They probably do the same things as total war shogun II with the dlc in the same client…
Still its age of empire, and some things different, as scenario editor.
Hope they will adds some good contents for aoe2 and not only separate things in future.
Don’t add a dlc for a dlc … or something weird like that.
I would be glad if they add some civs like roman, Yamato, Tibetain, in aoe2 too.
Well with these all months maybe they will adds many change in this dlc, or maybe they just copy aoe1 with aoe2 mechaniscs so, door and formation, triggers and no much things I guess.
Im still interested to play aoe1 campaign in aoe2 gamemod , but a little sad if we don’t use this content in aoe2 editor, civs, stuff etc. Aoe2 have many things really good, aoe1 havn’t so muchs details in a scenario actually.
We have to see how much content of each others games will be available in the Editor.
AoE2DE has a lot of cosmetic stuff in the Scenario Editor that is very timeless and would perfectly work in AoE1.
Just one massive issue is probably the scaling difference between both games. Not sure if that’s a deal breaker.
I’m somewhat optimistic. Also if the DLC is successful and enough people demand a crossplay feature they might add it later.
if this new DLC brings/imports Age 1 to Age 2, separately (that each one has its tech tree) I hope this import brings to the DLC (age 1) new units and new technologies, and if not in this one but us next DLC (expansive) also add new civilizations like the Gauls and Indians. as new units: land trade unit; slinger upgrade, camel rider upgrade, spearman (anti-cavalry infantry), ram (anti-construction siege unit and anti-siege units). I think it was one of the things missing from age 1. obs: the slinger upgrade could be the staff slinger, or a variant unit like the advanced archer for common archers, and this unit in addition to having greater attack strength should have a greater bonus against conatruçoes and archers as well and as a balance to lose the shield but gain armor or HP, because according to historical sources, he didn’t use shields because he had to use both hands to use the staff slinger.
another interesting idea would be to turn the staff slinger into a technology to affect slingers. Such technology could allow slingers to gain extra bonuses against buildings and siege units, or increase attack strength, but without changing the physiognomy of the slinger itself. or another alternative would be the possibility of researching a staff slinger as well as the advanced bow to enable the creation of the staff slinger and thus coexist both as units but one being anti-archers and the second anti buildings and anti siege units.
totally agree with you. Hope this is what we will get in the end, AoE1 civs totally integrated with AoE2 civs, with their peculiarities. That already exists in mods, but having official support is ideal, many people aren’t used to the hassle.
I can quite understand now why this DLC is a separated one, because it needs some rebalancing like people did with similar themed mods, but over time it is going to be totally worth it.
Yes, that’s why I prefer Antiquity or the Modern Age, before the Middle Ages, too many wars and kingdoms make a mess in my head (I have to search Wikipedia to locate myself in time and space with the characters and factions)…On the other hand, in Antiquity and the Modern Age, you have large kingdoms more recognizable from each other…
Of course, from the crisis of the third century to the Justinian restoration of the sixth century…
That’s true…
And Age of Empires Online?..I know it’s cartoon aesthetic, but for me it represents very well the civs of the ancient age and is my second favorite AoE after AoE 3…the other would be 0 AD, but it is not an AoE per se…
It is for reasons of periodization of history, a date does not necessarily have to separate one period from another… in fact the AoE saga has not done so since its origins… in AoE 1, you have the Yamato campaign that reaches 740 CE (8 years after the historic battle of Tours in AoE 2 in 732), in AoE 2 you have the battle of Noryang Point which occurs in 1598 (2 years before the Japanese campaign in AoE 3 in 1600), in AoE 3 you have the Chinese campaign which occurs in 1421 (and which is contemporary with the campaign of the Dukes and Jan Zizka in AoE 2) and in AoE 4 you have the Rus campaign that goes up to 1552 (and which occurs 10 years after the historical battles of Christopher Da’s expedition Range and 30 years before the Chuvash Cape in AoE 3) and so on…
