[poll] 1-500 AD Chronicles or normal AoE2?

[Skadidesu]

We can go by the Rome at War mod. I think they will likely add most of the civs from that before they go do other things. Not counting the civs that are also in AoE2 like the Goths or Huns.
I do expect new Romans though. We haven’t really had Rome on the hight of its power in an AoE game yet.
People love them classic Legionaries a lot.

[StoreyedPlate74]

@Skadidesu

I think they will likely add most of the civs from that before they go do other things

If they go at 3 civs per year, it’s gonna take them a decade

[Akleoni]

The problem with most bronze age civs is that we know very little (mostly through what others wrote of them) to make deep and interesting civilizations without having to make up a lot of things, so not much would be really lost.
“Athenians” and “Spartans” are more known and interesting than “Mycenaeans” and “Minoians” (that we don’t even know how they call themselves).

[CitingOregano34]

I think it should be half and half. If they were prominent in the 5th century at least, they can be part of the base game. Like the Vandals, Xianbei, Sassanids, Guptas, etc.

However, civs from the 4th century and back should be excluded to at least mantain the medieval “identity” of the game, for example Sarmatians, Kushans, Three Kingdoms civs, Palmyra, etc, shouldn’t be in the game.

[Skadidesu]

@StoreyedPlate74

If they go at 3 civs per year, it’s gonna take them a decade

If we remove all the civs that are also in AoE2 base game then the list gets a lot shorter.
The Goths, Huns and Celts are pretty much the same as their AoE2 versions for example.

And who knows maybe the shift away from the Rome at War civs earlier. Or maybe they make DLC with more civs, or more smaller DLC. We’re getting 5 new civs at once for the base game now.

@Akleoni

The problem with most bronze age civs is that we know very little (mostly through what others wrote of them) to make deep and interesting civilizations without having to make up a lot of things, so not much would be really lost.

Of course the more you go back the harder it is to find stuff.
But there is more then enough to make AoE2 like civs for at last the major civilisations.
We know relatively much about Sumerians or Egyptians for example.

But that’s not the topic of this thread anyway.

[StoreyedPlate74]

@Skadidesu

If we remove all the civs that are also in AoE2 base game then the list gets a lot shorter.

Slighly shorter, there would still be like 25 civs more or so. There’s a ton of them, and that not including new potential stuff from the Three Kingdoms. If they want to port the entire mod (or even just a significant fraction of it), they would have ti speed it up drastically.

There’s also another issue. Do they really plan to make new games? An AOE5? If that game is ever made, I bet it will be set in Antiquity, which may (or may not, who knows) the future development of Chronicles.

[Skadidesu]

@StoreyedPlate74

I bet it will be set in Antiquity

I don’t think it will and Chronicles is one reason why.
The other reason being AoMR and to small parts also AoE1 and AoEO.
Antiquity is actually the most used setting in the series. The Medieval setting only got 2 games.
Not counting mobile games.

Since AoE3DE got abandoned it could mean that they don’t want it to compete with AoE5.
Or maybe the setting will be even more modern, who knows.

[StoreyedPlate74]

@Skadidesu

Antiquity is actually the most used setting in the series.

While this is true, I still don’t think they have made yet a game that trully takes advantage of that setting. AOE1 is the prototype of the series (and now its playerbase is diluted among the OG, DE and ROR), Chronicles is only a side project of aoe2, AOM has antiquity elements but it’s still a non-historical game first and foremost.

@Skadidesu

Since AoE3DE got abandoned it could mean that they don’t want it to compete with AoE5.

I doubt they will make another game that deals with colonization, unless they make a game that exclusively takes place on Europe.

[Skadidesu]

@StoreyedPlate74

I doubt they will make another game that deals with colonization, unless they make a game that exclusively takes place on Europe.

This is exactly why.
Not that it will totally ignore other parts of the world but the main issue with AoE3 is that it’s based on colonialism and therefor completely ignored Europe itself. Not having the 30 years war or Napoleon in a game like this is such a wasted potential.
The last DLC tried to fix that but it was too little too late.

The whole home city system and a bunch of other things like no resource drop off and no stone are because of the colonial setting.

