(only) constructive feedback on AoE II RoR

[grizzgolf]

I just wish people were playing online

[Skadidesu]

@Europezero

Also adding a castle (you can name it fortress) with a unique unit for each civ would make the game way more times better.

Please don’t. Everything but a Castle.
AoE2 plays so differently because of this one central and very powerful building.
I don’t want AoE1 to play like AoE2, AoE2 already exists and I can go play that.

[Europezero]

@Skadidesu

I don’t want AoE1 to play like AoE2

This is not aoe1, it is aoe2DE within a different time line. I also hope for aoe3 timeline in aoe2 in the future.

@Skadidesu

AoE2 already exists and I can go play that.

Aoe1DE already exists too, we can go play that, how is this an argument?

[Skadidesu]

RoR is AoE1.
Everything about the gameplay is AoE1, all the unit stats are AoE1, all the technologies are AoE1.

AoMR will be in the AoE3 engine, that doesn’t mean it should have cannons.

[Skadidesu]

@Europezero

You already have Aoe1DE that plays differently without castles, you can go play that.

Yes but that’s broken.

That’s like telling people to play AoE2HD because they don’t like some new features like charged attacks or dodging projectiles.

@Europezero

This is AoE2DE in a aoe1 timeline, nothing feels like aoe1DE here.

What?
Look at the stats of the units, they are very very far way from what AoE2 is like.

@Europezero

Trade carts, gates, pathfinding, the new upgrades, the garrisoning ability, the UI, the AI

Those are mostly things that were technically not possible in AoE1 and they aren’t missing for game design reasons.

@Europezero

the skill tree

Skill tree?
AoE has no skill tree.
Or do you mean tech tree?
It’s the AoE1 tech tree. Every AoE unit building and technology (with the exception of fanaticism) is still exactly where it used to be.

@Europezero

It has nothing to do with AoE1DE, and it is not just about the engine.

99% of RoR is AoE1. It doesn’t really matter for the gameplay that the terrain textures are from AOE2.

@Europezero

AoMR will not be part of Aoe3DE game, but a game of it’s own that will just use the AoE3DE engine.

Probably. We know basically nothing about AoMR.

[Skadidesu]

@Europezero

Stats don’t define a game feel or a game at all.

Things like speed, framedelay and so on have a big impact on how things feel.
Having ballistics also changes a lot and ballistics is only accessible in Iron Age unlike AoE2 where you already get it in Castle Age.

Also stats have an impact. Like how fast do your units die? How many can you even field.
Having Legionaries cost 35 Food, 15 Gold with just 0.5 population means you can field a lot more of them then Champions with their 45 Food, 20 Gold and 1 population.

There are also units in AoE1 that basically have no equivalent in AoE2 like the Chariot Archer. A trash mounted archer unit (and no the Genitour is a very different unit) does not exist in AoE2.

[Akos]

Add Scythians (inventors of chariots), Xiongnu (first who rode horses in battles), Celts, Germans, Magadhans (unified most of India) and Kushites.

[LaterOpossum25]

Please add unique units and wonders for all civs, currently they look too generic because the units and buildings are basically the same depending on the thech Tree. We need somenting else to feel each civilization unique.

[WoodsierCorn696]

Is the big elephant in the room already adressed there?

No is no proper ranked match making system for RoR AoE1 civs.

[MatM1996]

@UnAutreVoyage

One think I would like to see, apart from more content (civs, campaigns) : realistic maps! Would be great to play in the Middle East, Greece, Italy…

Yes, like AoE 3 which has only realistic maps…

@Ceilort

I would like to see an European themed DLC to RoR in the near future.

Civilizations like Gauls, Celts, Thracians, Iberians, that already appear in old and new campaigns.

New upgrades for Axemen and Slingers to reflect the powerful albeit rudimentary infantries of these tribes.

Perhaps a final Berserker upgrade could ignore infantry armor, as a trash solution against Academy units.

Slingers could transition into Javelineers, as a soft counter to Composite Bowmen and trash against HCA.

