I will not repeat the success or failure of ROR. But I believe that for many players who have bought ROR with real money, they prefer to see the Romans campaign in Aoe2 rather than modifying the balance of Aoe1 or increasing the campaign of Aoe1.
In particular, the campaign of the old civs can be updated through the new DLC in the future, but the Romans are just a civilization attached to the ROR. If you don’t update it quickly while devs is still willing to update the ROR, Aoe2 players may not have the opportunity to own the Romans campaign in the future.
Yes, I know. This requires production costs. Especially since ROR has been released, it can’t bring you more benefits if you update it now. However, if you are willing to do so, it must be a very warm thing for the players who spend money to buy ROR (I believe most of them are aoe2 players).
Time after time…first they focus on RoR and in a next dlc they can give the Romans a campaign…remember that the Lithuanians in TLK didn’t have a campaign and they did in DotD…
A thing to note. It seems Aetius is the most popular choice AND single characters Justinian and Majorian are more popular than two/three characters campaign.
Majorian alone and Justinian alone is more popular than Aetius/Majorian/Aegidus. So please devs, single character campaign for Romans. I like more Majorian, but I’d rather have a full Aetius campaign than campaign in which Majorian is just another unfleshed character,
Por eso decía. Son mas populares las campañas de un personaje único o de una pareja que campañas multigeneracionales. Igual hay exepciones, como Gengis, pero ahí se pasa el bastón directamente
Port Greek and Egyptian Bronze Age Rise of Rome campaign scenarios to Age of Mythology. Joking, not joking
Given the fact that Byzantines have handheld flamethrowers, they can go to call of duty.
And for Port Greek and Egyptian in AOM which can shoot laser, maybe aoe2 are too easy for them.