I sincerely hope the Devs can explain why Rome can only available in single player

I was really dissatisfied with this DLC from the beginning because as a player of AOE2, I didn’t feel that this DLC brought me much excitement. I think you can certainly create a brand-new AOE1 content, as long as there are two additional AOE2 new civs included under this theme, such as Rome, Vandals, Suebi, and so on, I am very happy to purchase them (yes, I am in favor of incorporating the Roman civ into AOE2), I think this should not be too difficult for Devs, and it can please both AOE1 and AOE2 groups at the same time.

Okay, now that it turns out that I’m just fantasizing, just treat me like I’m yakking.

However, I really don’t understand, what are the benefits of using Rome as an exclusive civ for single player , whether for sales or for pleasing players? What is your purpose in doing this?

I sincerely hope that Devs can come out and answer this question.


I say it’s still available in multiplayer, just not ranked games. Because it will be unbalanced.

From the steam page.

The Roman civilization will be playable in the main AoE II: DE title. If you’ve ever wondered how the Romans might fare against the Aztecs, now’s your opportunity to find out.

I currently only see two options:

  • The civ isnt a propeely designed civ, and is mainly there to replace some factions in campagns (like the Goths campain)
  • The civ has a fundamental design difference to normal civs (like no imperial age), and the devs dont want to release it on the ladder before seeing how the community will receive these differences.

I donnot think this is a “normal civ that devs are too lazy to balance for ranked”.

1 Like

Then the question arises: Why is it there in the first place? The only thing which this civ really adds is a new unique castle and a new area of effect bonus for the Centurion.


I can think of some reasons:

  • A lot of people don’t want Rome in AoE2. So they didn’t really add Rome to AoE2. It’s basically a mod. You won’t encounter Rome if you don’t want to.
  • They don’t want to force people to buy a more expensive DLC for one civilisation. A lot of people want to be able to play and try out all civilisations they can encounter in ranked matches because not being able to test a civilisation yourself might give you a disadvantage.
  • They purposely want the Romans to be unbalanced (either under of overpowered) because of how they want them to work like in the campaigns. Or alternatively they want them as a kind of handicap civilisation for private lobbies.

I don’t think they are to “lazy” to balance them. They released so many new civilisations with such extreme new features before that needed a lot of patches to be balanced. Why should they suddenly not be able to do that for just one civilisation.

How do you know?
We don’t know their UT and civilisation bonuses yet. They might have some completely new things.


Maybe you’re right, but all of these reasons I personally think are deeply unsatisfying.

Maybe, but this is kind of a weird fence-sitting sort of thing that may end up being the worst of both worlds. Yeah, a new Roman civ wasn’t the first choice for a lot of people, but they’ll still take it over nothing. The civ still took up time and design space, so might as well make it fully functional. Some history buffs and other people who wanted other civs will still be annoyed that it was added in any capacity, such that it “not being in ranked” isn’t a meaningful consolation. Also, if the civ is OP, it’s going to ruin unranked games, which may not be a prime concern, but it’s still going to be a major annoyance to a lot of players.

This one doesn’t make sense to me at all. It seems pretty obvious that the “Romans” civ was “added” to give AoE2 fans a reason to get the DLC, so why undermine that by offering less than a full civ? Also they’ll do what they can to maximize their sales/ROI; MS being concerned for customers potentially overspending on their product is not a thing.

Also doesn’t really make sense. At least it’s a bit more plausible, but still very weird. Campaigns have can have heroes, custom techs or gimmicks, and a variety of other extras, perhaps even alternative bonuses that make them play out differently than in a standard multiplayer game. It’s possible that they just designed the civ in a hyper-gimmicky way that they don’t think would be compatible with ranked play, but that just seems like an unnecessary, and frankly bad design choice if that’s the case.


I don’t think those are good reasons to make them not playable in ranked but are there better reasons?

I don’t believe that they were just to “lazy” to balance them. That sounds very very unlikely.

I personally don’t care because I don’t play ranked but I still agree that it’s probably a stupid decision.