A game that feels more in line with AoE1/2/4 and to some degree AoM.
Representing each civilisation how they are like at home and not as colonizer. Very easy to make enough content without focusing on colonialism.
Also AoE2 has some scenarios with colonial setting but one one cares. AoE5 could do it the same way. Focus on wars that happened between civilisations in an area like between European in Europe, Asians in Asia and so on.

But thats also a different topic.

[TungstenBoar]

The thing is, the devs they needed spme “justification” for the slow start that characterizes the series. In AoE1 it was the stone age, in 2 the dark age, for AoE3 they thought it would be silly to have the kingdom of France or the Spanish fighting over Europe suddenly limited to a town center and a few villages when we are talking about the 1500s or later.

[SamePorpoise303]

Can’t really vote cause I’d split chronicles/Ror and aoe2 in the middle of your proposed timeframe.
Romans are in aoe2 as a matter of fact, late Romans are said to start in 284 AD with Diocletian but Constantine making the empire Christian is ok too (313) which is also when byzantines start btw.
Before that it’s harder to justify because while the 3rd century would sort of fit, mostly cause the Sasanians had their first golden age there and Goths and friends started there, you still have Palmyrans in Ror and the three kingdoms in China is kinda fitting for chronicles.

Romans before and after the 3rd century are so different that it’s totally worth in my opinion to separate there the two. The late Romans are more like byzantines and medieval Christian Germanic civs, classical antiquity and Hellenism are gone, they mostly build churches not amphitheatres from the 4th century on.
And again Sasanians started in 224 AD, the Jin dynasty in 266, Ghana and Maya classical era in this century, Guptas around 300 and the big barbarian confederations like Vandals, Goths, Franks, Saxons, Picts, Alemans, Burgundi etc formed in the early 200s.

Sarmatians can be conflated in Alans for what they’re worth, Kushites were destroyed by Axum around 350 and their kingdom broke into the famous three medieval Nubian kingdoms. In this occasion Ethiopia converted to Christianity too. Himyarites are another civ from this period that could be added (the elephant of abraha is curiously already a hero in the editor).
Indo kushans fell around the same time because of Hunas, another civ to be added along with Gokturks to give Bukhara some sense.
This is all aoe2 stuff to me even if I know most people would like to kick it out of the game. But after Romans imo there’s really nothing to argue anymore. I’m for a neat separation of middle ages and antiquity (just I think at this point the line is in the 3rd rather than the 5th century, the 4th century was not as disruptive aside from Christianity/Constantinople but that’s at the start of it so I would still include it whole in aoe2), you can have pagan classical Romans, Gauls, early scattered Germans and co in chronicles/Ror.

[CanineCrown7153]

@SamePorpoise303

Can’t really vote cause I’d split chronicles/Ror and aoe2 in the middle of your proposed timeframe.
Romans are in aoe2 as a matter of fact, late Romans are said to start in 284 AD with Diocletian but Constantine making the empire Christian is ok too (313) which is also when byzantines start btw.
Before that it’s harder to justify because while the 3rd century would sort of fit, mostly cause the Sasanians had their first golden age there and Goths and friends started there, you still have Palmyrans in Ror and the three kingdoms in China is kinda fitting for chronicles.

Earliest Western Roman leader name is Theodosius. But still, it’s not like Interpol will jail the devs for making a Carthage Wars era Romans, a Gallic War era Romans and Majorian era Western Romans just for Chronicles. And with the new V&V scenario, we know the timeline can get extended farther back.

(Note that I don’t feel comfortable using traction trebuchets and halberdiers in Fifth century Europe)

[filozof]

I haven’t read this thread, however anything after the appearance of Vandals and Goths in the Western Europe (e.g. the 5th century) should be a fair game for the normal AoE 2. We already Romans in the game and they should get a campaign eventually; this community is once again needlessly overcomplicating things…

[bigbossbro08]

To this day, I dont think Roman shouldn’t exist at all for Medieval civs and simply be modified to a Chronicles era civ. Even design is just bad.

They only added because pro-players advocated not buying the Return Of Rome DLC as it wont bring into ranked. To M$/FE’s POV, it’d be marketing disasters since they wanted to bring Vietnamese players and possibly could hamper the marketing with outrage. So it just stayed there. Even I dont like its legionnary implementation at all. I mean a generic anti-infantry unit? Basically Jaguar Warrior from Barracks? For real?

