Rebalances and a new civ for AOE1 civs, but nothing like unique techs or units?
A whole civ for AOE2, but only for campaigns and unranked???
Only 3 campaigns, which means all the AOE1 civs are coming over completely stripped of their content???
Why even bother at this point? This is so half baked, and at first I was so excited because Roman history is great!
Itâs not even out yet. Chill.
I agree that not allowing Romans in unranked is bad form. But the AoE1 stuff we donât know all the details on yet and how much effort went into rebalancing them all with new mechanics.
3 campaigns (brand new) is the standard for a DLC pack, the AOE1 campaigns are so barebones (no trigger system) they would have needed being remade from scratch to be even remotely on the same quality level as AOE2 campaigns. Iâm sure some modders will port AOE1 campaigns to AOE2 but Iâve warned you of what to expect.
As for the AOE2 Romans, they will not be used in Trajanâs campaign. I think the reason they cannot be used for ranked games is to avoid making this DLC feel like pay-to-win to people who do not care about Antiquity.
I think the reason they cannot be used for ranked games is to avoid making this DLC feel like pay-to-win to people who do not care about Antiquity
There have been a number of players outspoken about how much they dont want more Europe yet weâve gotten expansions focused around it entirely. This is nothing other than sheer laziness of the devs not wanting to do basic balancing to implement the civ for real.
You are assuming that Romans will be very good. But you could use same argument with every dlc, if someone canât pay and others can pay then it creates inequality between players and their chance of winning.
And? Who cares? People that donât like things are always the loudest. People that are OK or like something are silent. Itâs called âsilent majorityâ, you should learn about this concept. And vast, VAST majority of players-customers never visit a place like this even once. Itâs crazy to even think about relying on voices like that.
Just because you saw âa number of playersâ not liking something on a fan forum, literally doesnât mean anything. Just like them as consumers, because the job of the business is not to please minority groups, but to deliver a product that is the most profitable and fits the universal global market. Personally Iâm sure theyâve done their research, and handful of people âthat donât like a thingâ is not a deciding factor when greenlighting new project.
Most people like it and want that kind of content even more.
The thing was just revealed, nobody played it, and youâre already accusing developers of laziness? Sorry, but youâre very insolent.
I have no idea of how strong they will be, and being unranked only will deprive them of official stats, whose feedback is paramount for balance.
I know itâs a glass half full situation, but I see them as an unexpected bonus.
Current legionary if not mistaken is same as elite jaguar warrior, but if it becomes unique unit for new civ it probably changes.
I tested it and it currently lacks the anti infantry bonus.
Since Rome will have 2 unique unit, which makes me wonder do they both come from castle or one comes from barrack. Is legionary separate unit or it will be upgrade from long sword on from that line.
It really seems lazy to remake a civilization for AoE 2 but restricting it from the multiplayer instead of taking an effort to balance it.
I do think âlegionaryâ is not a good name for the unique unit. Maybe it is to appeal to popular tropes.
Not that the concept of legions dissolved in the late Roman army, but their classical image disappeared in this period (the model depicts a late Roman infantry not the iconic one in popular culture). Comitatenses or palatini would fit better.
Commitatenses for the legionary, palatini (singular : palatinus ?) for the centurion.
People say this but in the end itâs the europe content that sells better.
Look how Age 3 turned around to add europe content for an expansion to try and boost sales.
They were still legions and legionaries. Last legion is V macedonica probably destroyed by Muslims in Levant around 630.
Itâs ok for late Romans to have them. Itâs not ok for later byzantines because tagmata would work better with the themata system that substituted remaining legions and comitati/scholae (Diocletian/Constantine army).
Well Europe was suppose to be in original AoE3 and fighting was suppose to start from age 1, but that got changed so they could do again that no big action starts in age 1 and thus colonial theme was done as main thing.
Yes there is still a unit structure called legions but it seems people do not usually refer to late Roman army as such.
When people talk about legions they think of large tower shields and lorica segmentata. Not small oval shield and chainmail.
Well thatâs totally up to them. De facto legions still existed as a militar unit up to the VII century even if of course they were not the Trajan legion who in turn were not the Caesar one etc.
I remember Alaric slideshow in aoe2 showing legionaries like theyâre from the II century which itâs a very gross mistake but maybe youâre right that changing the name, while not very accurate, could help.
You say this:
After saying that:
Feels kind of hypocritical of saying âno more European civsâ while supporting the addition of Romans as theyâre another European civ while at the same time having a problem with middle ages civs.
I thibk he may be arguing the oposite, saying that thw people complaining about pay to win DLCs are also a loud minority