Return of Rome (disappointing update)

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

So this update was really disappointing in my opinion because they didn’t really add civilization into the 2nd game. They just ported the first game into the 2nd game. Which in my opinion was pretty lazy. Why can’t you guys just add the Assyrians and others into the 2nd game.

Yes I get that it’s a different timelines but it woulda been nice to see them or more civs in the 2nd game. I really think there could’ve been a way to put them over and feed them into the dark ages. Yes, I understand again that this is a different timeline everybody I really think there could’ve been a way to put them over and fit them into the dark ages. Yes, I understand again that this is a different timeline. Everybody from that civilization is in the ancient past but again, I’m sure they would’ve been no way to figure it out. I really don’t want to use mods or anything else. I’d rather have it in the base game itself. I don’t see any issues with this because at this point if age of empires two is the most played game out of the four I don’t see a problem with this if you said other than the colonial age in the third game then I was it understand why they wouldn’t add them

2

rome is a new DLC for 2nd game.

vietnamese is a new DLC for 1st game.

5 Likes
3

Assyrians on Age of Empires II? You mean, Assyrians in the Middle Age?

5 Likes
4

They added the Romans, just not for ranked (for now)

5

A few things:

  1. Many of the civs in AoE 1 are already present in AoE2 (Yamato is Japanese, Shang is Chinese, Choson is Koreans, Lac Viet is Vietnamese, Persians are present in both, Greeks and Macedonians are Byzantines, you get the idea).
  2. Many of the civ bonuses for the civs in AoE 1 are already present in AoE 2. AoE 1 Romans have the cheaper building bonues that the Malians have, the cheaper towers from Incas, the faster attacking swordsmen from Japanese, you can find many examples like these.
  3. The way the civs in both games play is completely different from one another with completely different units and a completely different balance.
  4. Add 16+ unique units? Not even the original AoK had that many.
  5. Add 36 + unique techs? That’s a nightmare in a game with an already difficult balance.
  6. Yes, the timeline is important. Adding Romans to AoE 2 is already streching the timeline of the game too much, and the Babilonians and Assirians for example were centuries long gone for the AoE2 timeline.
1 Like
6

They literally told you what you would get from the DLC and they did some balance changes and add new sutff to aoe 1 as well like walls and TC garrison, and don’t forget that each aoe1 civs also get new team bonus. They did even add new one new civ to both aoe1 (Lac VIet) and aoe2 (Late Western Romans).

More importantly, some of these old aoe1 civs became what they are in aoe2 like Lac VIet → Vietnamese, Yamato → Japanese, etc, so it’s completely unnecessary and redundant to add them in aoe2. Adding Western Rome already caused a lot of flame within the community already, imagine what will happens if they adds bunch of aoe1 civs in the same game setting of aoe2 civs. Not to mention it’s gonna a nightmare to balance all of these.

1 Like
7

You mean the same Assyrians that were replaced by Babylonians then by Persians then by Greeks then by Persians again, then by Romans, then by Arabs, then by Turks by the time of the AOE2 timeline? You want them in the game? And you think AOE2ROR was dissapointing because that didn’t happen?

9

Yes. I was hoping for them to be in it for fun. Everyone assumed we would get all 16 civs into the 2nd game as a fun dlc. Not as a disappointing . I get its the dark ages and they wanna keep it within the timeline but i mean at this point it wont hurt to add them in.