General balance could be enhanced to fit these regional European units and then include new additions into other civilizations’ tech trees.

Another idea would a focus on Asia, with additions to cavalry: Scout and Camel line upgrades. Bring in Scythians and Indus Valley.

@TyrannoNinja

I want to see Nubians and maybe Aksumites from Africa added as well.

@AllHailWaffles0

I was thinking, if they wanted to add upgrades to these lines, possibly a Clubman->Axeman->Falxman->Elite Falxman upgrade line and a Slinger->Fustibalier->Javelineer upgrade line respectively, with the falxman serving as a trash infantry counter role in bronze and iron age(like they were in rl) and the fustibalier serving as the bronze age equivalent to the trash anti-ranged option in later ages.

This way, both unit lines have actual historical progression beyond the tool age(even if one weapon didn’t always give way to the next, and were in fact used in tandem with each other) as the game progresses into late game. I also wanted to merge the simple bowman to the other archer line for a clearer progression, but idk if the devs would actually try doing that…

@Ceilort

About linking bowmen into archers, I think game balance will be a bit broken, as you could tool rush bowmen into bronze upgrade and immediately have your archers in the enemy base.

@Ceilort

This is less fixing the game and more turning the game into an AoE II reskin.

AoE I should have all of those gameplay mechanics, in my opinion. It’s more simplistic, rudimentary in some aspects like unit composition and counters, but it has its charm.

I believe this charm was merely put in the spotlight by the new QoL features from AoE II, not put against wall for comparison.

It has a faster pace, unforgiving micro and strong snowbally dynamics, especially in team games.

Everything boils down to massing the largest army and having a superior composition and better engagements. This is how I view Ancient warfare in AoE and this is how I’d like to have it.

@Skadidesu

Things like speed, framedelay and so on have a big impact on how things feel.
Having ballistics also changes a lot and ballistics is only accessible in Iron Age unlike AoE2 where you already get it in Castle Age.

Also stats have an impact. Like how fast do your units die? How many can you even field.
Having Legionaries cost 35 Food, 15 Gold with just 0.5 population means you can field a lot more of them then Champions with their 45 Food, 20 Gold and 1 population.

There are also units in AoE1 that basically have no equivalent in AoE2 like the Chariot Archer. A trash mounted archer unit (and no the Genitour is a very different unit) does not exist in AoE2.

@Akos

Add Scythians (inventors of chariots), Xiongnu (first who rode horses in battles), Celts, Germans, Magadhans (unified most of India) and Kushites.

@LaterOpossum25

Please add unique units and wonders for all civs, currently they look too generic because the units and buildings are basically the same depending on the thech Tree. We need somenting else to feel each civilization unique.

I agree with everything…civs and balance issues…

@CinnamonIce6056

• Remove the Academy altogether and put the heavy infantry in the Barracks.

No, because the Academy is made to create only heavy units and the barracks only light melee units…

@CinnamonIce6056

• Make the Hoplite unique Greek unit, the Phalanx macedonian and Cent - Roman. Make the Legion roman unique unit as well.

And what do you do with the other civs?

@CinnamonIce6056

• Castle/fortress type of building would be nice, but not neccessary. It would be 4x4, 1 tile larger than 3x3 buildings and 1 tile smaller than the wonder.

Yes, like AoM/AoEO…

@CinnamonIce6056

How Unique Units could be implemented:
If there is no castle (and even if there is), unique units could just be upgrades of already existing units. The Romans would get broad swordsman directly upgraded to Legion for Eg, while the other civilizations will get the usual Long swordsman - Very (?) Long swordsman or smth.
In the same manner Egyptians could get an Iron age chariot archer upgrade OR Kopesh (spelling?) swordsman.
Minoans could get an Iron age Compie (Crete archer?), as their composition in Iron age barely changes.
And so on and so forth for the rest.

Yes, it can be…

@CinnamonIce6056

This is not the case with ROR and AOE1 DE. I want MP quick match like there is in AOE2, but there’s none.

I want to design campaigns, but the terrains and units are ripped off from AOE2 and the terrains in the game that were in it for 25 years are not there. So I can’t design untill they add the unique terrains and gaia units that always have been there.

