Everything seems to suggest that at one point the two games will be one. I mean aoe2 and 1. This dlc is the point of no return lol
There’s no reason anymore to keep them separate if not aesthetics/context cause in mechanics as I said they’re identical. Only need balance.
Still aesthetics/historical context is a point that holds quite well imho cause even if “arbitrary” (why goths Vs Portuguese and not goths Vs Greeks?) If you took this reasoning literally then why not merge star wars galactic battlegrounds and aoe? They have the same game mechanics and engine for what I know…
That’s why I’m still on the barricades and would like to keep the games separate but maybe someone could convince me since both sides have their points.
1 Like
But Attila is already in aoe2 and for the same reason you wanna put Huns in aoe1 why not having third century in aoe2 since I can see it as “the beginning of the end” for western Rome or at least starting with Diocletian who divided and created the eastern and western empires. Also sassanids (actual Persians in aoe2) starts their empire in 224 ad iirc and ends in 651 circa. The early part of their lifespan sets in the third and fourth century which neither aoe1 and 2 properly cover until now.
correct. There is no point to have this DLC in AoE2 if you just want to use AoE2 as an “universal” hub, or attract Vietnamese players to AoE2, which imho makes no sense because they are going to play AoE1 anyways. I understand why the Vietnamese prefer AoE1 -even with its shortcomings compared to AoE2-, 'cos it is my favourite game of the series as well, along with AoM, but having them isolated playing a DLC makes no sense, imo.
I’m still not entirely sold on merging the two games. If you read the second part of my comment, I still think that aoe needs some aesthetical focus, being it an ancient or a medieval one. Game mechanics are not everything to a game, if it was you could merge all games of certain series into one. But context is important too.
Still for sure one decisive step in this direction has already been taken with ror, like it or not. If aoe1 de wasn’t made in such an hurry and if it would have attract more people then right now we could have every year an interesting expansion for that game in addition to aoe2 and 3 while keeping the three eras distinct. Even ignoring that aoe1 and 2 gameplay was so similar that one was basically the update of the other.
What’s the difference between Yamato and Japan?
Same location, same people, same culture even the same family ruling over it.
There is no discontinuation, it’s literally the same civilisation just earlier.
Which of the 16 civilisations from AoE1 do you think could also be in AoE2 besides the Western Roman Empire?
Most civilisations are either way to old (Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hatti, Minoans, Phoenicians, Sumerians) or already exist in AoE2 (Persians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese).
It would be very strange if they would add a second Late Antiquity civilisation to AoE2DE that is not even in AoE1.
wtf? AoE3 uses a completely different 3D engine why would you ever want to port it to the inferior AoE2 engine.
I’d rather say port AoE2 to AoE3, that would make a lot more sense.
But that would probably be too similar to AoE4 which is basically a AoE2 remake in 3D.
We only got a month till release now.
In the worst case there will be nothing till a week before release.
You keep checking old news articles for puzzle pieces. They like teasing new DLC like that.
3 Likes
Well until we know I guess we shouldn’t get too excited
1 Like
There was no discontinuation between Augustus and Justinian and they will be two separate civs too.
2 Likes
Yeah. It wouldn’t make much sense. The best you could do is add a new civ to bothh AoE 1 and 2, like the Armenians, Alans or Bactrians for example, but not with the current aoe1 civs (although note that the Assyrians actually exist today, albeit their culture has changed a lot since Antiquity, of course and in the Middle Ages they didnt’t have much power)
These guys can be added with some creative thinking.
You are right but there is a separation between West and Right.
Technically West Rome is not a new civilisation, it’s just split off the Byzantines.
Similar to Poles and Bohemians being Slavs.
So technically not a single civilisation from AoE1 can really be added to AoE2 because it’s either too old or already there.
That would be pretty trivial to compile a long list of civilisations.
Basically everything from around 500AD that is not in either game yet.
Medieval Egyptians are not the same civilisation. It would probably better to call them Misr instead.
3 Likes
I know aoe3 can’t be a part of aoe2 of course. Just joking.
I think maybe they thinking about aoe V and add aoe1 (period) with aoe IV engine, it was just a supposition cause they recreate aoe IV based on period of aoe2…
Or maybe they will add a dlc in aoe IV to add some aoe1 civ later ? I don’t think so.
Problem with this dlc in a separate game is : its aoe2 and not an other game, so if they want add other stuff for aoe1 civs in aoe2, they will create others dlc for dlc ?
1 Like
I think they said something about AoE4 becoming a bigger platform in the future.
So maybe they plan on adding different time periods to AoE4 at some point in the future.
Having them in one game would have some advantages.
- All bug fixes automatically apply to all
- Switching between time periods is super quickly and doesn’t require a game switch
- Same UI, hotkeys etc. make it much easier to switch
- Assets can more easily be shared (like terrain, animals etc.)
- Civilisations from other time periods can be used in campaigns (like Medieval Aztecs vs. Gunpowder Spanish)
But that’s a whole different topic.
1 Like
Name can be anything they would be a split of byzantines or saracens.
Misr is the Arabic name for Cairo and also the country of Egypt.
It is not the name for the ancient Egypt.
So it would make sense for the name of the Mediaval Islamic Egypt.
If there will ever be a Saracenes spilt.
You should take a look at robbylava on YouTube if you haven’t. He makes civs theorycraft for aoe2 and he did Egyptians meant to represent mainly the ayubbids (since he decided to not name civs based on dynasties but ethnicity, in the same way he did lybians as Umayyads).
Indeed people often don’t realise how different is classical Rome from the later one. This new west Rome civ if added would just be the civ between aoe1 Romans and byzantines. I wouldn’t even call it “western Romans” cause I can easily see them having a belisarius campaign if not other ones already mentioned in the west.
Both of these sounds really bad,islamic egypt should be mamlukes and none islamic should be copts.
I’ve been wanting Scythians in AoE2 even if they don’t fit the time period lol
1 Like
Oh come on don’t be so nitpicky ahah
I’ve told something similar to him about Mamelukes in Egypt, I may be wrong but his built was a mix of them (Turks) and Arabic people… I don’t remember well, you can check the video anyway, he gives you historical notes and fonts for his crafts.
Try his channel, you’ll like it, he has a lot of great ideas and he’s an extremely creative person.
We’ve done a Romans built together some months ago and today should come out the vandals one.
I’d see well Scythians and sarmatians as civs in aoe1 even if Romans used to call Scythians every barbaric tribe coming from the pontic steppe and used sarmatians as a catch-all term for central Asia people iirc.
I think the new Roman civ is supposed to be Classical Rome, not Late Antiquity West Rome. The Byzantines already cover them pretty well. There wasn’t a big difference between the West and the East. It was just a mere administrative division, not a true split. It was still the same empire.
The Bohemians, Poles and Slavs (which at this point should be called Ruthenians or Rus’) had many social and militar differences and they were different realms. Not the same thing with the Romans, which were just the same empire, but divided for better managament, like they had done several times in the past. Theodosius’ was just the last division.