Yes, I don’t recall, for example, the Incas fighting all of those other civs. At least the Romans fought the Huns and Goths. You really have to have a serious suspension of disbelief to play the game at all, having Romans in the game is much less of a stretch than other aspects of the game.
1 Like
Why stop there? The Dark Age is a concept by the people who suffered the repercussions of the fall of Rome, if we take it as a core design and identity of the game then all the non-European civilizations don’t belong in the game.
4 Likes
With The Forgotten they stretched it up to 394 (Battle of the Frigidus), that is, rounding it up from 400 to 1600 and from 740 to 1420 exclusively (since the AoE 1 DE chronology goes up to 740 with the Yamato campaign and AoE 3’s chronology) starts in 1420 -due to the Chinese campaign and the Hussite Wagons of the Germans)…
1 Like
Even better 
, so saying that romans have no place in here is at least funny 
Indeed AoE3 starts in 1420 but AoE2 ends in 1598 due to historical battles of Japanese and Koreans (Admiral Yi Sun Shin’s battles making Toyotomi Hideyoshi retreat his forces in 1598)
2 Likes
That’s why I’m saying as long as it’s late Christian 5th century Romans, it’s fine I guess…
Yes, that’s why I said “exclusively” (that is, the exclusive chronology of AoE 2 that does not share with any other AoE, except 4 for obvious reasons)…In other words, all the campaigns and historical battles between Devapala (810-850) and Jan Zizka (1405-1424) are exclusive territory of AoE 2…
1 Like
False equivocation. Aztecs didnt have guns either but aztecs vs spanish is not weird because get this…it actually happened. Theres about 1000 years of seperation from Romans to guns though and that has to be filled in with pure imagination.
That was fine in 1999 but shouldnt be fine in 2023
And idk why you make this weird comment about conservatism but heres a gk chesterton quote.
“Before you demolish a fence find out why it was put up in the first place”
2 Likes
It was, stop quoting Voltaire.
Oh yea but celtic tribes did fight vietnamese in real life, right? =)))) (even worse, celtics are older then romans and they don’t even exist anymore in AoE2 timeline, they are already Scots and Picts).
Oh yea, also huns vs malians :))))
Oh wait! Aztecs vs Koreans was also real?
You tried to prove something but your argument failed big time
The ‘‘fence’’ you are talking about is what AoE2 developers decide to be, and they decided it before 1999.
As me and many others already wrote earlier, considering the period the game was designed in, it makes sense for Romans to be in the game…all the rest is entertainment.
1 Like
The reason why some people yell about historical accuracy in entertainment is because that’s the only history they know. If you know a little more you’ll notice so many inaccuracies from the beginning of time that you feel tired before you even start complaining.
——Me
3 Likes
Ive already addressed your celts and huns argument and you just keep repeating it. It was ok for 1999 but its not ok for 2023.
If youre on a diet and you ate cake for breakfast are you going to remedy that by eating more healthy for lunch and dinner or are you going to say “f it i ate cake for breakfast i might as well eat cake for lunch and dinner too”
Btw scots and picts can still be referred to as celts. Same as the english can be britons because celts and britons are just names for peoples across ethnic lines. So even today you can refer to native irish as “celtic”. Celts werent only in roman times.
A better analogy of adding the western roman empire would be to also add the “the gauls” which refers to a specific time period celtic people. That would also not fit aoe2.
So in 1999, you had the imagination to fill Huns and Goths fighting against guns, but now is 2023, and can’t use the same logic for Rome then?
2 Likes
The argument of the year
Do you think people did not know history in 1999? Historians were not yet born?
2 Likes
Early Medieval Age starts in the 5th century with the fall of Rome. Huns have always been problematic and adding another problematic civ won’t help. Especially if it is designed as an ancient civ with Centurions.
The Gothic Kingdom of the Vandals lasted into the 6th century and Crimean Goths lasted throughout the Medieval Ages.
