I dont want a roman civ in aoe2

I really hope they dont have a roman civ for aoe2.

Dosent fit. Dosent feel appropriate for the middle ages

We tolerate huns because its classic. Goths were around in the middle ages

But roman centurians fighting organ guns would be like adding freaking starcraft protoss in there. I cant do that level of suspension of disbelief


The Goths are in the game. They met the Late Western Roman Empire.


If it was it would be the late Roman Empire, 4th and 5th century and a couple successor states like the Kingdom of Soissons. Not the shinier early Empire (up to the Crisis of the 3rd Century).

At this time this no longer was the fancy units and instead a more streamlined design. That’s a dying empire fighting for survival, not a young energetic empire proudly civilising barbarians.

This (left) instead of this (right) :
image image


You can choose not to buy, thanks.

You can also continue to maintain your thought, but reality will not follow your thought.


By the way, you said you tolerated huns because its classic.

But how to define classic in your mind?

What’s difference between Roman and Huns?

Are Suebi and Vandals classic?


Actually for a game that also features bits of late antiquity with Goths, Huns, Attila and Alaric, the West Romans would 100 % fit.

I guess it’s Ensemble vs Forgotten.

1 Like

If we want to nitpick, the Hunnic Empire ceased to exist after Attila was poisoned in 453, while the Hephtalites (“White Huns”, appear in the Bukhara battle) are only broadly related. The Western Roman Empire survived up to 476 and the Kingdom of Soissons up to 486.

And since we indeed see Western Rome in several campaigns, Alaric and Attila notably, it wouldn’t be out of place.


@Jiushiyongcha08, the censor keeps breaking this quote for some reason:
######################## post:6, topic:228309"]
By the way, you said you tolerated huns because its classic.

But how to define classic in your mind?

To me, I interpret that as being one of the classic civs, ie. from the original Age of Kings or the Conquerors expansion, not in terms of era. I could be wrong though with that assumption.


It is totally correct that it would be ridiculous to add Rome as a civ in AOE2 like exactly how dumb was adding Huns and Goths 20 years ago also in the game.

Unfortunately it seems inestead of learning from past mistakes we just repeat them.

Anyway until now it is not confirmed if they will really add Romans as a civ in AOE2 and I hope it will not be added.


I hope we get Romans.


Well the Roman civ is a kind of Dark Age of the Byzantins which are already in the game. At one point we must decide between a fun game and historical simulation…

And there are so many anachronisms, approximations and mistakes in this game that one should not even play it if one is a purist.


The Romans have been in aoe2 since 1999. However, if you mean adding an additional Roman civ based on Antiquity, that’s a completely different thing. And it’s true it’s redundant


Yes huns classic as its been in the game since 2000 and we have gotten used to it. Like we have gotten used to korean war wagons which are also out of place and borderline fantasy

But adding a roman civ on a new 2023 dlc where historical accuracy is more of a focus seems out of place. Im all for aoe1 content. Crossover to aoe2 engine or whatever. But no new roman races for aoe2


Ostrogoths stoped being a kingdom in the 6th century
Visogoths stoped being a kingdom in 711
Crimean goths waaaaay after that

Edit: I also didn’t like the idea of adding Western Rome, as we already have Eastern Rome, but given that we are already past that point I just hope for campaigns. I’d love one for each Roman Empire


Throwing axeman.
20 characters


There already are roman civ in the game. They are called byzantines, who were the eastern Roman Empire. Even if they are to add a Roman civ, It would be the late western empire probably, not Caesar-tipe legions


The huns lived in the same period as Romans.


I think that, nostalgia aside, we should everyone agree on this one. Huns are the weirdest addition to the game and while we don’t exactly “tolerate” them (well, I do, but I acknolwdege I am on the minority), but rather people love them because we were young when they came out and were not aware of how little they qualify for an AoE2 civ: Not an empire (barely a warmonger confederation) that existed before what was on those times the accepted timeframe of the game, and stopped existing after their leader died.

If huns were to come out today, I really believe it would recieve heavy negative criticism, at least from those of us who actually care what civs are added to the game.


Introducing the Huns maybe pushed the start of the period further back, but if so not by much. Some clues in the original CD AOK are clear :

  • the game’s description on the original box starts with “Rome has fallen and the world is up for grabs”
  • the starting age is the Dark Ages, in Europe it’s roughly the time from the fall of Rome to Charlemagne. Of course early campaigns are not restricted to the Dark Ages due to gameplay reasons, militia slug matches with a single TC would be unbearable.
  • civs had a start and end date in their description, the Persians ended in the 7th century with the Sassanids. The Goths didn’t survive much later, their wonder is Theodoric the Great’s mausoleum (around 500).
  • some heroes included Belisarius (6th century), Theodoric the Goth (5th century for both the Wisigothic one and the Ostrogothic one), and some Arthurian characters (fictional but trace their story from the 5th century when Rome abandonned Britain).

Sure all AOK campaigns were after 1000 but the game always included the time around the fall of Rome. Introducing the Huns at most pushed back the start date from 476 to around 400.

1 Like

Adding rome is an odd choice indeed but its coming regardless of how you feel.