Even so Return Of Rome, despite currently being the best AOE1DE port, still failed regardless because of terrible marketing decision alone. Not even a choice just to buy AOE1DE parts of it still forces you to buy entire game. I do believe in future with enough Chronicles civs, they should make a standalone buying option for Chronicles civs as well.

[filozof]

I personally don’t agree, I am glad we got a late medieval Romans which are otherwise never represented. Can’t really judge the execution, however mounted centurions with an aura passive are interesting to me both gameplay-wise and in a historical sense. I would also like to see a new campaign as Romans against Goths/Vandals/Huns.

Everything has already been said about marketing failure of the Return of Rome DLC. They should really change it to a standalone and give Romans to everyone. I still hope they’re gonna release it with all of the old campaigns ported someday…

[SamePorpoise303]

@filozof

late medieval Romans which are otherwise never represented

This (although you meant late antiquity rather than late medieval). Almost no game represent late Romans, it’s always the Trajan one.

@CanineCrown7153

Earliest Western Roman leader name is Theodosius. But still, it’s not like Interpol will jail the devs for making a Carthage Wars era Romans, a Gallic War era Romans and Majorian era Western Romans just for Chronicles

Republican and early imperial imperial Romans would be two fair additions to chronicles but I don’t personally see the point in adding another time late Romans along with again Huns or Goths. I mean you already have them and chronicles (differently from Ror) is totally compatible with the base game.

@CanineCrown7153

(Note that I don’t feel comfortable using traction trebuchets and halberdiers in Fifth century Europe)

With editors you can modify a lot of that stuff but you probably know better than me. For example in the campaign I’m doing for Julian the apostate I made knights a regional Germanic unit of sorts while Romans have cataphracts at the stable. Hussars can be Draconarii and the skin problem is true but that’s a thing they’ll eventually solve maybe with future regionals.
Trebuchets yes are not ideal but something similar was likely brought to Europe by Avars in the 6th century along with stirrups so it’s not that much of a stretch (you can argue that Huns knew about them as well), at least not more than the dromon for Huns and Romans.

[MatM1996]

@Igor1138828

Imo goth should not have access to gunpowder units. I don’t think they even need from balance perspective

Yes, you can always rework the Late Antiquity civs as Goths and Huns and have them not have any gunpowder at all…

@bigbossbro08

Tbh, I would extend Chronicles timelines a bit further tbh. As in covering Roman-Sassanid war and early Islamic expansion. Aka until end of Umayyads. Because Roman-Sassanids have cool drips. Early Islamic military was very very different belongs more to Chronicle era than the medieval theme civs we got.

Sure, although chronologically they fit better in AoE 2, it’s just that they haven’t touched those centuries yet… literally AoE 2 covers all the centuries except the 6th and 7th centuries (500 to 700) and you end up missing the Restauratio Imperii (damn Bari, I’d prefer we had Belisarius fighting against Persians in the Middle East and with Goths in North Africa and Italy) and the Arab expansion could have been another Saracen campaign (if they then divide the Saracens into Kurds and Ayyubids it could happen)…

@bigbossbro08

Just simply give Gastrephetes but keep the tech tree same. Possibly a unique Chronicle themed siege units acts close to bombard canon. AKA AOE1 Catapult

Of course…something will occur to them…

@Akleoni

The basic game mechanics in chronicles are the same. Aside from water and special techs, the division is mostly visual and historical period. You can even activate them in skirmish against medieval civs.
They could potentially re-used Huns and Goths as enemies in a Roman chronicles campaign without adding new civs.
It is not like AoE1 that has a drastically different and incompatible tech tree.

