Making Return of Rome a Truly Independent AoE1 Game

Age of Empires: DE I - Discussion
1

I think Return of Rome could be made into a truly independent AoE1 game.

By independent, I don’t just mean having a separate store page or product name. I mean separating RoR from the AoE2 DLC structure, with its own game environment, update cycle, and maintenance.

RoR already has its own DAT, but from what I can see, it’s still affected by updates and system changes in the main AoE2 game. If RoR became an independent game, I think this could reduce that interaction and make the data and update processes of AoE2 and RoR more independent.

This would also help distribute risk. If something goes wrong with the RoR DAT or related systems, the impact could mainly be limited to RoR instead of potentially affecting AoE2 as well. The same would apply in the other direction. Independence wouldn’t make problems disappear, but it could limit their impact.

I think Chronicles could follow the same approach and have its own complete DAT. If the goal is eventually to let Chronicles units fight AoE2 units, that doesn’t necessarily mean Chronicles has to depend on the AoE2 DAT. It may actually be cleaner to make the Chronicles DAT a complete data environment and include the AoE2 units, technologies, or civilizations it needs for compatibility.

Chronicles DAT
├─ Chronicles content
└─ AoE2-compatible content

This would let Chronicles use AoE2 content without making it dependent on the main AoE2 DAT.

The important point is that independence doesn’t mean incompatibility. The products, data, content, and update cycles can be independent while still allowing specific areas to interact when needed. This would also make mod support and long-term maintenance easier to separate, since each product could maintain its own data without automatically taking on maintenance costs caused by changes to another product.

I’m not suggesting completely cutting RoR or Chronicles off from AoE2. I just think their responsibilities should be separated more clearly. Let them interact where necessary, while keeping the rest independent. This would reduce coupling and distribute long-term maintenance risk.

I also realize that AoE1 itself has a somewhat awkward product position, and solving that properly would probably require much larger changes. That’s a separate discussion, though, and I don’t want to mix it into this proposal.

My point here is simple: RoR doesn’t have to remain just “AoE1 inside AoE2.” It could become its own game.

2

AoE is already there and it didnt work out that well.

3

I think we’re talking about different things here.

Rise of Rome is the original AoE1, and AoE1_DE is already the older standalone version. I think the future of AoE1_DE is a separate discussion. As I mentioned at the end of my post, it would need a lot of cleanup and restructuring.

My point about Return of Rome is different. Since RoR already uses the newer AoE2-based architecture, I think it could become a truly independent modern AoE1, with its own data, update cycle, and maintenance, so it doesn’t unnecessarily affect or depend on the main AoE2 game.

Chronicles could follow the same approach as well. It could use the AoE2-based architecture while having its own complete data environment. The goal isn’t to make another AoE1. It’s to separate the modern AoE1 experience from the ongoing development of the main AoE2 game.

4

They should change one very simple thing: Allow us to buy RoR without owning AoE2DE.

That should be easily possible, stand alone DLC are a very common thing. AoE2DE also supports directly starting into RoR, so it just needs the ability do disable access to the main game.

They could also make Chronicles a standalone DLC too but that is less urgent because it isn’t a full game itself.

2 Likes
5

I agree. I think Return of Rome should become a standalone game that can be purchased without owning AoE2DE.

I’d also like to see it become more independent in terms of its game environment, update cycle, and maintenance.

Since RoR’s data is already separated, I think the next step would be reducing its dependency on the main AoE2 game.

6

I am against removing it from AoE2DE because AoE2DE gets regular updates. It both games were separate then they would never update RoR.

I know in a perfect world we would get regular independent RoR updates but we are very very far away from this perfect world. The current situation is a lot better then the independent AoE1DE we had in the past.

1 Like
7

What happens to the aoe2 roman civi then?do aoe2 players get it for free or it gets removed for all?

Ideally the entire RoR should be free for all now as its old and pretty dead.

8

I understand that concern, but to be honest, RoR hasn’t had many substantial updates for quite a while.

RoR has also already reached a relatively stable stage. Even if it mostly stayed as it is, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. For Mod creators, a stable game environment could actually make it easier to maintain their Mods.

I don’t see a conflict here.

RoR becoming standalone doesn’t mean the AoE2 Roman civilization has to be removed. AoE2 can keep its Romans while RoR becomes its own game. They’re two separate things.

The AoE2 Romans were added before Chronicles existed, so the situation is different now. At that time, there wasn’t really another way to cover different historical settings within the AoE2 ecosystem.

Now that Chronicles exists, I think there’s less reason to force everything into the main AoE2 game.

I’m mainly talking about giving RoR its own game environment, update cycle, and maintenance, not removing existing AoE2 content.

9

Here is the main issue with this,who will buy this?people who own ror as a dlc will not buy it again and people who still own aoe de will not buy it either.

