There is definitely an overlap between aoe2 and aoe3 (1400 to 1600 is present in both) but when you think of aoe1 it ends with iron age, barely covering classical antiquity (chronicles field) and definitely not covering late antiquity with Palmyrans as the only civ from that time for some reason (and in that game if you look at AI names Palmyrans seem to be a weird amalgamation of Roman enemies like Pontus, Armenians, Numidians…). To find a civ before Palmyrans in aoe1 you need to go back to Carthage and Macedonians so a very weird outlier, again pretty much like 3k.
That’s why I cherish the addition of Goths, Huns and even (late) Romans to aoe2, because without them there would basically be a gap between aoe1 and aoe2 between 300 and 500 AD. Yes there was the coming of the Huns scenario (373 I think?) but it’s so remote that they had to use some weird shitt like Assyrians/Palmyrans for Goths or Yamato/Hittytes for Huns and the game wasn’t equipped in any way for that era apart from having cavalry archers, specially when it didn’t have any Celtic or Germanic civ.
Yeah that’s another reason why I wouldn’t use the fall of Rome as something relevant to Eurasia. It was relevant of course in some way but in global history how would you define the middle ages? I’d say: monotheisms, migrations and climatic changes can be common characters shared among Eurasia. Those happens around the end of the 2nd century/3rd century at the earliest, later on the slow replacement of ethnic religions happens (Christianity in Europe, Islam in the middle East, Buddhism happens earlier but it is still spreading at this point) and migrations are consequences of climatic changes, both in Asia (China and India) and in “Europe” (more like the Mediterranean world) migrations first fragmented the old empires and then replaced the ruling class.
Yes that’s huge, bigger change in culture than the fall of Rome I’d argue. Didn’t make sense in aoe1, wouldn’t make sense in chronicles either.
I can see it happening, specially if they really make a 3rd century chronicle, they would definitely need aoe2 Persians and Goths.
Scythians disappeared between the 3rd and 1st century BC, then you have Sarmatians in Europe and Sakas in northern India (until the 5th century AD in both cases) and later only Alans. If you referred to the Attila’s campaign they’re probably meant to be Sarmatians or Alans (Romans just called Scythians everyone coming from the eastern steppes and the og devs simply repeated the error) but I guess Scythians would work better than Mongols at least.
Of the 6 civs they added till now maybe only Thracians could feature in early middle ages scenario or at least Thracian units in early Byzantine armies. I can think of emperor Phocas for example described as a Thraco Roman centurion. Not sure about Purus since they’re very specific but some indo greek kingdom lingered on until the 4th century so maybe? Their units yes arguably. Achememid set would work better for Sassanids? Not sure. Spartans, Athenians and Macedonians for Alaric 2 could kinda work honestly, although maybe more about the architecture than the units themselves that are Roman Christians and look ok in aoe2.
If they add Gauls maybe they could use them in Attila 5, Tours or other scenarios set before Charlemagne (but aoe2 Romans would probably look better since Gauls added in chronicles will arguably still be the tribal pre Roman Gauls), Numidians/Egyptians/Carthaginians for pre Muslim Berbers? Britons for post Roman and pre Welsh people in Britain? They’re all stretches honestly, Romans or Celts work quite well for those people imo.