Last time the Roman Empire was unified was in 395. This would mean that the start of the timeline would be even earlier than Battle of the Frigidus
I suppose that was the point that StoreyedPlate was trying to make. AoE1 Yamato=AoE2 Japanese (=AoE3 Japanese)
AoE1 Choson=AoE2 Koreans
AoE1 Persians=AoE2 Persians
AoE1 Romans=AoE2 Byzantines (=My kingdom for a Greek rev in AoE3)
Its going to be late western rome not classical rome. One of the patch update was that current scenario and campaign unit legionary got new extra attack animations and that legionary does not look classical or early imperial legionary. Only reason to give that unit new attack animations is it’s becoming new Western Rome unique unit.
Western rome was more and less similar to early Byzantine civ if we are talking about army setup, but later Byzantine army was far different. Also I am pretty sure that Eastern Rome might have been even more cavalry focused than Western Rome. Classical Rome was more infantry focused army but late Roman Empire become more cavalry focused since old tactics were not good enough vs all kind of huge cavalry focused armies such has different steppe people.
Also the WRE was more dependent on foederati units and barbarian origin generals. Interesting dynamics as they were more vulnerable across a Rhine-Danube border, the British Isles from across the North Sea and later even from the Mediterranean when the Vandals took Africa…
Well. All civs changed over time. They usually had change their tactics with new technologies and rivals and the Byzantines were no exception. During the Pax Romana, they had full control on the Mediterranean, so they didnt’t need warships, but during the Middle Ages they had to fight new powers, especiallythe Arabs, that made them build one of the largest navies in the world to fight them.
And sincerely, I think having a “Roman” civ ONLY representing Western Rome is even worse than one for Classical Rome. First, the Byzantines already cover that and second, and even worse, it sort of implies the Byzantines weren’t Romans.
no idea, wasnt WRE going to be one of the civ? I don’t know history enough to know the rest of them but surely I hope to see more than just 1 civ in this DLC for AOE2’s side
We don’t officially know anything.
I don’t think we will get a full size (2 civilisations) AoE2DE DLC at a normal price that has the complete game of AoE1 also added on top for free basically.
Maybe the DLC is just AoE1 and West Rome is a free civilisation for everyone but there is no other AoE2DE content other then updates to all the campaigns featuring West Rome.
True, but I think the two are difficult to separate, because different styles require different techniques. For instance, an understanding of anatomy is super important if you’re sculpting realistic statues of humans, but pretty much irrelevant if you’re creating illuminated manuscripts. Conversely, an understanding of composition and page layout is important for illumination but not at all for sculpting statues.
I think something similar is true for any era (although gradually less so from the late 19th century onwards). One needs a lot of free time to become good at anything artistic, and in most eras that means one either needs to be rich or have a good source of funding. Thus the rich people control what kinds of art are produced – and during the middle ages, “rich people” mostly meant churchmen.
Well that shows what I know! Thanks, I find that both interesting and surprising.
Oh dear… Releasing unfinished games is pretty standard nowadays, but back in 2011, probably not so much.
Thanks for pointing that out. For anyone looking for civs with civ-specific units, buildings, techs, and gameplay mechanics, then AoEO’s civs are the best in the franchise. I’ve played AoEO for 10 years and helped develop the Romans for AoEO, so I am very excited to see how that civ is represented in AoE2.
The Notitia Dignatum does show plenty of comitatens units in the West
######## the West had like a little less than one third of the cataphract personel
The Eastern Empire did have some foederati units even after 476. They weren’t that much because they had a better treasury
Oh no I disagree, classical Rome and late antiquity one were so profoundly different and the fact we have aoe1 without barbarians and aoe2 with them just calls for it even more in the latter.
True that the division like all divisions is a line draw on a map but you’re completely ignoring geography and cultural background of entire regions. The line is not the point, that’s a formality, the point is the material culture and if there was no difference why one part survived and the other not?
But I agree that the division, at least to me, it’s not geographical as it is temporal. The Roman army after gallienus and even more after Constantine had nothing to do with classical Romans, then paganism Vs Christianity and many other differences that are just too big to ignore. There was virtually nothing in common between the Roman Republic or Augustus empire and IV century Rome or Constantinople, ideologically and politically.
If they add Romans to aoe2 is meant to represent the dominatus era (even Wikipedia indicates it from 284 ad to 640 ignoring the geographical division and the fall of west in the meanwhile but you could extend it further) that was a period in which late Romans and early byzantines tendencies coexisted for a while and I completely disagree that aoe2 byzantines already do a good job at representing this. If it was the case then I’d totally be against an aoe2 Roman civ.
Aoe1 Romans are classical Rome (till the end of pax romana in 3rd century but you can go further stretching it like they did with palmyrians even if the empire was already very far from anything “classical” by then) and aoe2 byzantines are not Romans in any way, they represent them at the very least after the byzantines dark ages (7th century, where much of the passage from Romans to byzantines was consumed) but mostly in high middle ages where they were reduced to a regional power by Muslims and Slavs, Christianity was the only religion etc (nothing Roman anymore).