Sure, I say the same thing…Return of Rome is simply 1DE in 2DE, whereas Chronicles is AoE 2 as such but with a skin from ancient times, that is, 1DE but done well…

@TungstenBoar

395 is, to me the natural beggining of the AoE2 timeline

I think the other point is the collapse of the Northern Jin and the reign of Constantine (or the end of the Third century Crisis, whatever you prefer)

Any point before that is getting too far from the concept of the “dark ages”

Of course, over the years and with the expansions, AoE 2 went further and further back in the chronology to reach AoE 1 in 373 AD (from the other side of the chronology it always remained in 1598) (1152 in AoK, 434 in TC, 408 with TF, 394 now with DE and from the next patch, 383 with VaV)…

@ZestySage992416

• Escaping the prospect of making actual new civs from the timeframe of game. (So we keep waiting forever for Tropics and other remaining areas to get covered)

Sure, a normal DLC that doesn’t spoil the game…

@Skadidesu

Also the Chronicles team is a different them then the ones making DLC for the main game.

Sure, Chronicles is made by CaptureAge, the rest of the DLCs are usually made by Forgotten Empires…

@Akleoni

It kind of feel like they are going to be remaking AoE1 again through chronicles, with better gameplay and unit variety and more improved and deep design for civs.

I don’t think so, because they already have Return of Rome, otherwise it would be a Return of Rome 2… for me we will see the events that were not in 1DE and ReoR: in the Macedonian DLC of Chronicles, we will see as a prologue the conquest of Greece by Philip II and then the conquests of Alexander, then the wars of the Diadochi, first with the Seleucids and then with the Ptolemies (356-281 BC)… then in another DLC the rise of the Mauryas (321-265 BC) and in the following ones all of Rome, where we would see events already shown in 1 DE and new ones too: the birth of the Roman Republic (509-390 BC), the three Punic Wars (264-146 BC), the war against the Celts (155-101 BC), the life of Caesar (82-46 BC), the fall of the Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire and go from Augustus to Claudius (44 BC-61 AD), the Roman Golden Age after the death of Trajan in ReoR (117-235), the Crisis of the 4th century, Dioclesian and Constantine (235-336), The Three Kingdoms of China (220-280), Ezana of Aksum (320-360) and the last one the Barbarian Invasions playing with Goths (248-378) and there ends Chronicles because the rest is already in base AoE 2 (will they make an AoE 3 chronicles for 2?, who knows)…

@UnAutreVoyage

The thing is that the medieval ages is a European timeframe. Scholars usually makes it begin in 476 or around 500. Note that late antiquity is sometimes linked to it (after 300), so the proposed period could be easily divided.
At the same time, medieval China is considered beginning with the three kingdoms in 220.
One could argue that medieval Japan starts in 1185.
So that the answer would be: split the proposed period. Before 3rd century: Chronicles. After: normal.

@SamePorpoise303

Can’t really vote cause I’d split chronicles/Ror and aoe2 in the middle of your proposed timeframe.
Romans are in aoe2 as a matter of fact, late Romans are said to start in 284 AD with Diocletian but Constantine making the empire Christian is ok too (313) which is also when byzantines start btw.
Before that it’s harder to justify because while the 3rd century would sort of fit, mostly cause the Sasanians had their first golden age there and Goths and friends started there, you still have Palmyrans in Ror and the three kingdoms in China is kinda fitting for chronicles.

Romans before and after the 3rd century are so different that it’s totally worth in my opinion to separate there the two. The late Romans are more like byzantines and medieval Christian Germanic civs, classical antiquity and Hellenism are gone, they mostly build churches not amphitheatres from the 4th century on.
And again Sasanians started in 224 AD, the Jin dynasty in 266, Ghana and Maya classical era in this century, Guptas around 300 and the big barbarian confederations like Vandals, Goths, Franks, Saxons, Picts, Alemans, Burgundi etc formed in the early 200s.

Sarmatians can be conflated in Alans for what they’re worth, Kushites were destroyed by Axum around 350 and their kingdom broke into the famous three medieval Nubian kingdoms. In this occasion Ethiopia converted to Christianity too. Himyarites are another civ from this period that could be added (the elephant of abraha is curiously already a hero in the editor).
Indo kushans fell around the same time because of Hunas, another civ to be added along with Gokturks to give Bukhara some sense.
This is all aoe2 stuff to me even if I know most people would like to kick it out of the game. But after Romans imo there’s really nothing to argue anymore. I’m for a neat separation of middle ages and antiquity (just I think at this point the line is in the 3rd rather than the 5th century, the 4th century was not as disruptive aside from Christianity/Constantinople but that’s at the start of it so I would still include it whole in aoe2), you can have pagan classical Romans, Gauls, early scattered Germans and co in chronicles/Ror.

