Two different civs being called Rome would be weird, but with the special and experimental mechanics in Chronicles’ Town Center, maybe they can have mutually exclusive units and technologies representing the periods.
In skirmish you could choose the period as a AoM/AoE3 age up and in campaign you would already have the one that matchs that particular scenario
And you would only have one Rome but with different mechanics when needed.
I’m not against new civs in general but what I personally don’t want is to be told that you already have the huns so you don’t need separate chronicls. Because the current huns are designed for the basegame and not for chronicls. Nevertheless it would be nice to have these civs. and of course the names of the variants should be different from the current ones like Rome (Base game) Romen Republic / Empire (Chronicles)
What I would like would be a stand alone DLC with 9 Civ and 3 campaigns like BfG. before this I would pay 40 €. and as a bonus the buyers of the basegame get then still Huns, Gote, Celts as Chronicl Varainte halt without campaign. They can also take as much time as they need for this, I don’t need a bunch of small DLC, I would also take a big one
Rome excluded because I would like to get a campaign maybe as another DLC with a story of the rise and fall of Rome.
2 Likes
I’d personally prefer one Rome over a separate Republic and Empire like in the mod.
Some kind of mechanic that lets you choose between Republic and Empire would be cool. Maybe a one time Age up choice. Switching back an forth like Athenians would be kinda strange.
The current huns are pretty badly designed already.
The main differences between AoE2 civs and Chronicles civs are:
- Naval rework
- Mutually exclusive UTs
- Very minor techtree differences
- Generally more gimmicky civ features
Since Huns are not a naval civ the main difference is not really that relevant.
The other differences are also not really impacting Huns too much like the different Infantry techs.
Celts are a civ that should probably get multiple Chronicles civs even. Gauls aren’t much like the AoE2 Celts at all.
1 Like
Every civ so far has a different gimmick, so one of the Romans gimmick could be a one time choice of government. They’ve shown they want to be more experimental in this.
It could let you go through the 3 phases:
- Kingdom
- Republic
- Empire
You can always choose to go to the next stage whenever but you can’t go back. Basically researching a technology but with some downsides.
Kingdom could give some economic benefits in the early game.
Republic would be good for expansion.
Empire better for defence or maintaining larger armies?
2 Likes
In my late antiquity scenarios I forbid everyone to make trebuchets. What the Avars brought to Europe was the mangonel. So what I do is give everyone Siege techsw to the max. Everyone gets Siege Engineers and every Ram, and Byzantines (always renamed to Romans) get Heavy Scorpion and Siege Onagers.
With enough Siege Onagers you can take down a Castle, even
150% agree. Maybe just use triggers to give a more unique flavor to Late Empire Romans in an hipotetical Chronicles
It’s more tiresome to trigger this but, have you tought of changing the normal AoE2 heavy cavalry line models to the Chronicles heavy cavalry line models?
1 Like
these are the big differences for me pluss the visual.
Chronicles should and may be more gimmiki than basgame civ, they should be more different from the other civs in the techtree, that’s what i want to see from a Chronicles civ. Also, the visuals are crucial for me, I don’t like the look and feel of knights fighting hoplites. Basgame civ should stick to the conventional design of the civ., Chronicl not .
For example, the Chronicles Huns could have a techtree that has almost no other units except Kallavery. Have more unique units or units that they share with the other nomadic races. e.g. mounted skirmishers instead of normal skirmishers. Anit Kallavery who are not camel riders etc.
Plus game mechanics that emphasize their nomadic lifestyle.
Chronicles Civ should be a bit gimmicky and not perfectly balnced but more creative and experimentell
stupid question, but Celt and Gaul are not mutually exclusive? Of course we don’t need to represent each small tribe separately, but the larger tribal associations are welcome to join Celt, Gaul, Germanic.
Yeah but idk my campaigns are already hard enough ahah. I saw a campaign for Guptas iirc that used mangonels as trebs like giving them way more range, attack and only one projectile. That could work.
I did something similar by creating a catapult galley, basically a treb on water you can build in castle age but it’s extremely slow and deal a bit less damage. The skin however is the one of a caravel…
For the look I think aoe2 knights are still better than chronicles shock cavalry for late antiquity, also the reason why I think late antiquity is more medieval than ancient looking for what concerns the game.
