People which weren’t complaining about Romans being added in the game should take into account that once you open up the gate to literally allow the civ whose fall is widely seen as the beginning of the (European) Middle Ages, the Three Kingdoms civs are exactly as bad. They all have their peak way before 500.
The Chronicles DLC started diluting the concept of what AOE2 should focus on.
Note that I am as confused than you why we’re getting Three Kingdoms civs instead of the 5 civs @TyrannoNinja was hinting at. It’s just not very surprising considering in which direction they are going.
I’m mostly looking forward to play as Khitans and Jurchens to be honest. I don’t really feel excitement for the other 3 civs we’re getting with that.
The complaints come from that Three Kingdoms were extremely shortlasting and they didn’t develop unique cultures, while Romans lasted for a very long time and had a unique culture developed.
I’ll be honest i’m one of those people who was fine with Romans, in large part because as mainly a campaign player I liked the idea of having Rome represented by Romans in campaigns. I do get what you mean with Rome having been a gateway to more envelope-pushing civs like this, though all three of these civs only really existed for about 150 years from what I can tell, a couple centuries before Rome’s collapse.
I do think the 3 Kingdoms civs are a bit worse, but I get your point, and i’ll concede that maybe its western bias on my part letting Rome slide (though I think its also campaign bias)
First of all I don’t think it’s a good idea to add Romans.
But Romans (1) is a real civ, it’s not called “Western Roman Empire” or “Valentian dynasty” or “Soissons” and they didn’t make three variants of it (2) still overlaps with some of the civs already in the game.
It’s only getting worse, though bad enough already.
I personally would prefer the Three Kingdoms to be in a Chronicles-type mode rather than being treated as ordinary AOE2 civs. But the new update is cool at least.
The Three Kingdoms period was just three short-lived divided regimes under the same ethnic group. In essence, they were all countries established by the Han people. The official practices were similar to dividing England into Wessex, Essex and Kent; dividing France into Armagnac, Orleans and Aquitaine; and dividing Spain into Leon, Castile and Galicia; dividing Russia into Vladimir, Suzdal and Rostov. In this way, we can see the Seven Kingdoms era and the Duke War.
At least the fall of the Roman kicked start medieval period so they are somewhat relevant to the time frame…3 kingdoms surely aren’t. Heck, 3 kingdoms ain’t even unique cultures, they are basically 3 chinese states in a civil war.
They’re even more problematic than the Romans or the Huns, the Romans lasted until 476 (or if you consider the run-off Kingdom of Soissons as Roman then it would be 486) and the Huns lasted until the 450s or 460s, whereas two of the three kingdoms ended in the 260s and the last one the Wu only lasted until 280.
There were also Romano Britons lasting until the 7th century and especially the Mauro Roman kingdoms like Altava surviving until as late as the Muslim conquest.
Honestly I’m just tired of people being dishonest and ignoring facts that don’t conform their ideology. Probably the same people that talk about post truth and misinformation all the time.
Scholars such as [Christopher Snyder] believe that during the 5th and 6th centuries – approximately from 410 when the Roman legions withdrew, to 597 when [St Augustine of Canterbury] arrived – southern Britain preserved an active that survived the attacks from the [Anglo-Saxons] and even used a vernacular Latin when writing.
Hot Take: OP for no reason wants to split community that is unhappy with entirely other thing
Current situation: We don’t want short-period Chinese kingdoms from ancient era and also we don’t want new civilization with reused assets. (also: leader-unit is another problematic mechanic; l think devs were lying again is current problem too) What even Romans have to the problem?
Taking command of Western Rome and trying to preserve it is great addition.
Civ is well made - has new voicelines, fits timeframe and camaign timeframe made by original devs (they added Huns who essentially after Attila were gone).
But yeah, let’s create senseless divisions and riot. That’s the way.
edit: I really like about Romans fact that they relly entirely on gold units. Many civilizations doesn’t feel like they should and have entirely odd mechanics like last pagan europeans - Lithuanians, have bonus to increase damage by gathering relics which feels more like crusader civ (like Teutons).
It’s the typical tactic of channelling the anger of a mob into a thing you don’t like by trying to link what the mob doesn’t like with the thing you don’t like.
Those Roman held regions of Britain arent very relevant for Britain, theres a reason their existance was disputed
The kingdoms in the Magreb were Berber kingdoms, so you can just use the Berbers
Theres no state that Romans represents better than other civilizations (maybe Soissons I guess) and the civ design isnt reminiscent of the late roman empire beyond aesthetics. Its a civ of the principate with a a coat of paint. The late Roman didnt have super hig quality infantry or particularly strong siege or a good navy. The new legions were meant to raised quickly to hold the vastness of thr empire rather than being an elite force, and the mediterranean wasnt contested so their navy was surprisongly poor
The problem is: they didnt see themselves as a separate state from the east, had the same military, same court high culture, and the Byzantines represent the late Roman army better than Romans themselves
It’s not. It’s putting it into context and asking to stop with the double standards because Romans are Europeans while the 3 Kingdoms civs aren’t. Romans hurt the game as much as what we’re getting right now. I just don’t see people being consistent in their behaviour and making exceptions when they feel like it and they like a civ even though it clearly hurts the game’s base idea.
I’m in favour of removing the 3 Kingdoms stuff if we’re getting rid of Romans as well in Ranked and keep it Chronicles like. For me, the game jumped the shark in terms of European civs a long time ago. Now we’re just getting the same thing slowly but gradually with other regions instead of focusing on the gaping holes we have in terms of civs.
I fell like You don’t even know what are You talking about?
Romans are indeed Europeans
Chinese are not Europeans
What is even a point here?
Romans were a civilizations. Shu, Wu, Wei were countries, kingdoms, divided China. They were not civilizations.
As you said, let’s stop with the double standards and at least be honest with you statement and Huns should be removed in your opinion too. Celts also looks more like ancient Picts rather than Scots, so let’s remove them too.