In this case it’s the same… it’s not like ReoR which is played differently than AoE 2, Chronicles is literally AoE 2 with an Antiquity skin, they even allow you to bring the Palintonons from AoEO as a replacement for the trebuchets… :man_shrugging

@Skadidesu

Half of AoE1. They are leaving out the Bronze Age entirely.

@CitingOregano34

I think it should be half and half. If they were prominent in the 5th century at least, they can be part of the base game. Like the Vandals, Xianbei, Sassanids, Guptas, etc.

However, civs from the 4th century and back should be excluded to at least mantain the medieval “identity” of the game, for example Sarmatians, Kushans, Three Kingdoms civs, Palmyra, etc, shouldn’t be in the game.

Sure, Chronicles is pure Iron Age (500 BC-500 AD) like AoEO and 0 AD…we could see civs until at most the 4th-5th centuries…

@Skadidesu

The conversation about adding 3 Kingdoms Civs to the game is one reason why I made this poll.

Yes, I think we’ll see the three kingdoms in Chronicles at some point… :tipping_hand_man

@Akleoni

The names of the ages aren’t really meaningful (what the hell are castle and imperial age supposed to be?), especially when many civs don’t exist in every “age” already (huns not even feudal age).

They do have meaning:

1. Archaic Age: Archaic Greece - Wikipedia (800–480 BC) (where Chronicles begins)

2. Civic Age: Classical Greece - Wikipedia (480–323 BC) (what we see in BfG)

3. Classical Age: Hellenistic period - Wikipedia (323 BC–27 BC)

4. Imperial Age: the Roman Empire (27 BC–476 AD)

@Skadidesu

We can go by the Rome at War mod. I think they will likely add most of the civs from that before they go do other things. Not counting the civs that are also in AoE2 like the Goths or Huns.
I do expect new Romans though. We haven’t really had Rome on the hight of its power in an AoE game yet.
People love them classic Legionaries a lot.

@StoreyedPlate74

If they go at 3 civs per year, it’s gonna take them a decade

Sure, that would be the idea… keep stealing with AoE 2 until 2035 with Chronicles…

@Akleoni

The problem with most bronze age civs is that we know very little (mostly through what others wrote of them) to make deep and interesting civilizations without having to make up a lot of things, so not much would be really lost.
“Athenians” and “Spartans” are more known and interesting than “Mycenaeans” and “Minoians” (that we don’t even know how they call themselves).

Of course, we don’t have much from the Bronze Age civs since they were destroyed in 1200 BC… and not to mention that many prefer to fight Romans with Macedonians than Sumerians and Minoans… besides, with ReoR I’m happy with the Bronze Age content it already has…

@Skadidesu

f we remove all the civs that are also in AoE2 base game then the list gets a lot shorter.
The Goths, Huns and Celts are pretty much the same as their AoE2 versions for example.

And who knows maybe the shift away from the Rome at War civs earlier. Or maybe they make DLC with more civs, or more smaller DLC. We’re getting 5 new civs at once for the base game now.

@StoreyedPlate74

Slighly shorter, there would still be like 25 civs more or so. There’s a ton of them, and that not including new potential stuff from the Three Kingdoms. If they want to port the entire mod (or even just a significant fraction of it), they would have ti speed it up drastically.

Yes, anything can be…

@StoreyedPlate74

There’s also another issue. Do they really plan to make new games? An AOE5? If that game is ever made, I bet it will be set in Antiquity, which may (or may not, who knows) the future development of Chronicles.

@Skadidesu

I don’t think it will and Chronicles is one reason why.
The other reason being AoMR and to small parts also AoE1 and AoEO.
Antiquity is actually the most used setting in the series. The Medieval setting only got 2 games.
Not counting mobile games.

Since AoE3DE got abandoned it could mean that they don’t want it to compete with AoE5.
Or maybe the setting will be even more modern, who knows.

