You have the Japan/Kichiro campaign of AoE 2 DE… then you have the campaign of the travels of Zheng He (aka the Chinese campaign of AoE 3), but I think that without Aztecs as antagonists (my version of the campaign is going to be like the game), and well I am doing the Morgan/Blood campaign and the historical battles of the sixteenth century (Algiers, Christopher Da Gama, Chuvash Cape and Raid to the Caribbean -although the latter is a remake of Spanish main of AoE 2)…
1 Like
Have you published any of these custom campaigns? They sound great but I couldn’t find anything.
Kichiro and Zheng He’s are in the mod finder…The rest I’m doing in my free time xd…
1 Like
I would really like to see “unique units” added to the game, as seen in AoE2.
I honestly wish the “unique units” were 2 or 3 per each civilization and it should replace its standard counterpart. So each cizilication could have a more unique and interesting appearance.
But unfortunately… This “DLC” will be practically the same as the AoE1:DE version, it won’t have anything that gives the feeling of a Remake… it will just look like a Remaster with improvements… however “these improvements” were requested a lot time ago and the developers ignored the community at the time.
I think this “DLC” will only be to attract the large number of Vietnamese players and the base Aoe2:DE community will not “lock” for a long time in this DLC. Many players wanted to see a lot of new features… but from what I’ve seen on the forums, it’s actually the same as the previous one, but with “improvements” that should have already been made in the “Definitive Edition version” and were ignored there. There’s nothing really exciting… it’s all things that should have come and were requested by the community and ignored by the developer because it didn’t sell as expected and the player base that stayed playing is very small… but only now the developers “listened” to what was asked at the time and took an interest in the Vietnamese community with a wider eye.
But in my view it’s still little to make you stop being an AoE2 player to fully migrate to the new DLC… it’s too little. I’ll definitely buy and play, but I doubt I’ll be excited after a few months.
Apparently there’s some kind of announcement for ROR coming out in May?
But I haven’t seen anything official. Seems odd that it’s only a month out yet nothing from the Dev’s, nothing on this page, nothing on steam.
There was announcements on social media outlets. 16th of May release.
This is a system used by both AoE 3 and AoE 4 and it works well. This one is a big improvement which AoE 3 made in comparison to AoE 2, even if AoE 2 is way better IMHO. To have this system in AoE 1 (even as AoE 2 DLC) it will need a huge balance change, a completely redesign, so huge that it could be an another game.
well, gunpowder was very rudimentary back then and wasn’t a factor. You can see it in AoE2, where many civs don’t have it.
For “common” folk, gunpowder was very uncommon until 20th century, at least here where I live. There were wolf trenches here, people lead the wolf to an area that ended in a funnel like hole, the wolf couldn’t scape and was killed. This was used even in the early 1900s and became unused later when people started to have guns.
Note that even cavalry was still used in World War 1.
yup, that’s why it’s understandable that it’s just a DLC containing AoE1 within AoE2 for now. Over time though, I’d expect a rebalance and make the crossplay dream happen. Celts are an Antiquity civ already, so are others…
Where I am from, Celts are pre-roman.
I hadn’t picked up on that, but I guess I should clarify: I wasn’t claiming the release date had been deliberately chosen as the day Elagabalus became emperor. @MatM1996 was looking for an event related to Rome on that date (because he’d predicted the release would be on the anniversary of the founding of Rome), and that was the one I’d found. Whereas I’m pretty sure the ancient Romans didn’t have patch days or Microsoft.
3 Likes
Where others have already expressed the desire to avoid leaks to keep this thread alive, I don’t find it presumptuous to speak collectively on behalf of that interest.
I agree that it would be nice to talk about the things we’ve seen, but until that information is put out through official channels, it’s considered leaks for purposes of this forum. Either way, a month is not such a long time, even if you’re waiting for a pot to boil. Probably just a couple weeks before we get a lot more info, in the meantime we’ll have a lot to play around with in the new update.
The longer they wait with giving us official material the worse the leaks will get.
The leaks are probably 5 months old by now. There can be so much done in that time period the game might look very different by now.
So no civs vs civs or civs added to AOE2DE?
Return of Rome DLC aoe1 civs won’t fight vs aoe2 civs. Meaning greeks or babylonians wont fight vs teutons or mongols.
1 Like
This isn’t a very good take at all. We’re literally talking about several 100s of years of development, from more basic armors to the very advanced armors both structurally and the shape. Same with fighting styles and tactics. It is not just about “swords and armor”, this is a gross generalization.
We can see very clearly throughout history that all armors and weapons had to be adapted, strengthened and developed to meet new threats. Otherwise we’d be sitting in our lorica segmentata to this day, but we don’t and at some point the items from antiquity would have become obsolete. Tactics not working, weapons not being efficient enough, armors not protecting the areas that were necessary. There is a reason why armor and weapon have been continually improved upon.
It is literally like saying well all firearms are the same, there is no development of firearms, its still about things that go boom. What you’re talking about is that you don’t see a big difference in technology, advancement of arms and armor. Because you’re looking at it from the modern perspective, but the developments would have been huge for the people living at the time.