They always come up with new ideas/mechanics for AOE2(Burgundians, Indians etc). 0 new features/ideas.mechanics in ROR apart from the things that were ripped off from AOE2.

@CinnamonIce6056

Not really, I’m all for AOE1.0 with new additions to the game! I’m still asking for terrains and units that are unique to AOE1!! Just some of these suggestions might look similar to AOE2, but in fact I’m asking for refined versions of AOE2 features that will be unique to AOE1.

Fact is, stuff like formations, gates, pathfinding and trade were missing and best bet was to rip them off from AOE2, but IMO that’s as far as they should go. I want unique mechanics for possible future additions in the game (Castle/Fortress, New ships, Unique unit/terrain skins, UI etc).

It happens that they want to keep a certain essence of AoE 1 for Vietnamese AoE1 players, eventually they can make it more like AoE 2 with the successive dlcs…

@Exradicator

not sure why this is chosen by the devs, but nice nonetheless.

Because it was the demo campaign of Rise of Rome (besides being the only Carthaginian campaign there is)…

@Europezero

I love this DLC, but of course there are things that can be improved.
My suggestion for new civs and campaigns that should be introduced later in Return of Rome, because it feels like very important content that is missing:

1. They could finally bring in the game the 3 barbarian civilizations that Romans hard hard time with:
   Dacian Kingdom, Germanic tribes and Gauls.
   (they could have the same architecture for all 3 and instead of priest at the temple they should have druids at the ponds)
   Trajan had a huge war going on in Dacia against Decebalus and we all know about Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul and there was also the legendary fight of Teutoburg forest with Germanic tribes.
   So they can easily make 3 campaigns just out of this.
2. Another campaign could be made for the roman civil wars, the triumvirates.
3. A campaign about the Chinese epic civil war too.
4. Korean campaign about Choson unification, fighting with the northern nomad tribes (the deadly Jurchen) and the internal fight for the throne.

Also adding more architecture sets, a castle (you can name it fortress) and a unique unit for each civ would make the game way more times better.

I agree…timeline gaps need to be filled in for AoE 1: Rise of the Israelite Kingdom between 1000 and 734 BCE, Cyrus the Great and the Greco-Persian Wars (559-470 BCE) and then various Roman campaigns and barbarian campaigns (Gaius Marius, Viriatus, Arminius, Boadicea, Constantine) and in between historical battles from Termophyle (480 BCE) to Adrianopolis (378 CE)…

@Europezero

I also hope for aoe3 timeline in aoe2 in the future.

Can you imagine that?..it would be like this:

@Skadidesu

Everything about the gameplay is AoE1, all the unit stats are AoE1, all the technologies are AoE1.

The civs, the campaigns, the bonuses, the music, the sounds and a long etcetera…

[Coranhon1]

I want to see the crying when the 1.5 receives another expansion and 2DE is not the favorite child for a while.

[Ceilort]

It also seems outrageous to me that people straight up refused 90% of the RoR DLC because “it’s AoE 1, it’s a different game. I am an AoE 2 player and I only got the Romans civ in unranked for 15 dollars!”

Seriously, where is this elitism coming from? Have these people only played one RTS for their entire lives? It’s not as if they have ported StarCraft in the DE engine. It’s a game of the same franchise, with the same identity and generally the same mechanics.

Currently, the tech trees (units and buildings) are the only and biggest difference between the two games in terms of gameplay and this leads, of course, to a completely different play style.

Why does RoR have to be thrown in the trash? Because it’s not AoE 2? Why does it have to be?

I’m trying to rationalize this topic yet I am unable.

[SrDevi1]

Gameplay of RoR and AoE2 should be kept different. I don’t think castles or other unique features from AoE2 should be added to RoR. But I do think that RoR needs to evolve in a different direction.