Yes, we don’t know anything about AoE 5 yet… but yes, everything points to it being in Ancient times and for AoE 6 they’ll release an AoE 3 2.0 (we could also see an AoE in the 20th century at some point and even a futuristic AoE)…

@StoreyedPlate74

While this is true, I still don’t think they have made yet a game that trully takes advantage of that setting. AOE1 is the prototype of the series (and now its playerbase is diluted among the OG, DE and ROR), Chronicles is only a side project of aoe2, AOM has antiquity elements but it’s still a non-historical game first and foremost.

That’s why they released AoE Online and made it an AoE 1 but more modern and an AoM but more historical… the only thing that screwed it up was its MMO model with civs arriving in one-and-one expansions and that it was very cartoonish… maybe FE could release an AoEO DE in 2026 (the game turns 15 next year) but I don’t see it happening because they’re going to be oversaturated with games, although the AoEO assets could be useful to put them in Retold since they use the same engine…

@StoreyedPlate74

I doubt they will make another game that deals with colonization, unless they make a game that exclusively takes place on Europe.

Yes, I see that the next colonial AoE will be only Europe and that it will be like Cossacks 3 but with the AoE 4 engine…

@Skadidesu

This is exactly why.
Not that it will totally ignore other parts of the world but the main issue with AoE3 is that it’s based on colonialism and therefor completely ignored Europe itself. Not having the 30 years war or Napoleon in a game like this is such a wasted potential.
The last DLC tried to fix that but it was too little too late.

The whole home city system and a bunch of other things like no resource drop off and no stone are because of the colonial setting.

A game that feels more in line with AoE1/2/4 and to some degree AoM.
Representing each civilisation how they are like at home and not as colonizer. Very easy to make enough content without focusing on colonialism.
Also AoE2 has some scenarios with colonial setting but one one cares. AoE5 could do it the same way. Focus on wars that happened between civilisations in an area like between European in Europe, Asians in Asia and so on.

Of course, AoE 3 focused too much on colonialism when they could have simply focused on Europe and had fights in Europe and then fight in America and Asia… meaning KotM and campaigns of Suleiman, Gustavus Adolphus and Napoleon would be the base game and then release The Warchiefs and The Asian Dynasties…I guess now we’ll just have to wait for AoE 5…

@TungstenBoar

The thing is, the devs they needed spme “justification” for the slow start that characterizes the series. In AoE1 it was the stone age, in 2 the dark age, for AoE3 they thought it would be silly to have the kingdom of France or the Spanish fighting over Europe suddenly limited to a town center and a few villages when we are talking about the 1500s or later.

True, but they could have done like in the European historical maps in KotM where you start at a command post and in the campaigns you can take charge of fortified cities (for example the Italian cities in the Italian Wars, Vienna in the siege of 1683 or Paris in the French Revolution)… it really pisses me off because if KotM had been the base game in 2005, there wouldn’t have been so much rejection of AoE 3 by AoE 2 players (some might complain about the decks but let them deal with it xd)…

@CanineCrown7153

Earliest Western Roman leader name is Theodosius. But still, it’s not like Interpol will jail the devs for making a Carthage Wars era Romans, a Gallic War era Romans and Majorian era Western Romans just for Chronicles. And with the new V&V scenario, we know the timeline can get extended farther back.

@SamePorpoise303

Republican and early imperial imperial Romans would be two fair additions to chronicles but I don’t personally see the point in adding another time late Romans along with again Huns or Goths. I mean you already have them and chronicles (differently from Ror) is totally compatible with the base game.

Yes, I think we’ll see at least two Romes in Chronicles: Republican Rome (509-27 BC) for the first, and Imperial Rome (27 BC-476 AD) for the second (Majorian could also be a campaign for the Romans in the base game)…

@filozof

I haven’t read this thread, however anything after the appearance of Vandals and Goths in the Western Europe (e.g. the 5th century) should be a fair game for the normal AoE 2. We already Romans in the game and they should get a campaign eventually; this community is once again needlessly overcomplicating things…

Of course…for me the 5th century is fine for AoE 2 and the 4th century for the previous Chronicles (plus AoE 1 DE goes up to 373 AD in Europe)…

@bigbossbro08

To this day, I dont think Roman shouldn’t exist at all for Medieval civs and simply be modified to a Chronicles era civ. Even design is just bad.