Aoe2 Romans comes with RoR which was added so aoe2 players would buy it and maybe migrate there too.Only way forward would be to make the romans part of the aoe2 base game.

Have you ever played the Hun campaign before romans got added?

Chronicles civis are different from the aoe2 civis you cant compare both.

10

I’m not suggesting selling Return of Rome again as a separate product. RoR already exists as a game/DLC. I’m talking about making the existing RoR standalone, so people who already own RoR would keep access to it without needing AoE2DE.

I agree that this was the situation when RoR was released.

The AoE2 Romans made sense at the time from both a market perspective and because Chronicles didn’t exist yet. RoR could bring AoE1 content into AoE2 while also giving AoE2 players a reason to try it.

I’m looking at the situation from the current perspective. RoR is already a relatively stable product, and Chronicles now provides another way to handle different historical settings.

So I don’t think the decisions that made sense when RoR launched necessarily have to determine how RoR should be structured and maintained in the future.

Yes, that’s a fair point. I should clarify what I meant.

AoE had a similar situation even in AoE1: Rise of Rome. Romans already existed, but Huns didn’t. Existing civilizations could still be used to represent them in certain Campaigns or Scenarios, such as Hittites in RoR or Yamato in AoE1 DE. In AoE2: The Conquerors, the Hun campaign also used Byzantines to represent the Romans.

So I didn’t mean that a historical group couldn’t be represented without having its own civilization.

When RoR was released, Chronicles didn’t exist yet. Adding Romans to AoE2 also had a clear product and market purpose, especially since many AoE2 players hadn’t played AoE1. The Romans were explicitly included as a bonus AoE2 civilization with RoR.

That’s why I think the situation can be reconsidered today. RoR becoming standalone doesn’t require removing the AoE2 Romans. AoE2 can keep its Romans while RoR becomes its own standalone AoE1 experience.

That’s basically my point.

Chronicles civs and AoE2 civs are very different, and I’m not trying to compare them directly. If anything, that’s exactly why I think RoR and Chronicles should be able to operate and update independently from AoE2, while still remaining compatible where necessary.

Most players already own AoE2, so using AoE2 as the main entry point for additional content makes sense from a product perspective. But that doesn’t mean very different products need to be tightly tied to AoE2’s core DAT structure.

If WE doesn’t want to actively update RoR or Chronicles, then it doesn’t really matter whether they’re technically separate or bundled together. But if they do want to maintain and update them independently, keeping everything tied to the same DAT only adds unnecessary restrictions.

I’m not against interoperability. I just don’t think interoperability requires tight coupling.

11

RoR is dead so why would they bother to ake them separate?Easier option is to leave everything as it is. They could make RoR a part of the base aoe2 but would that matter much?

12

I also wouldn’t call RoR completely dead.

For some context, Vietnam has a population of over 100 million, so it’s a very large player market in its own right. AoE1 and RoR also have a long-standing and active community there.

I don’t think many people outside Vietnam realize how large the Vietnamese gaming community is, so I wouldn’t judge RoR’s relevance only by its current activity within AoE2 DE.

Even if RoR is no longer as popular as it once was, making it a separate game should have even less impact on AoE2. It could still use the existing AoE2 technology and architecture, so I’m not suggesting rebuilding RoR from scratch.

Right now, RoR’s data is already separated to some extent, but the two games are still connected at the architectural level.

That’s actually part of the problem. As long as RoR remains tied to AoE2’s architecture, major AoE2 updates also have to take RoR’s architecture and compatibility into account. That means every time AoE2 changes, there are more things that have to be considered, which can limit how freely AoE2 itself can evolve.

The same works in the other direction. Changes to AoE2 can create additional maintenance work for RoR, even when the change wasn’t really about RoR.

I’m not saying this is necessarily a problem if AoE2 were going to stop receiving updates. But realistically, AoE2 is going to continue evolving, so that kind of dependency will remain relevant.

What I’m suggesting is taking the existing separation further at the product, data, and maintenance level while keeping the technology they already have.

The same applies to Chronicles. Different products can remain compatible where necessary without being tightly coupled to AoE2’s core DAT.

I’m not against interoperability. I just don’t think interoperability requires tight coupling.

13

Sure, like Fall of Samurai for Shogun 2… you can sell RoR and Chronicles as separate games from AoE 2 but using the same AoE 2 Genie version…:man_shrugging:

Yes, good point…maybe it can be both…playing RoR with or without buying AoE 2…:man_shrugging:

Yes, Chronicles would still be part of AoE 2, but RoR, having a different dataset, can be sold as a separate game…:man_shrugging:

14

And port the remaining original campaigns too

Bring new content, even as an excuse to revamp the original scenarios intro Return of Rome flavor.