RoR would have been better as an AoE1 DLC than DLC for AoE2.
1 Like
Hard disagree. People forget how bad AoE1DE was, with dreadful pathing and no QoL improvements, it was DoA. Nobody would have given it a secondās thought. Now at least it gets updated.
1 Like
Funny how they imported the dreadful Pathing as well. Pathing issues started exactly from the patch Return of Rome was released and kept getting worse and worse until unbearable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/18clih5/pathfinding_went_backwards_due_to_update_81058/
Pathing problem is still not fixed. Villagers still get stuck, they are unable to find a path around hunted carcass felled in a corner.
Tell me you donāt remember how bad AoE1DE pathing is without telling me you donāt know how bad AoE1DE pathing is.
You couldnāt get two men through a gap in a wall the AoE1DE pathing was so bad. Some unit types barely functioned (as in, literally didnāt work. Not āArchers bad now because they micro 0.0001 seconds slowerā). Yes AoE2DEās has deteriorated recently, but itās a far cry from the horror of AoE1DEās.
3 Likes
Still waiting for an American and African DLC so no, itās not great.
4 Likes
Yes, but it is what it isā¦ I lost faith when they stopped updating 1 DE in 2020ā¦
True, the pathfinding of AoE 1 is horrible, for some reason they left it abandoned after launching 1 DEā¦
True, since the pathfinding of 1 DE was horrible, by porting it to 2 DE, they ruined the pathfinding of the game tooā¦
They will arrive, at some pointā¦after the Nordic and Balkan DLCs xdā¦
Anything can be more worse than this?
I have programed for years*. Let me asure you. If you fix something bad, thereās always a non zero chance youāll unleash something even worse.
*Please, Microsoft, hire me
Apply on the Forgotten Empires website instead of making a futile plea on the forums.
1 Like
It was a joke. I know just a little bit of C++ and Unity, but not enough to code for a big company
1 Like
You say this as a joke but it really isnāt funny to me.
Just because some want to have every opponent and constituent part of Eastern Europe, specifically in relation to Poland as some users do it, doesnāt mean that Iām going to support it. To be honest, right now, Iām burned out by the game. Havenāt touched in in a while since I find it really boring and unimmersive that thereās literally a third of the civs using 2 architecture sets just because on one hand the devs are unwilling to add new sets as well as some people being successful with their spamming of civ requests.
There are attempts by some people here doing the same for Romanians and ridiculous German/Viking split ideas which are luckily not getting traction as it would simply be a DLC Iād skip (like V&V).
Some may call me entitled but I would call it being fair. I donāt want them to remove the empires out of Age of Empires just for the sake of having 10 mini-variants of the same entity.
4 Likes
Yes, I knowā¦ I would also like American and African DLCs (they really need it), but Europe sells well and they are going to continue releasing European DLCsā¦ in AoE 3 they are afraid that the same thing will happen and that they do not touch Asia at least until next year (in AoE 3 it is easier for them to move away from Europe, because they already have the great powers in the game and because there is more information about the American and African kingdoms)ā¦
1 Like
Same. I would skip these. The blatant nationalist intentions behind the lobbying are as thin as wet tissue paper.
Does it? DLCs with extra civs sell well, Europe or otherwise.
The Conquerors and RoR prove that nationalism does not make extra content sell well.
3 Likes
True, VaV is not exactly a nationalist dlcā¦ and Return of Rome was more of an AoE 1 port than an AoE 2 dlcā¦
I was more referring to the addition of the Lac Viet. It didnāt sell especially well in Vietnam, despite the inclusion.
Oh yes, it could beā¦ I donāt have the sales data for RoR in Vietnam, but itās logical, because they only play the original AoE 1, not even 1 DEā¦
How can splitting a nation into regions be nationalistic ahah itās like the opposite. You guys are so funny, keep it up
4 Likes
Itās pretty obvious. Representing the same thing several because āitās so importantā and that āthey deserve itā and theyāre āimportantā and not some āstone age tribesā or āsavagesā which are anyway āall the sameā with āno historyā, donāt have some arbitrary technology and feature Iāve picked and are anyway āisolatedā and āwouldnāt sell wellā because āthe Middle Ages are anyway European historyā like if the rest of the world had suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Usually, itās just pop history understanding with a mix of nationalism which makes you thing that country x which all speak language y has to be represented by two dozen civs.
Iām not saying that I have no biases in terms of interest when it comes to civ suggestions (Iām mostly interested in non-European precolonial history as that is the thing I have not been teached at a lot at school leadinh me to tendentially suggest more of those civs), but Iām at least trying to see the bigger picture. Iāve also read tons of books about European history, but itās not my main interest when it comes to history.
4 Likes
This is your opinion, not that of the entire community.
Most AoE players do not participate in the forum, so we do not know the preferences of the general community. Therefore, the creators are guided by DLC sales and which regions are generally the most popular among history enthusiasts.
3 Likes
So thatās it! When you want European DLC, you are a nationalist, but when you want non-European DLC, you are cool and loose.
The other side of the barricade shocks me more and more.
The nationalist of Hittians, Phoenicians and Minoans were successful in having their civs in the game!
4 Likes