Yes, in fact, it would have been better if The Conquerors started in 500 AD and not gone as far back as Attila, but it is what it is…

@bigbossbro08

Even so Return Of Rome, despite currently being the best AOE1DE port, still failed regardless because of terrible marketing decision alone. Not even a choice just to buy AOE1DE parts of it still forces you to buy entire game. I do believe in future with enough Chronicles civs, they should make a standalone buying option for Chronicles civs as well.

Yes, in fact the AoE wikia considers Chronicles a separate game from AoE 2… I think that when they reach 15 civs in Chronicles they will sell the mode separately…

@filozof

late medieval Romans

*Late Antiquity…Late Medieval is 1400 AD…

@filozof

Can’t really judge the execution, however mounted centurions with an aura passive are interesting to me both gameplay-wise and in a historical sense.

Yes, they got that from some units of AoE 3, AoM and AoE 4: the Spanish Missionaries with the Unction card, the Lakota War Chief, the Japanese Daimyos, and the Indian Mansabdar units. It is also similar to the ability of the Chinese General in Age of Mythology: Tale of the Dragon, and of the Ottoman Mehter in Age of Empires IV…

@filozof

I would also like to see a new campaign as Romans against Goths/Vandals/Huns.

Yes, I hope… at least Flavius ​​Aetius as Attila’s counterpart and that the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields is like “The Coming of the Huns” from AoE 1…

@filozof

Everything has already been said about marketing failure of the Return of Rome DLC. They should really change it to a standalone and give Romans to everyone. I still hope they’re gonna release it with all of the old campaigns ported someday…

I don’t think they’ll do it, or at least if they do, they’ll sell it for $5 usd at most or just give the DLC free to those who bought the 1 DE…

@SamePorpoise303

This (although you meant late antiquity rather than late medieval). Almost no game represent late Romans, it’s always the Trajan one.

Well you have the Western Romans from Attila Total War…

@SamePorpoise303

With editors you can modify a lot of that stuff but you probably know better than me. For example in the campaign I’m doing for Julian the apostate I made knights a regional Germanic unit of sorts while Romans have cataphracts at the stable. Hussars can be Draconarii and the skin problem is true but that’s a thing they’ll eventually solve maybe with future regionals.

Yes, it sounds interesting to me…

@SamePorpoise303

Trebuchets yes are not ideal but something similar was likely brought to Europe by Avars in the 6th century along with stirrups so it’s not that much of a stretch (you can argue that Huns knew about them as well), at least not more than the dromon for Huns and Romans.

Yes, Trebuchets are somewhat too late for the Romans, whereas the Chronicles Palintonons would be a better choice…

[Skadidesu]

@bigbossbro08

To this day, I dont think Roman shouldn’t exist at all for Medieval civs and simply be modified to a Chronicles era civ. Even design is just bad.

If Chronicles would have been added before RoR that would be the best option. But they can’t just take away a civ that is already playable in ranked.

@SamePorpoise303

Almost no game represent late Romans, it’s always the Trajan one.

Ironically its the AoE franchise that never really had the Romans at the height of the empire in any game.
AoE1 civs don’t really count because they have no unique content.
AoE2 Romans (and Byzantines) are Late Antiquity.
AoM Atlanteans are not real Romans at all.
AoE3 is obviously too modern and AoE4 just has the Byzantines again.
AoEO only got the Romans as a fan made patch.

@SamePorpoise303

Republican and early imperial imperial Romans would be two fair additions to chronicles but I don’t personally see the point in adding another time late Romans along with again Huns or Goths.

I agree with this.
I think they can also easily mix Chronicles with AoE2 civs in scenarios that take part around 300 AD.

[Nordsultan]

@Skadidesu

Civs that already exist

• Romans
• Goths
• Celts
• Huns

They should create a Chronicl Varainte from the Civilisations, according after the rules of the Chronicles Techtree With.
This allows the Civ to exist for both the base game and Chronicles.

[Skadidesu]

When we only get 2-3 Chronicles civs per year then it would be a whole year where we don’t get any new civs and just Chronicles version of existing ones.

It’s better to make unique civs like Roman Republic, Western Germanic Tribes, Gauls or Scythians instead.