Though I reskinned several other units like longsword to heavy swordsman (again longsword actually fits better late antiquity I believe but whatever), sasanian cavalry line except savar to Sogdian cataphracts (grivpanvar) or paladins to imperial centurions (palatinum).
You can find a manual/handbook with all the changes, new mechanics and differences with the main game if you download the demo scenario.
1 Like
Same for me. The Nr. 1 thing I hate about AoE2 is all units of all civilisations looking the same.
It just doesn’t make sense for Huns to have Medieval looking Knights.
Giving Chronicles sprites to the Huns makes a lot more sense. Yes they look pretty Mediterranean but still better then Late Medieval.
btw. you can just give any civ the visuals of a different civ in the editor.
So if you need Huns in a Chronicles campaign you can just use the AoE2 Huns and give them the visuals of a Chronicles civ.
Kinda. It would be strange the have “Celts” and “Gauls” as Chronicles civs.
Since they already didn’t call the Persians “Persians” in Chronicles I think they won’t add a 2nd civ called “Celts”.
Neither look that good for this setting in my opinion.
I still prefer Chronicles though.
I hope we get more regional sprites, in a temporal way too.
Forgot to say that I use only the first knight skin for all the upgrades. Yeah it’s boring but no way I’m gonna use cavalier or paladin skins in a 4th century scenario. Cavalier is renamed heavy knight and Huns don’t use any knight in my mod but rather steppe lancers.
I think the first knight unit can still somehow fit in early Germanic civs (it resembles a norman knight from the 10th or 11th century but it’s somewhat acceptable imo).
I think the warfare shake up in late abtiquity makes AoE2 by far the better choice to represent the period.
2 Likes
Controversial, but honestly I wouldn’t mind if the Huns got reworked into the Hephthalites (White Huns) or even something like the Alans or Avars and the Romans into something like the Papal States, Tuscans or Lombards
I feel like you could keep most bonuses for both, with some name changes and reskins for unique techs and units, but the Attila campaign would be tricky…
This obviously won’t happen so I’m not going to actually advocate for it, but I was making a mod that changed the Romans to Papal States visually (that was even multiplayer compatible) but the units I chose to replace the Legionary and Centurion (I think it was Sforza and Vytautas, both representing the Papal Guard) didn’t really work when replacing the files directly, and my modding knowledge doesn’t extend so far as to fix it
Sorry for the kinda off topic
1 Like
We actually know a lot about the Mycenaeans, but it’s just that what writing is left behind are just shopping lists and mundane stuff that don’t tell us their politics, and what does still exist are extremely vague as the context is long lost.
Having cavalry only for any civi is plain wrong,people need to dismount and fight based on the circumstance.you cant have your bodyguards mounted inside your tent now can you?
The Romans told some stories about Huns never leaving their horse.
Sleeping, eating and of course fighting in horseback.
It’s probably an exaggeration though but mounted villagers would be interesting.
Of course, we’ll have to wait for a properly done Ancient AoE (still, I don’t mind the Romans in AoE Online since they were originally planned in 2013 and Project Celeste just finished them with the assets they had) to see the Romans in their full potential…
They might do it before they finish the Chronicles DLC…
That’s true…although they may be alternating between both types of dlcs…
Yes, at least in the next patch they’ll be making more unique skins for all civs, although regional skins for generic units are still missing…
That’s what the Italians and the Goths represent to a certain extent…
Of course, that applies to all steppe civs (Mongols, Huns, Cumans, Tartars)… mounted villagers should be a regional unit…
I know, I’m not arguing we should add these civs, just that they would be options if we needed to replace Roman with something more medieval
Yes, with the Goths and Italians still around, I don’t think they’ll add more civs to Italy…
1 Like
Replacing Romans with other civ from the peninsula would keep the same amount of “Italian” civs tho
To be fair, Lombards is basically current Italians, I think the civ could be still called Romans, but represent the latter Papal States (middle Italians) in flavor, then rename current Italians to Lombards (northern Italians), with Sicilians (sourthern Italians) we could have full representation of the peninsula in medieval times without adding more civs (again, extremely unlikely, basically impossible, but I’m just daydreaming)