Now I feel let down a ton…


That is kinda the only reasonable explantion, but afaik this isnt confirmed by the devs.

If it is option 1, then it looks like a half done civ. Why would the devs ever release a half done civ? That makes to me no sense.

If it is option 2, and the civ have some major gimmicks, then it is just bad design. Releasing a badly designed civs with some major flaws doesnt make much sense either to me.

I dont see any options either. But both reasons point out that the civ is badly designed in some way.

It is very clear. Romans don’t have any role in AOE2 timeline at all. At their last years (beginning of medieval ages) they were falling not rising (like Huns); so why the devs should add them in ranked?! They were literally in the dark age and end in the dark age.

Then by your logic we should also get Yamato empire to AOE2 since their time was between (210-710). But we have Japanese also no? But we also have Byzantines & Italians no?

Anyway, no need for them in ranked and it was a great and wise decision from the devs.


The reason why it’s not designed to be fully eligible for multiplayer is that they decided they won’t make it that.
Specific potential reasons like lack of resources of money or time, creative decisions made beforehand, or whatever else is ultimately irrelevant.

And when we look broader at the player base- it doesn’t matter almost at all, because a very small percentage of players that bought the game engage in playing outside of single-player offerings, and only a fraction of these people engage in a very competitive, ranked form of PvP in 2DE.

Just because something exists, doesn’t mean it is required to be tailored for ranked multiplayer. It’s just a bonus in this DLC, that peaks its nose in 2DE itself.
Not talking about you, but in general the amount of complaining deriving from this BONUS feature in the upcoming DLC is simply staggering.

What about the dromon ship

Among all the possible reasons, the one that made most sense to me is they didn’t want to force AOE2 only players to spend $̶1̶5 $12.44 for only one civ.

1 Like

Situations like this always end with the worst of both worlds, people who don’t want Rome will still complain, and those who don’t care/wanted a new civ, are now stuck in this weird limbo so they are pissed.
Either commit or not

1 Like

All the arguments you give would be in favor of not putting the civ in the game at all rather than excluding it from ranked multi specifically. I don’t have any numbers to back it up, but I’m pretty sure ranked players are those who care the least about historical accuracy and timeline of the game. Every time people are arguing about which civ should be in the game or not and someone barges in to say real life history and representation shouldn’t be a concern and the only thing we should care about is mechanics, I assume they only play ranked multi. So if the reasoning is “They shouldn’t be in AoE2 anyway because they’re not medieval”, why put them in other parts of the game played by people who actually care about this?

I don’t played ranked multi at all (actually I mostly play campaigns this days) but I still think ranked players are a part of this community that shouldn’t be disregarded and despised. I don’t really know how many they are compared to solo players, if you have datas I would be happy to see them, but I don’t care that much for the matter at hand. The fact that the dlc has been on sale for an entire day before the devs clarified that a part of the community that may miss this information will get nothing out of it is just bad communication and terrible business practice.
Also, if a civ is too poorly balanced for multi, it may not be so interesting to play as or against in solo either.

The civ is mentioned on the dlc’s steam page. It’s not a bonus, it’s a core feature and, for some people, a selling point.


Because it is clearly a support for aoe1 to port them in aoe2 engine. Also why are yout saying that only Romans? All AOE1 civs are now in AOE2 single player and costum, by your logic then all aoe1 civs also should be in ranked.

Also as I mentioned, by your logic people, then Yamato also can be in aoe2.

I think theres also a chance devs may want to keep the numbers of civs more manageable on competitive play and this is their first experiment with that

1 Like

No, the other AoE1 civs can only be played against each other, while Romans will be available to play against AoE2 civs in solo and non ranked multi.
To put it simply, there will be two Roman civs, one for each side of the game. Just like there will be two Persian civs, since they were already in both games.


Well I am a (ranked only) player and barely stay out of ranked and I am so happy that Romans wil not be in ranked ladder. Great decision from the devs imo.


Which is fine.

As I told you before, we have Byanztines, Italians. And also we have Japanese so by your logic we can add Yamato also.

Anyway no need for Romans from the beginning in aoe2 even single player.

1 Like