Unique units can work as civs-exclusive unit upgrades. Like Imperial Camels, Legionnaires, Winged Hussars and/or can be trained at the Academy, like castle unique units. I would really like to see a tower shield legionnaire.
I really hope RoR doesn’t become “Age of Empires: Rise of the Return of Rome: Definitely Definitive No More Edition V1.5.0.2.3”. If someone wants to play the original, has AoE DE a classic from the RTS, RoR should give a chance to experiment, just like AoE2DE is so different from AoE2 HD. I never expected to see an AoE3 revolution in AoE2, but there are the Burgundians and I love them.
Crazy idea, imagine a temple unit called Prophet, that causes debuff in area. For Example: Enemy units near the Prophet have their attack bonus reduced by 33% and enemy villagers gather food and wood 30% slower. In addition, the prophet has an attack that works like the healing of the Priest but in reverse, dealing damage over time instead of healing. Now imagine a campaign scenario where you start with a Priest and a Prophet. “The Holy and the Profane”
You can ignore the last thing I said, it’s a dumb idea.
If I wasn’t getting wrecked by Standard AI, I would be playing it more. As it stands, I haven’t touched it since my initial session, though I’ll probably come back to play the campaigns.
This is a great list! I agree with every single word in it.
Thankfully the classic campaigns are already on their way!
I hope that will be addressed on the next update!
That’s an awesome ideia! I would suggest Carthaginian Elephant line to Cartaginian War Elephant, Choson Composite Bowman to Choson Bowman, Egyptian Short Swordsman to Khopesh Swordsman and so on!
As someone who enjoy playing ranked (and not unranked or single player), this DLC adds nothing for me to the game. AoE1 doesnt have a nice ranked environment, so it is not worth buying the DLC for the AoE1 stuff for me. If they would have added a ranked match making system, i would be fine with playing AoE1 once in a while. And i am pretty sure i am not the only one. I have seen many complaints about this.
Then i look to the AoE2 ranked stuff. Then i only see a civ that will be added to ranked in the future. As long as this civ isnt added to ranked, it wont add anything for me for AoE2 as well.
As result i would pay 15 euro while dont get anything out of it.
This DLC is just focused on the AoE1 SP community. Which is totally fine. But i am not a part of the target group. So i have no reason to buy the DLC atm. People always only look at what they will get out of the DLC. Stuff they dont use are irrelevant for them. I wont want to call that elitism.
Then, explain how you are forced to pay the DLC. Or rather, explain why the devs have to provide content for a specific part of the user base that does not enjoy SP content, and AoE 1 SP for that matter.
Is it frustrating that some people get the new content they have always dreamed of for a 25 year old game why the people in your group don’t?
This is turning into a pseudo-political topic that I don’t love.
It’s a major improvement over AoE1 DE – it includes (in my view) all of the key benefits of AoE2, while retaining everything essential to the gameplay, feel and atmosphere of AoE1.
The campaign quality seems very good so far – I’ll write more detail once I’ve finished playing them all.
New civ bonuses and Tool Age unit balance changes all seem good to me.
Lac Viet seems like a good choice for a new civ, and fills a gameplay niche – archer and elephant – that wasn’t previously explored. (You could argue Hittytes fill this, but they’re more archer and siege really.)
Contrary to my expectations, the scaling of terrain relative to buildings mostly looks good (except for berry bushes).
I really appreciate the menu screen music!
Cons:
I don’t understand what this gained from being part of AoE2, given that it is completely separated within the client, to the extent that even the scenario editors don’t really interact in a convenient way and very few assets are shared. The main consequences of it running in the AoE2 client seem to be (a) major bugs introduced in AoE2; (b) long start up times because it’s not possible to open the client in RoR mode; (c) it requires AoE2 to play. None of these are positive things.
Adding Romans to AoE2 as part of the DLC seems unnecessary, and like a cynical way to get AoE2-only players to buy something they’re not really interested in.
Assyrians should have Mesopotamian architecture. Now that this architecture set features gates with lamassus on them, this is about as bad as if AoE2 Japanese had south-east Asian architecture.
This feels like a missed opportunity to add unique wonders for every civilisation, and to sort out some of the weirder ahistorical quirks (e.g. inaccurate naming of Helepolis and Centurion, Hoplites in the Bronze Age, Phalangites/Centurions wielding a pike and scutum combo, maybe even cavalry before chariots).
Many AoE1 terrain assets are “missing” (especially trees). With some appropriate rescaling, these could fit in sensibly with the AoE2 trees (cf. Mediterranean forest, originally from AoE1 DE).
The campaign choices seem odd, given that two out of three use “best fit” civilisations: Sargon (Sumerians instead of Akkadians) and Pyrrhus (Macedonians instead of Epirotes).
I never said i am forced to buy the DLC. I even didnt buy it yet, since it adds nothing for me.
Ignoring a big portion of the player base isnt a good idea for a business. It will generate much more revenue. Also the devs were really lacking in their communication about what is part of the DLC and what not. That wasnt a great move either.
Like it or not, most of the userbase (roughly 80%) plays SP only.
If I were to break down my total playtime over 25 years, I can say it’s the same percentage divided between all AoE games (+AoM <3).
In my opinion, a new DLC like RoR that focuses on completely new content, brings fresh quality campaigns and adds a new civ to the mix is a total win for the mere $15.
Romans will be available in Ranked in due time, same as the entirety of AoE 1. They can’t balance everything from the get-go and I fear if they risked it, the results would have been hilarious and chaotic.
For me it remembers when I was in RoR the last time I played and directly starts RoR.
Still gotta load when I want to play something different then the last time.
For me personally it’s more convenient because I can quickly switch between AoE1 and AoE2 without having to close the game.
This is honestly my personal main issue.
I wish I could access all the assets in both Editors. So much untouched potential.
For one of the next balance fixes, I would consider reducing the strength of chariot archers. Massed chariot archers, particularly on maps where gold is contested, are probably too potent, considering they do not cost any gold and can avoid melee. Towers and walls were a pretty good deterrent under old 50 pop cap, but with a 200 pop cap, the chariot archers have correspondingly become perhaps too powerful.
Chariot Archers should have 1 less range to make the mobility more important, so Horse Archers too, in AOE 2 slow units are offste with better range, and mobility offset the lesser range.
A small thing I just remembers: some rock formations and other objects prevent you from putting buildings on them but let units walk through them. That’s quite impractical and counter-intuitive, especially for walls.
I think releasing Romans for single player skirmish and unranked was a bad decision. Devs should have added more incentives for aoe2 players. They should have given Romans a campaign in Aoe2 and should have brought a version of D3 mode to Aoe2… That may have caused players to complain less.