It’s going to be a very long month until May 16th…They could not advance it until April 21?.. Anyway, I’m going to buy it in July just…XD
We do not know, as far as I understand, it is the same client of AoE 2 (since it is still a datamod), only that it has another executable…
It is a civ of AoE 1, since the Yamato period starts in 250 CE (that is, late antiquity) and lasts 500 years until 750, which starts the Nara period (that is, full Middle Ages with the Japanese of AoE 2)…
Of course…
That’s true, only in The Forgotten they arranged it with Kurikara in the twelfth century, but we would only have Kyoto and Noryang at the end of the sixteenth century and two years before Sekigahara in AoE 3…
That’s true, I think the same… It is not so much what the DLC brings now, but the potential it has for the future… now that AoE 1 is inside AoE 2, it will allow devs to bring new content and expansions to the game once they have finished with the expansions of AoE 2 that should not be many (Balkans, Caucasus, South Africa, Oceania and North and South America and little else)…
Romans leaked that they are coming, Yamato are the Japanese and the Tibetans…wait, the CCP is calling me, they tell me “nothing about Tibet”…
Sure, it is understood…
Indians I do not believe, but Mauryas…
Sure, it’s interesting…
Of course, first they put the dlc separately and then they will see if they start to put civs of AoE 2 in AoE 1, since many civs of AoE 1 are already represented in AoE 2 by their successor civs (Greeks-Byzantines, Egyptians, Assyrians-Saracens, Persians-Persians, Choson-Koreans, Yamato-Japanese, Romans-Italians, Carthaginians-Berbers and so on)…
Also, talking about AoE2, I wish they turned the Gaulish aspects of the Celts into a separate civ. They could keep the current civ name, since I feel they’d inherit most stuff anyway. I just don’t want Gauls to be mixed up with medieval Scots/Irishmen.
I think overlap is inevitable, like matm1996 said you have aoe2 ending in 1600 while aoe3 starts arguably before 1500. In this case it’s not a problem since aoe2 and aoe3 are different games with quite different mechanics. So you can have aoe2 Aztecs and aoe3 Aztecs from the very same time period and it’s not an issue, it feels different enough.
With aoe1 and aoe2 however is not so easy since they’re basically the same game once ### ##### them down to game mechanics so having the same civ in both games feels more like a repetition. I mean if you put Huns in aoe1 and give them a campaign is 90% gonna be Attila and how it would be different from aoe2? In the fact that you fight classical rather than late Romans and other ancient civs in aoe1 and little else.
Actually an easy solution could be in making a “reboot” of the campaign, like re imagining it for aoe1, even if the events described and the general game mechanics is the same. If it’s another author doing it, they could have a different way of portraying Attila’s story despite being the same events. Similar to the fact that we have more than one belisarius custom campaign for example and they’re very different despite telling the same story in the same game.
This to say that I can imagine aoe1 stretching for all late antiquity until 750 ad circa (the end of the Yamato campaign and quite conveniently the end of late antiquity more or less). At the same time I can imagine aoe2 timeframe starting in the third century crisis, at the beginning of late antiquity, and maybe have something like palmyrians or alemanni in the future, after late Romans are added. Imagine having early byzantines as well in aoe1 and an expansion dedicated to that with Lombards, Franks, goths, maybe even early Muslims…
Sure the two overlaps but that’s not a bad thing and it’s inevitable anyway so better make the best of it, telling the same story from different angles like with aoe2 and 3. Again only problem is that 1 and 2 don’t really feel different enough to justify this but with creativity alone one can do miracles lol.
Late antiquity/dark ages could have a game of its own for how much was happening and the many civs you could get out of it. For now I think it’s too early to say if aoe1 and aoe2 should merge, for sure they are the same game mechanics wise, but I’m not ready for it and don’t have a strong opinion yet, better see how this dlc goes first. For now it’s more no than yes for me.