It is a game, if they want to do aoe1 vs aoe2 civs, they can. But it shouldn’t be motivated by the reasons you stated above, because that is disregarding hundreds of years of history.
5 Likes
what you say sounds logic. That being said, we are talking about the Dark Ages -where technology didn’t advance- and the medieval ages, where armour and weapons weren’t that different compared to antiquity.
By your reasoning, Vietnam would lose the war against USA in the 60s. Or cavalry wouldn’t be used during World War 1.
Romans had heavy armour but also light infantry without much armour because they needed the extra mobility.
How much of a difference there is between a Roman and a medieval soldier if you look at this?
The photo comes from this article:
Roman military personal equipment - Wikipedia
Where I live celtic Hillforts were replaced with castles. But they did the same function, and both constructions were usually placed at the top of a hill or a mountain, for easier defense, with big walls surrounding it. Hillforts were more like villages but it was about the same.
Interestingly enough, Romans had caltrops (taken from the article), which would slow down the cavalry and war elephants of any medieval army. That’s tactics, and maybe caltrops weren’t used during the medieval times.
Imho, if the roman empire existed during the medieval times, they would conquer a lot of Europe’s territory once again.
Art was more beautiful imo, during the greek and romans era, which is a sign of great culture, much more beautiful than in medieval and current times, so in that sense we went backwards. It depends on what you call technology.
1 Like
Difficult, but it would be good…Maybe in the future it will happen when there are no more civs to add and you want to give more life to the game…
Exactly, I wouldn’t have said it better… this will be AoE 1 DE 2.0…
Yes, but at the expense of the competitive…In addition, the Asian civs of AoE 3 have more than 15 unique units, that in AoE 2 would be a crazy balancing…
Good point…
By c. 500, due to Romanisation and the migration of Germanic tribes, Celtic culture had mostly become restricted to Ireland, western and northern Britain, and Brittany. Between the 5th and 8th centuries, the Celtic-speaking communities in these Atlantic regions emerged as a reasonably cohesive cultural entity. They had a common linguistic, religious and artistic heritage that distinguished them from surrounding cultures.
Yes, that’s why I find the date chosen strange…
Well, technically that it existed, it existed…it was the Carolingian/Holy Roman Empire on its western side and the Byzantine Empire on its eastern side…culturally and technologically speaking it wouldn’t have changed too much…if Rome existed today, it would be an enlarged Euro-African Commonwealth Union with the countries of the Middle East and to the east it would border with a Nordic Russia, a Rajput India and a Qinq China and to the west, in America with the Haudenosaunee in North America, the Aztecs in Central America and the Incas in South America…
1 Like
In the video below the medieval army loses against the roman army -medieval archers are quite slower for instance-:
imo, there is more to war than technology -except nowadays-, but tactics -which depend on who commands the army, not the era-, moral, and what you fight for -a fair cause, your own culture, etc- which adds that extra something to an “empire” or army and can win you a war.
Age of Empires 2 isn’t only the dark ages though, so depends really on where you draw the line.
Vietnam War was all fought by contemporary countries, there is also a huge leap from the vietnam war and why US lost and I’d probably have to write a whole PHD on the matter (but ofc there is always a chance to win against a superior foe). The second point kinda reinforces my point, World War 1 saw many traditional methods of combat at the start of the war, but these were phased out and/or changed roles. Cavalry adapted as well as there was still a point were they could be used (scouting/reconaissance, protecting flanks, easy relocation). Horses have had uses all through the first to the second world war, but the glorious cavalry charges stopped being used.
As did weapons and armor from antiquity. There are still some points that we keep from there and we can see this with some medieval armors or helmets that take inspiration from antiquity.
There is a lot of difference between that roman soldier and a medieval soldier, leg protection/arm protection. The shorter gladius and the larger scutum + the pilum. The later roman infantry becomes more like medieval soldiers and eventually they become medieval soldiers, because what they were currently using was no longer effective. Look at the spear, it is the weapon that has survived in different shapes and forms for hundreds of years, because it works.
Caltrops were used in medieval warfare.
Well that is just a fantasy scenario and the truth is that the roman legions were phased out, the roman empire ceased to exist.
Sorry for writing a gigantic post haha
1 Like
fair point. The battle of Agincourt happened in 1415 iirc, that’s almost a thousand years from Western Roman’s empire vanishing. That would make a huge difference nowadys, but by then…
I found a very interesting discussion about this in the Reddit forum:
Where I am from people lived like in the medieval times -almost- until the 1950s. Water mills were used to make bread, and people used the lands for resources and take care of their cattle and stuff. Capitalism, although present, wasn’t what it is today. As of currently, there is a lot of patrimony, old and recent related to this, but it all comes to the stone, and the landscape -from the celts in pre Roman times, petroglyphs and so on, to more recent patrimony like water mills, churches etc etc-.
From the experience with my own people it’s why I think there isn’t much of a difference between an Antiquity civ and a Middle Age one. Tactics would be more dependent on generals like in the game where The_Viper could beat me in a few minutes, he is a much better “general” than most of us in AoE2.