AOE 2 players have nothing to complain about. Rome has fallen, so it makes sense to reenact its fall within the game. It is THE bridge between the antiquity and medieval era. Byzantines were called romans by their rivals throughout the entire medieval era. Romans are cool, full stop.
AOE1 fans on the other hand IMO HAVE things to complain about. It is he second half-done remaster and probably will take 1-2 more before out game actually gets fixed.
I donāt think they are, 60 separate discussions about the DLC so far with thousands of comments and opinions repeated 3 to 7 times eachā¦ so no I donāt think so. 
Thatās trueā¦
No crossplayā¦the Romans in AoE 2 are not the same as the ones in AoE 1, or at least not technicallyā¦the Romans in AoE 2 are Christianized Western Romans from the 5th century (aka the Romans from Alaric and Attila campaigns)ā¦
In 5 years we are going to walk through civ nĀŗ 60 and with the map full of civs xdā¦
Tell that to Ensemble that they got the Huns and Western Romans into Attilaās campaign in The Conquerorsā¦
In fact, the timeline of AoE 2 starts in 395 with the division of the Roman Empire after the death of Theodosius (actually a year earlier with the battle of the Frigid River)ā¦
Well, the Sumerians are technically in the game and if they were to make a dlc in the colonial era, I already see gatlings destroying huskarls xdā¦
The Goths are in AoE 2 by the Ostrogoths (469-553) and the Visigoths (418-721)ā¦
Actually it would be from The Conquerors, since in AoK the chronology started in 1152 and ended in 1453ā¦with Attilaās campaign and the historical battle of Noryang Point the chronology was moved back to 434 and forward to 1598ā¦It stayed that way until The Forgotten stretched the chronology to 408 in 2 HD and 394 in 2 DEā¦
Thatās trueā¦
Trajanās campaign is a campaign for AoE 1 Romans, it has nothing to do with AoE 2 Romansā¦
Could beā¦
Thatās rightā¦the three new campaigns are for AoE 1: Sargon of Akkad (the first emperor in history) (2334ā2269 BC), Pyrrhus of Epirus (the first great rival to Roman expansion) (307-272 BC ) and Trajan (the emperor who brought Rome to its peak and made it āworld capitalā) (89-117 AD)
It will be because the campaigns of Alexander the Great are already on his respective mission in the Greek campaignā¦
In fact there are two new civs: Lac Viet for AoE 1 (plus the 16 original civs) and Romans for AoE 2 and 3 new campaigns for AoE 1 (plus the 10 original campaigns) (that is, it is the biggest dlc of the entire saga )ā¦
Sure, in fact the legionnaires and the centurions are the new unique units of the Romans of AoE 2ā¦
That heās going to complain if itās just a copy of the Romans from AoE 1 and no, theyāre notā¦
Of course, as in AoE 3, the units change their outfit with each upgradeā¦
Maybe they will do it later with a campaign like The Last Romans (Aetius, Majorian and Aegidius) (as happened with the Lithuanians with Algirdas and Kestutis in DotD)ā¦
Exactā¦
We do not knowā¦
Sure, in fact Ensemble liked the idea of creating campaigns for the Huns (Attila) and for the Goths (Alaric or Theodoric)
Thatās trueā¦ I couldnāt have said it better, I agree with everythingā¦
Maybe theyāll put them in later dlcsā¦
Ranked is overrated, they can still be played in standard gamesā¦
Of course, now you have something for everyone: those who want to play AoE 1 with the gameplay of AoE 2 have Return of Rome; those who want to play AoE 1 with the gameplay of AoE 3 have AoE Online (with the Project Celeste patch of course) and those who want to play AoE 2 with the gameplay of AoE 3, have AoE 4ā¦
Thatās trueā¦
And Alaric tooā¦
The Burgundians are to represent the Dutch and the Belgiansā¦
The Sicilians were greatly influenced by the Arabs of North Africa until they were conquered by Roger Bossoās Normans in 1071, then they were under Angevin influence until 1282 when they became part of Aragon and then Spain until 1816ā¦
Of course, that is much more important than the Rome vs Byzantium discussionā¦
Ohā¦if Teodosius raised his head xdā¦for me as long as they are the western Romans of the 5th century, I certainly donāt careā¦
Great post, well redacted, Good Job 
I donāt have to agree or disagree with your opinions to see you put some effort into this post.
Keep it up 
Is it really necessary to always cite like 100 posts?
I will say yes. (I am not being sarcastic)
Because the other option is for the reader to go back and re-read the 256 comments to see what the writer is answering to.
It could be a shorter post, YES and I will prefer it, but I like his style.
Let me laugh, overrated?
Itās probably safe to assume that most people at multiplayer, plays or have played ranked matches at some point since lobby system and quick matches are in a miserable state and completely abandoned by the ādevsā right now, being useful only for tournaments and maps like cba, diplo, etc. So i think ranked is anything but overrated. Of course, singleplayer people and cba-diplo players wonāt care about Romans, if they donāt like it, they can just avoid picking them, but for the vast majority of multiplayer people, itās a completely useless civ.
this thread is an infinite loop 
I agree, I do not want romans in ranked play. Adding it to the editor is fine, but I donāt want to be forced to play against it in either single player or multiplayer unless I choose to do so.
mega post to end mega posts
Why? Is it any weirder than classical mayas fighting the huns?