• add new Units: Peltast (Javelineer), Battering Ram, Helepolis (Siege Tower), etc.
• add new Civs and Architectures: Dacians, Gauls, Germans, Iberians, Scythians, Nubians, etc.
• add unique Wonders for Civs.
• add new Unit upgrades: Heavy Camel, Elite Chariot Archer, Elite Slinger, etc.
• add another use to the Academy (New Units, Techs… Summon Zeus? I don’t know)
• change the names of “Helepolis” for “Polybolos” or other. I don’t know why a Ballista has the name of a Greek siege tower.

[Europezero]

@SrDevi

Gameplay of RoR and AoE2 should be kept different. I don’t think castles or other unique features from AoE2 should be added to RoR.

Totally agreeing with you, but there is one single feature from AoE2 that is a must even for AoE1: unique units.
I get it that we don’t need a castle/fortress but a unique unit is necessary so civilizations get their own flavor. Right now if you play a scenario without buildings, just units, you cant differentiate at all Yamato from Romans, thing that is absurd at least

Apart from the unique units, I agree with all your points.

[UnfocusedEagle7]

I agree also, RoR and AoE2 should be kept different, and things like castles should not be added.

As to unique units, I would not mind at all if they are added, but I don’t feel that they are necessary to make the civs unique. For example, the Roman and Choson legionaries are stronger than others adding flavor there. The Egyptian priests and Minoan composite bowmen have great range adding flavor there, Palmyran camels are super fast, Sumerian catapults shoot faster, etc. Those are basically unique units, just not re-skinned. Further, the available techs and units further make each civ unique. Adding unique units would be cool, but they are not necessary to distinguish the civs.

[Europezero]

@UnfocusedEagle7

Those are basically unique units, just not re-skinned

Still you cant say just from a picture what civs are fighting. As you can do by watching a picture or video from AoE2.
If units re-skin is not necessary then buildings should not be either, right?

[Skadidesu]

Couldn’t that also be partially solved by unique skins?
AoE2 also needs regional skins. For most AoE2 civilisations you will rarely build unique units because they require an expensive Castle that can only be build in Castle Age while they often don’t even offer better stats then generic units.

AoE1 has much bigger differences in available units so a Yamato army will look different from a Roman one because they can’t train the same units.

I think the AoE2 concept of unique units is pretty limiting. Just giving every civilisation 1 (nowadays it’s often 2) unique unit that is always on top of the whole generic roster is not very flexible and results in those units rarely being used in higher rank matches.
How many Briton players use Longbows instead of just going for Crossbows?

Regional units like the Eagle Warrior or Steppe Lancer often add more uniqueness to a civilisation then the actual unique units.
A Mayan and Aztec army would probably be exactly the same as the army of some Eurasian civilisation if it wasn’t for the Eagle Warrior.

[Europezero]

@Skadidesu

Couldn’t that also be partially solved by unique skins?

Sure, unique skins should do it.
I don’t specifically want new units, I want more historical accuracy looking civs. I want some Japanese look on Japanese units as it is on buildings. Anything that brings unique look to a civ should do it for me.

@Skadidesu

Regional units like the Eagle Warrior or Steppe Lancer often add more uniqueness to a civilisation then the actual unique units.

That’s why I play 100% with eagles + unique units when playing Mesoamerican civs, even if it is not the best strategy online, because it breaks the game for me to play a Mesoamerican civ with champions and arbalests.
The historian within me would die.
Also I am one of the few that asked multiple times for regional skins on AoE2DE.

[Skadidesu]

I’m personally prefer Singleplayer or playing with friends.
I spend most of the time in the game making and testing scenarios.
Giving civilisations armies that feel correct is a big thing for me. AoE2 has a bunch of scenario editor only units (like Eastern Swordsman or Sogdian Cataphract) on top of the option of being able to mix unique units of different civilisations.
But there is only so much you can do compared to AoE3 where some civilisations can almost only train unique units.

AoE1/RoR doesn’t have this at all. You are stuck with generic units unless you use mods to unlock AoE2 units. But those are often broken and the icons are always wrong, and that ignores that most of them just look too medieval.

[UnfocusedEagle7]

I agree to the implementation of re-skins for units as well as architecture. Good point.