Request to have all missing campaigns from AOE1DE ported to Return of Rome

Those campaigns are:

They were good enough to be included as part of the DLC “Return of Rome”! Please add them eventually, or sell them as a separate package for those who would gladly purchase to have the complete Age of Empires 1 campaigns in Age of Empires 2: DE!

16 Likes

I completely agree. I liked ROR but cutting content shouldn’t be promoted. I would love to see the product complete again and play new official single player content.

10 Likes

I’d personally take the occasion to change Yamato to an earlier Japanese dynasty cause that campaign goes till the 8th century and it feels like it steps on aoe2 toes. Anyway the campaign was very abstract, you could basically recycle some scenarios for another one.
I would also remove coming of the Huns as it’s total nonsense (no Goths, ## ####### Yeah not even Gauls and Britons in Ave Caesar but these could be realistically added sooner or later) which now fits more in aoe2.

Instead of removing it, it’s better to add Goths civ!!! Germanic DLC and Celtic DLC are the basis for bringing RoR to life. Plus the Nomadic DLC. This would open the gates to a huge number of cool potential campaigns.

3 Likes

They can add them to some future DLC…

I agree, one thing does not take away the other, they can add the Celts, Huns and Goths in RoR with new campaigns in the barbarian invasions (400 BC-400 AD) and also put them in the Rise of Rome campaigns…also Yamato fits in AoE 1/RoR because it is an Iron Age civ (1000 BC-800 AD)…

2 Likes

The medieval period of Japan is considered by most historians to stretch from 1185 to 1603 CE. Which means that AoE1 Yamato campaign period fits into correct era of AoE1.

3 Likes

This community is mostly amazing from what I’ve seen. The way people create conversations regarding not just the gameplay but also about the historical accuracy and facts makes me return to the game and my interest in history grows even bigger.
These games (AOE 1 and 2) would’ve never got so huge without people like you providing feedback, reviews and discussing the products and the hypothetical future content.

I can proudly say this is my favourite videogame community. Thank you all for commenting and sharing your opinions and knowledge!

5 Likes

Doesn’t make much of a difference for Japanese if you follow that reasoning, you could even put their Ror campaign in 1400 AD as they barely have any contact before the modern era.
Even though it’s my favourite era, I wouldn’t personally see much of a point to duplicate civs for Ror like putting Huns, Goths or byzantines (it makes sense to duplicate Aztecs for aoe3 because the game is radically different from 2 but 1 is simply an older version of 2 so what’s the point of having two Goths?)… Using what? Iron age infantry and phalanges? I think aoe2 better cover late antiquity, almost effortlessly now that there are Romans (they could probably add vandals and someone else though). I mean we have Attila, Alaric and now even Gaiseric… In Ror only palmyrans qualify as late antiquity to some degree so I don’t really see a point, 395 and 476 AD are overrated anyway, they mean very little in historical terms.

Ror shouldn’t add huns, goths, franks etc again but rather focus on Scythians, Gauls, Xiongnu and proper iron age, Hellenic and classical civs (late antiquity comes after this) that you can’t put in aoe2 which means everything before 300 AD when Christianity became the thing and all Ror units become completely obsolete (they were already before but you could realistically stretch them for the 3rd century), not just aesthetically but in functions (phalanx were obsolete even by the time of Augustus, Caracalla employed them just because he thought they looked funny but they were ineffective against new Sassanid warfare).
I mean do you really want to see huns and goths fighting with phalanx and priests in Adrianople?

Aoe1 wasn’t neither supposed to cover classical antiquity at the beginning, it didn’t have Romans and not even Macedonians (so not even the Hellenistic age!), then they added something more but the best you can stretch it it’s the 3rd century AD because of complete absence of Christianity and Germanic confederations (not the early tribes but the organised ones that will take over the empire and most are in aoe2 already). I repeat again Marcus Aurelius (died in 180) is the latest AI name for Romans in aoe1 and I don’t think it’s random while you have Constantine for byzantines in 2 (because he actually started the byzantine empire). The coming of the Huns scenario was added simply because there weren’t huns in any game yet but now it’s pointless.

But yeah I recognise this can’t do nothing against nostalgia and established conventions so I’m probably just self talking.

2 Likes

Exactly. Late antiquity (4th century on) happened to belong to aoe2. Aoe1 has enormous room to cover, for civs from Bronze age to 3rd century.

Regarding the missing campaigns, of course every original campaign should find its final place in ‘Return of Rome’, as devs have once said.

3 Likes

Indeed, it’s like 8000 years of history! Although before the bronze age (3000 circa) there’s barely anything to say. There are civs like Minoans and Phoenicians which we barely know anything about and possibly engaged in little to no warfare (the Trojan war itself is almost mythological). Nevertheless there’s still a lot to add everywhere without having to double late antiquity civs already present in aoe2.

