give thema as a leader “Vlad Draculea” for a later DLC. It is now very hard to see, how you have to compete as “Slavs, Turks or Hungarian” instead of historically correct “Vlachs”. Give the players a playable civ called “Vlachs”.
-Give the “Vikings” civ and the “Slavs” civ a “new campaign”, which is missing so far. With the Vikings you can draw a connection from Denmark to Sweden in the individual missions. With the Slavs you can draw a connection from Kiev to Novgorod for the individual missions.
-The designation “Burgundy” as a civ is inappropriate with regard to the Lords of the West DLC. Just take the “French” as historically correct. The Flemish militia, on the other hand, could then be given a different name, since it has “Dutch” connections.
-Rename the “Brits” to “Anglo-Saxons” because that is the historically correct name for their special unit the “Longbowmen” as well as their campaign leader “Eddward Longshanks”.
-Baptize the “Celts” in “Britans”, because that is the historically correct term for the historically set period of the game from 250 AD (the beginning of the antiquity) to the beginning of the early modern period until 1500 AD. The Celts as a civ and language have long since died out in Europe and are only present on the British Isles (Britans).
-The designation “Slavs” as a civ is very general and for the period of the game from 250 AD to around 1500 AD, that is the early modern period, one can no longer speak of pure “Slavs” but in the full sense of “Eastern Slavs” or “Kievan Rus”.
-Divide all campaigns overview maps into “cultural areas” for the sake of a better view and historically more correct overview map.
-Divide Europe graphically better into Western Europe (Portugal, Spain, France=Burgundians), Island Europe (Britain=Celts, Anglo-Saxons=British), Central Europe (Franks, Bohemians, Hungary) and Northern Europe (Vikings, Teutons, Goths). A further subdivision into Southern Europe (Byzantium, Sicilians, Italians and late Romans or New Romans) and Eastern Europe (Lithuania, Slavs, Poles and Bulgarians) is also appropriate. Now Europe is far too compressed and does not look pretty.
-The campaign overview maps for Asia should also be revised. Enter new maps for the Near East (Saracens), the Middle East (Turks, Persians), Central Asia (Huns, Cumans, Tatars, Mongols), for India (Hindustanis, Bengals, Gurjaras, Dravidians), for South Asia (Burmans, Khmers, Vietnam) and for East Asia (Japan, Korea, China).
-For Oceania (Malay) please create a new campaign overview map as it shows the Indo-Pacific region, who has not been represented at all so far.
-Furthermore, I also see the campaign overview maps for America and Africa as being much too general, especially for future DLCs in the game. Divide America into Latin America (Aztecs, Mayans and Incas) and North America (no civ yet) and Africa into North Africa (Berbers, Malians, Ethiopians) and Sub-Saharan Africa (no civ yet).
-Give all civs specific architecture sets, especially for the “Dark Age” they should allocate previous architecture sets or, in the best case, new architecture sets to all civs. The current buildings just look awful for all civs because all civs use the same architecture set for it and it looks quite ugly.
-The special units of the Bohemians, Persians, Khmer and Koreans look horrible, although the “Bohemian” Hussite wagon or wagon castle should be operated by a group of soldiers on the wagon itself in terms of graphics, that would be an enormous upgrade. Give the “Persians”, “Khmer” and “Koreans” historically correct Human special units as they never fought with War Elephants or huge armored wagons as their main force because it is historically completely incorrect. In addition, a larger group of war elephants is very difficult to defeat in the game and the Persians act historically incorrectly with a massive superiority. Even in the Indian areas (Hindustanis, Bengals, Gurjaras and Dravidians), where they are known, war elephants were mainly used by natives and not for state warfare.
-Make graphical adjustments for the respective architecture sets of all civs especially for the units, which is long overdue. It is just horrid to see a Saracen swordsman look the same as a Teutonic swordsman. Finally give the Saracen a saber.
-The units on the ships and boats should be graphically visible on the water, not like now they are just cooped up on the lower deck like slaves, which also looks very unrealistic.
Best regards and I hope that the points mentioned will be implemented.