AoE2 is, as far as I can tell, mostly defined by the time period in which it takes place. The Mayans, for example, became dominant around 250AD and lasted for the next ~1500 years. The Huns became a power around 400AD and while the empire under Atilla only continued for the next ~200 years, the various steppe peoples that descended from them culturally continued long afterwards.
The Romans, by contrast, arose as a dominant power in ~500BC, a full 900 years earlier, and collapsed around the time these other powers were only first rising. For contrast, a similar temporal movement in the other direction would have the British Empire as a civ, with their unique unit being a Churchill Tank, and their Imperial Age taking place in the future.
Whatās enjoyable about Aoe2 is that it imagines what might have happened had different tribes in the ~400AD-1700AD time period met. Of course youāll never see mayans and huns fighting, but you also wouldnāt see chinese and vikings fighting, or Byzantines and Japanese, so clearly distance isnāt the relevant factor, here; itās time.
Yes, I had no other optionā¦ I also had to catch upā¦
Good pointā¦
*1600ā¦1700 is already full AoE 3 (letās say that AoE 3 definitely starts with the 30 Years War (mentioned in the history section and playable in the respective historical map)ā¦
I donāt understand all of the negativity regarding the inclusion of the Romans in AoE II. If the game is time-based as someone said above, the Huns basically disappeared prior to the western part of the Roman empire fallingāyet they are in the game. Why would you include Goths and Huns, but not the civ that fought wars against them? Including the Romans makes sense historically and for game purposes.
I have gone to other forums, and players seem generally happy with this DLC. That makes me think there may be a very loud vocal minority here trying to affect the perception of the game.
Cam you people stop trying to paint the people that dont lile the DLC as some kind of conspiracy theorists that think that this DLC will fail somehow? Im pretty sure we all know that its going to sell well, we just dont likw it.
Because Byzantines is Romans and at the 5th century the WRE abd the ERE were practically identical. The two emperors saw each others as emperors of the same empire too! Calling them two diferent civilizations is just wrong imo. It just feels like adding Romans is just a waste, we should be getting other civ instead.
Also theres a lot of people that didnt like Huns, and Goths lasted until the 8th cebtury at least
New Romans civ bonus confirmed: -Immediately defeated at game start.
But yeah, this is one of the strangest things to me, where itās not just adding another civ thatās already represented or possibly extending the timeline. The fall of Rome is a pretty clear dividing line, at least for the purposes of the gameās design and identity, such that adding a Roman civ feels like a major retcon. To where they have to say hokey stuff to justify it, like āRome is no longer bound by time.ā
Oh well. I understand the desire for something on the AoE2 side, and additional Roman-themed SP/Campaign content for AoE2 players is fine, but making it a ful new civ seems weird, which is perhaps why they have the ranked restriction (which creates its own conundrum). Although itās not yet clear what the intentions are. Anyway, weāre saddled with it, so hopefully it gets worked out in an optimal way given the circumstances.
What other relevant and active forums are there besides Reddit? AoKH is mostly a ghost town. And while Reddit is worth paying attention to, they have a pretty staggering positivity bias such that anything remotely negative (and basically 2/3 of all non-meme content) usually gets downvoted to oblivion - yet even theyāve had some notable complaint threads. Not saying there arenāt a lot of people here and elsewhere who are very excited for RoR, but itās definitely a lot more controversial and divisive than any past DLC.
Also, for everyone who likes Rome/AoE1 in AoE2, relax, nobody is coming to take away your garum. Expect some venting from the people who think this choice was strange, but Iām sure weāll (mostly) get over it soon enough. Be glad that you at least got what you wanted.
If only.
Some people are just scared of them
Spirit of the Law just needs to make a couple of videos on the new civs. Thatāll fix this hullabaloo.
What made u think that this game is about middle ages? It is not about a certain age but about a certain period.
This game is about 450-1600 AD period, not about middle ages because in reality not all nations entered/exited middle ages period in the same time.
Roman empire ended in 476.
if u say Romans should not be in the game, Celts/Huns/Goths should not be either cuz all of them are contemporary with romans.
Celts are even older then romans, how can u not even know that?
AoK timeframe is 450-1450
As a matter of fact, adding the Huns in AoE2 was the devs intention to link AoE1 to Aoe2.
So Aoe2 starts where Aoe1 finishes. That being said, romans were needed to complete the link along side Huns.
Also Samurai with katanas vs guns happened in reality but somehow u canāt accept romans vs guns.
British also fought in reality with automatic howitzers vs African tribes that only had wood spears (and British lost yea )
Weird, very weird.
It is just a game, did you ever seen Chinese battle Teutons, or Polish fighting Vietnamese? That does not seem StarCraft to you?
Lets stop this hypocrisy born out of conservative thinking, donāt be a boomer !