3 Likes

Yes, I would say that medieval Japan begins with the Heian period (794-1185), which is when the capital was established in Heian (present-day Kyoto), the capital of the country until the Meiji revolution in 1868; the Nara Period (710-794) would be a transition period between Yamato and medieval Japan…

It’s better… That’s what the AoE saga has, there are many historical debates, lessons and games here…

Eh yes, the Iron Age in the rest of the world continued until the 8th century, you don’t have to use phalanges but legionaries, the only thing you would have to change is the helmet to adapt to the 4th century…Although Adrianopolis could fit in AoE 2 because it is mentioned in Alaric’s first intro and also appears in European War 7 (a medieval game), but I already feel that with VaV AoE 2 received many historical battles, however AoE 1 DE does not have any section of historical battles and at least with Adrianople it would serve as the final historical battle “à la Noryang Point”…

The point is that AoE 2 is a medieval game that starts after the fall of Rome… Attila’s campaign was to shorten the distance of eight centuries between The Huns Are Coming and the Barbarossa campaign…

All campaigns in the 5th century (Alaric started at the end of the 4th century but after the final division of the Roman Empire)…

And Yamato and also Choson (but only in the Yamato campaign)…

Obviously, one thing does not take away the other…maybe add Celts and Gauls and Alamanii to represent the Germanic tribes…Scythians, Armenians and southern Egypt in Kush (780 BC-350 AD) and Axum (150 BC-960 AD) (with Axum you can start with the biblical origin of Sabaeans arriving in the area in 150 BC, then Ezana adopting Christianity and conquering Kush in 350 AD and ending with the Aksumite invasion of Yemen between 518 and 525 AD).

How not? And the missions in the Peloponnesian War, Xenophon’s expedition and the conquests of Alexander the Great in Glory of Greece, what are they?..and also AoE 2 never had the intention of covering late antiquity (Celts, Goths and then Huns in The Conquerors are anachronistic for a medieval game), the Atlanteans in AoM were originally Romans and AoE 3 did not include the Asian, African and European theaters when the game came out and in the end they included them and so I can continue…

Not complete absence, since it was a persecuted religion, recognized and stopped being persecuted in the edict of Milan in 313 and already the official religion of Rome with the Edict of Thessalonica by Theodosius in 380… the Gothic campaigns started in the 250 AD during the crisis of the 3rd century, that is, AoE 1…

Yes and?..In AoE 2 the earliest AI of the Romans is Theodosius (which is fine from what I put above) and the latest is Odoacer (which makes sense, since after his death in 493 the Gothic king Theodoric takes power in Italy)…

It can be any Constantine from the first to the last…

  • Emp. Constantine (Αυτοκράτορας Κωνσταντῖνος): Eleven emperors were named Constantine, including the first Christian Roman Emperor (306-337), founder of Constantinople, and the last, who disappeared when the Ottomans took the city in 1453.

Well, but that’s it, you can’t remove it but fill in the gaps left by Rise/Return of Rome in the 4th century…

I would tell you that the 5th century, since the last 4 missions of Yamato in their original version go from 376 to 405… you have “The Huns Are Coming” and chronologically those later and already in The Conquerors, Attila’s first mission in 434…

The Trojan War is not mythological, you have the mask of Agamemnon and the existence of Troy itself in Hisarlık, Turkey… in fact you have several layers of the city from the Bronze Age to the Roman and even Byzantine era…

We agree, that they focus on that first and then the other…

1 Like

no it’s aoe 2 that started dancing on everyone’s feet thigh high
aok starts after the fall of rome

and then conquerors BAM atilla into aoe 1
after which there was no stopping them

2 Likes

Of course, AoK was pure Middle Ages (from 1152 with Barbarossa to 1453 with Joan of Arc)… with The Conquerors they stretched the chronology to the 5th century (with Attila connecting with AoE 1) and the 16th century (with Montezuma and the Battles of the Conquerors until reaching 1600, connecting with AoE 3)… AoE 1 only has Yamato that enters the time of AoE 2 (reaching up to 740 CE, after Tariq and Tours and before Charlemagne for example) and AoE 3 only has the Chinese campaign in 1421 (at the same time as Jan Zizka and the campaign of the Dukes of Burgundy for example)…AoE 4 is medieval, so it obviously retells the events we see in AoE 2 (William the Conqueror, Saladin, Genghis Khan, Joan of Arc, etc etc etc)…

What about Theodoric, Belisarius, Aethelfrith and Charlemagne heroes?

RoR needs to get some love.

4 Likes

Yes, but I was referring to the campaign level, although Charlemagne now has a scenario in VaV (although there it is only a renamed Jogaila)…

Maybe after the RoR tournament at RBW…

Hopefully yes!
Also some models on the Return of Rome campaigns should be fixed!