Yeah I was talking about my own custom campaign since it sets between Constantine and Heraclius so adding western Romans would call me for a long rework…
For official Attila and Alaric they can do what they want, I’m not a dev. Alaric is not a good campaign imho so they could only improve it.
For something like 4000 years, no one tried to build anything taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza, so no, no they don’t.
What does “like” mean? Several medieval cathedrals are taller than the lighthouse of Alexandria was (not that the people building them would have known that), and height seems to be the thing you care about for some reason.
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this – this is like saying you have to be an expert in classical music in order to play jazz. There are different skills involved in creating different styles of art. You don’t have to be proficient in all possible styles in order to make deliberate choices within the style you’ve chosen to focus on.
I don’t count this as part of the Age of Empires series, personally. As far as I know, it’s had completely different developers and no relationship with any of the other games in the series.
Yes,maybe but you need to differenciate Yamato with Japanese…the Romans have the Legionary and the Italians the Genovese Crossbowman…
I know…i mean they are connected with the geographic space that occupied between them…not necessary to be the same civs…
Because the Byzantines tecnically ARE Roman,at least the eastern part…
Yes,they can divide the Celts in Celts,Gauls and Iberians…
Yeah,anyway the overlap will not be too much…in AoE 1 timeline you have 3 campaigns of AoE 2 (Alaric,Attila and Tariq) and in AoE 2 you have 2 campaigns of AoE 3 (China and Blood)…
That’s true or you can make a campaign with the father of Attila and Bleda like the Algirdas and Kestutis campaign…
Yeah…
I doubt it…the third century crisis appears in the Imperium Romanum campaign in AoE 1…i think that AoE 2 (and the Western Rome civ) is not going too early that the Roman division by Teodosius in 395…
Yeah,eventually the three (or four games counting AoE 4) will to overlap the same events in the saga…
Yeah,i think the same…we need to wait how this dlc goes first and then,start to think about new expansions and dlcs…
In really,AoEO (before Project Celeste of course) had the same devs but not the same company…after the closure of Ensemble in 2009,Bruce Shelley created another company (Robot Entertainment) with ex-devs of Ensemble for make a last AoE entry (AoE Online) being this game originally called AoE 4 (like a semi-reboot) but then they changed the game to be a MMORTS (like a mix with AoE 1,AoE 3 and WoW)…the game fails to shine because was launched in August 2011 with only 2 civs and without pvp and the devs closed it in July 2014…after the community revived it in August 2017 and launch the Roman civ in March 2021 and the Indians in the near future…
In this discussion, we are conflating two different themes - artistic styles and choice with provess in technique on individual or societal level. All I am saying medieval artist have not completely freely chose to do stylized art, because their skill in realistic painting or sculpture was not on an antic level. Now all that knowledge is available to us.
From a modern standpoint, well Picasso had no problem with anatomy and Impressionist knew how to work with perspective. I would argue if you want to get into stylized art, some deeper understanding of the conventional one is still needed. You can become a Jazz musician and learn from what has been done in the genre, but if you know nothing about melody or structure, then you’re severely limited.
Soi if they add separate game/client, it will be the third aoe1
aoe1 classic
aoe1 DE
aoe1 dlc for aoe2
same thing for aoe2 finally…
aoe2 classic
aoe2 HD 213
Aoe2 DE
and… Aoe2. aoe1 de …
I just think its an error to think a dlc for aoe2 without content for aoe2 direclty…
If they want create an other aoe1 de, they are free to do or just update aoe1 de (dead)… if they want really add in aoe2, do it seriously.
For me a separate game isnt a good idea, people have to choose between aoe2 and aoe2.aoe for play ? and map maker can’t use all contents. If they don’t update size things, we gonna have aoe2 de scenario editor and aoe1 dlc de editor… Crazy.
And after add this dlc they will add aoe3 in aoe2 different client ? (why not ? ) xX
They think about add dlc for dlc ? Weird…
This line of think is dangerous. they have to think what they want really… not only think about vietnamese people, they still play aoe1 classic game, not DE.