3 Likes
Well in 1999, among other things, your imagination would have to account for the explicit statement of the game taking place after the fall of Rome. It’s true that adding Romans is not necessarily any sillier or more anachronistic than other things that are already present, so I don’t really buy the “suspension of disbelief” argument, but it’s pretty disruptive thematically. The lines got blurred a little with the Alaric/Attila campaigns, but even Attila was only a couple decades out from the fall of Rome, which remained the main point of reference for the era in which AoE2 begins, give or take a few decades (and both of those campaigns featured massive devastation of the Romans in their last decades). So the new “Romans” will be kind of in the same boat as the Huns - technically allowable due to silly precedents of pedestalizing pop-culture over cohesive design, but short-lived and iconic of an earlier era whose aesthetic clashes with the existing, largely Medieval one. Although the clash in the Romans’ case is more pronounced due to the centrality of their collapse to the earliest part of the AoE2 time period (and the presence of the Italian and Byzantine civs).
Anyway though, we’re getting Romans, so that’s that. 
3 Likes
I wish for all AOE1 civs cross-playable in custom lobbies and not just romans.
3 Likes
Minor corrections: there was no “Gothic Kingdom of the Vandals” there was a Vandal Kingdom, a Visigothic Kingdom in Iberia which lasted until the early VIIIth century and an Ostrogothic Kingdom that lasted until the mid VIth century. The Principality of Theodoro (also known as Gothia) in Crimea lasted until 1475.
3 Likes
The whoosh over your head you dont even understand the argument moment of the year
In 1999 people were still doing black faced and thinking its all right
eminem was making fun of elton john and calling him a “f…got” on television
Camels had ship armour, you could palisade scan and deleting mangonells caused them to do more damage
When i said its ok in 1999 means its understandable in 1999. We cut them some slack. They had to put koreans in the game just because of starcraft 2.
But now they have no excuses. It would be like hiring a black faced painted white actor to play a black character in a movie in 2023 if youre asking for the mistakes of 1999 to be repeated now
Just becuse we had to have a bacterian camel rider throwing scimitars to represent mameluks in 1999 does that mean in 2021 a coustiller should be a naked man riding a llama swinging nunchucks? (And in case this analogy went over your head too, the ingame mamluks are not historically accurate and would have never ridden bacterian camels which are not found in the middle east)
We are talking here about historians and gamers and that love history, not rappers and stand-up-ers :))))
Historians and history loving gamers were at the same intellectual level in 1999. And the history they learnt in school was the same in 1999.
It is just a game that has historical educational purpose up to a point, but that is made exclusively for entertainment allowing you to have fun fighting online with armies that never ever meet in real life.
Hindustanis vs Sicilians is as starcraft-ish as romans vs aztecs, trust me!
You think that all the intelligent people here on this thread that oppose and laugh in front of your argument are all of them out of their minds? Or they could have a serious reason? Think about it.
Nobodys laughing at my argument and if they are then they are morons. Only people like you who dont even understand it, obviously english is not your first language and you cant seem to grasp the essence
Let me try another example since youre preety slow. You know the celts campaign “falkirk” where you take down the english castle?
IN REALITY THE SCOTS LOST THAT BATTLE
But why did the devs just blatantly ignore history? Because 1999 widespread internet usage wasnt a thing. Braveheart had come out 3 years earlier and that was pretty historically inaccurate too. But they did it BECUSE THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT
The average consumer couldnt go online and fact check. Even devs themselves had to go to libraries and read books.
The devs took copywrited audio files for crying out loud
Read the history on how they came up with “wololo” they literally stole a random audio file and put it it without any proper royalties.
The point is THE STANDARDS WERE LOWER. That shit should never fly in 2023
Hindus vs aztecs are not as fantasy as romans vs aztecs becuse hindustanis and aztecs ARE FROM THE SAME TIME PERIOD
They would never make a scenario like aoe2 falkirk in 2023, and they shouldnt make civ choices like they did in 1999 too. Simple argument. If you dont get it, i cant help you
Calm down. Remember your username. You shouldn’t be shouting at people and insulting them.
5 Likes