I’m aware of what the box says, but the Goths would make no sense being in the game if they weren’t representing Late Antiquity in some way, considering their contribution to the fall of the Roman Empire. Since 1999, Late Antiquity has always been represented, so having the Romans themselves is not a stretch.
1 Like
You literally didn’t even answer me? Where is this better civilization that you have in mind instead?
Also. To say that the Roman empire was “overrated”, I don’t even know where to begin. Could it be that you just dislike the idea of it? In which case, you shouldn’t use that bias to argue for why it doesn’t fit–which it does.
I don’t think the “glorious roman empire” is a reason to bring it to light. But, there is more to the Eastern Romans than them simply immediately becoming what contemporary pop culture identifies as Byzantine. Many civilizations in AoE2 are featured in multiple times through multiple iterations, and this is no different.
Don’t worry though. You can be mad that it is “overrated”. That doesn’t make it make less sense however. Romans are simply popular and this decision is a nobrainer.
1 Like
Rome is not the end all be all of the Roman Empire.
They literally changed their capitol a century before by the very emperor who legalized christianity and made it a state religion.
The people who are persistently resisting the Roman identity in this game are usually the ones who have no idea what the hell history even is. The Romans persistent until the fall of constantinople. As a singular entity, they, if anyone, should have the right to partake in a game about MEDIEVAL civilizations.
For most others don’t endure half as long.
1 Like
They’re already in this form under the name Byzantines which are a completely fine addition. Romans is just the rest of the Western empire which dies starting from the second century CE which have no place in this game.
8 Likes
Exactly. Wanna know why the Goths have HCs? Because they were originally partly representing their descendants the Spanish. Who are now in the game, and have been since 2000.
The Teutons originally represented all of the Holy Roman Empire, but now the Bohemians are in the game. The Slavs originally represented all Slavic cultures, but the Bulgarians and Poles were added later. We had the Franks and the Vikings, but now we also have the Burgundians and the Sicilians.
I could go on, but y’all get the point, I hope. This has been a thing since day 1.
1 Like
Sorry, but is this not an assumption you are making?
Unless I have missed something, they have not stated that this is an imaginary continuation of the western roman empire?
What is happening here is this;
These people are byzantine fans or something. Basically, they’ve got an idea of the “Byzantines” which is badass to them. Despite how they were wrongly taught history at an early age, these people identified themselves as Roman first. There is nothing wrong with adding a civilization that represents that properly instead of a late-interpretation of their downfall as the entirety of their people.
From the first emperor to the last–these were ROMANS.
I will reiterate. If you think they don’t fit because of time period; you don’t know history. The reason I do think that they DO fit in AoE2, is because this game is all about identity. The “Roman” identity is far different to the Byzantine one, and this game is wacky like that. You will see units that either never existed or existed far in the past or future. But, they are added because it is often a “fun” or “cool” edition to the game, to the civilizations and to the overall experience.
What is happening right now is some weird kind of gatekeeping, so I will again request that these people suggest an alternative civilization that lines up with this DLC instead of the Romans. Because I think this is a perfect fit.
1 Like
These guys are 4 seconds away to making a post saying they quit
Ahhh nothing like a new dlc reveal to get the whiners crying.
3 Likes
This was the Age of Kings cover. The Conquerors made the start of the timeline a bit earlier, so did The Forgotten, by making the Huns playable (their empire ceased to exist after Attila died in 453) and having campaigns for Attila and Alaric. Where you do fight the Western Roman Empire.
1 Like
I’m glad that the Romans are in the game now partly so I can have them appear as themselves in a Goar campaign for the Alans in my hypothetical Caucasus expansion. I also really like their Castle design, which hasn’t been officially revealed but was shown in a leak months ago (that’s also how I knew that the Romans were being added to AoE2).
I’m not familiar with the campaigns they were adding.
I was under the impression that these three new campaigns were for the original civilizations?
The unit names do seem old school roman, although I’m not brushed up on how their military changed chronologically.
Doesn’t change the fact that the Roman empire is just dying starting from the 2nd century CE.
6 Likes
They briefly show the Roman one in the announcement trailer:
Note the data set used is the standard AOE2 one.
1 Like
Literally how is the Macedonian campaign NOT Alexander the Great?!
Huuuuge missed opportunity there.
1 Like
We’re probably going to have to see more footage to really see what is happening here.
Those units look familiar to the original ones in AoE1DE. It could be that they reused assets to etablish a new DLC civilization for AoE2, which though lazy, fair enough.
I was under the impression that they would’ve created new assets altogether, showing pretty armoured units in early ages, and progressively looking more like the Byzantines as they age up. If instead the units are just copy-pasted from AoE1DE, then it would be disappointing.
It does suggest that alternatively, they wouldn’t have added any civilization at all if all they could do was copy paste. And I’d happily take perhaps somewhat of an anachronistic depiction of Romans over nothing.
love it or hate it, they will just copy paste aoe1 romans, with maybe a small addition or 2, to standard aoe2, now here’s my issue with this, it’d be fine to have ported aoe1 and aoe2 content strictly separate, but just copy pasting romans over is just tone deaf, especially when romans aka byzantines already existed for 20 years
it also feels scummy at 15$ (ik of that preorder discount but even 13$ is more than i’m willing to pay, i have no intent on buying the aoe1 portion, and ik i’m not alone, but clearly intentionally putting aoe2 romans into that pack means many will basically burn extra money on 1 civ)
1 Like
Actually, I’m fairly certain that the Legionaries and Centurions are from AoE2. The shield designs for the Legionaries are more in line with the late Romans than the early Romans (i.e. rounded instead of square).
What does this sentence mean?
1 Like
Well, it is a new civilization, so I was hoping for new assets.
The rest of the sentence was mostly just an idea. I had hoped for a different take on unit presentation. Historically romans would’ve had pretty advanced and expensives armies long before the start of the game, Dark Age and Feudal Age could feature armies that maybe look overdressed in contrast to other civilizations.
So aging up could’ve offered a different take to traditional civilizations. Showcasing a progress where unit’s armour change in style instead of quality of armament.
Anyway. It was just what I imagined in terms of visual presentation. Seeing that they are reusing assets is making me realize that they likely just took the simple route instead of making something entirely new and maybe different looking.