I challenge you to indicate me a bonus in the current byzantine civ that points at their early incarnation, aside maybe from the high hp buildings that you could link to Theodosian walls. The first use of Greek fire was against the Arabs, no legionary, cataphracts make sense even if quite generic for a unit that should be unique… I see them better representing the komnenos than Justinian.
They could have just reworked byzantines to include the earlier period maybe but when you have Attila and Alaric why not have the civ they were fighting against decently represented? Given it’s not like a niche civ, I mean it’s the whole reason for this game lol so why having renamed byzantines portraying Rome in 6 scenarios when there’s such an occasion?
Byzantines weren’t Romans if by Romans you imagine classical Rome (aoe1), not even by chance. Romans were not Romans anymore in that sense even during Constantine’s reign lol. That’s why you need late Romans, also given the fact neither aoe1 nor 2 is covering that period.
Romans have never been an ethnicity as much as they were a concept that was very typically classical/Hellenic, after the end of the classical period (which is not 476 but way before) Rome was another thing completely, it was Christian Rome. Romans in aoe2 could have been byzantines in aoe1, they’re just called like that to differentiate them from the other civ in the game. They choose aoe2 because Huns and Goths are in aoe2 already and that would be a better fit. But history (and these games timeframe) is cut in a way that sort of cut them in half. 476 is a perfect formality for school teaching but it’s not a good way to understand what Roman culture went through that period, there are better dates to separate the two, both earlier and later, and a Roman civ in aoe2 represent the In-between (let’s say from Diocletian to Islam).
Yeah, true. But you realise that almost every civ in the game has the same problems, right? They are usually based on a particular point of History. For example, see how the Spanish use gunpowder in El Cid campaign.
Should add another civ to cover 11th Century Castille?
I usually try to not imagine anything, otherwise biases would get in the way of reason.
Byzantines were Romans. There was never any kind of abrupt change in their culture or regime, it was a smooth transition (like in many civilizations), unlike the Persians for them example.
By the way, 5th Century Persians were completely differente from those of the 16 th Century. The game civ is clearly based on the former, should we add another Persian civ for the later Safavid Dynasty. And what do you say about the Chinese, where is our Tang, Ming and the other dynasties? Should we add them? The all had different cultures and militaries.
Or the Goths, which are based on Late Antiquity. However, the are present in the Berber campaign as the Visigoths, which were already extremely different. Should we also add a Visigoth civ?
If we go this path, it will never end.
I don’t really understand your aggressiveness considering we basically agree on this. I was trying to shed to some light in such a common misconception (that Rome ended in 476 and the Byzantines can’t be considered Romans because of that)
Yes, but I mean for both AoE 1 and AoE 2…
Exactly…
Different engine, but who knows?..
Because AoE 2 starts in 394 and Dioclesian did not divide the Roman Empire, it was Theodosius… Dioclesian created the Tetrarchy in 293, which although it ended the crisis of the third century, ended up dissolving when Constantine unified the entire Roman Empire again in 324, then in 330 he founded Constantinople and in 395 with Theodosius there was the definitive division into Western and Eastern Empire (the Byzantines go)…I consider that everything prior to the division of Theodosius should only go in AoE 1…
Almost none, the idea would be to put civs of AoE 2 in AoE 1 and not vice versa…
I think they will set AoE 5 in the twentieth century, since by then they will already be developing DoW 4 and both games would not compete with each other …
Maybe?
It would be nice…
Yes, although I think that if it is Western Rome, I think it will be a campaign of The Last Romans (Aetius, Majorian, AEgidius) (425-463)
The Scythians would be the Slavs in AoE 2, the Scythians would be better off in AoE 1…
As it was leaked, the civ of Rome itself would be the Western Rome of late antiquity, since classical Rome is in AoE 1…
Yes, that’s why the western Roman civ would start there…in AoE 1 you have classical Rome (753 BC-395 AD) and in AoE 2 Western Rome (395-476)…
Of course, although the Greek rev is already as a Phanariote ability…
Yes, I wouldn’t have said it better…
Yes, that’s what happens when you join two historical periods…Contradictions are generated between the different civs… Also if you want, you can count the Byzantines from also 395…
Of course, I think the same… Although a campaign for Western Rome wouldn’t be bad either… But I’ll still buy the DLC…
Yes, here explains how the whole thing was…
Yes, that is, I simply use it as an example since it uses the same historical period of AoE 1…
Good point…
That’s where AoE 3 comes in, since the Safavid Dynasty was one of the gunpowder empires along with the Ottomans and the Mughals…also the Safavids lasted until the late eighteenth century, would be a bit anachronistic for AoE 2…
Yes, it’s quite a topic…
Yes, perhaps the Romans could be considered proto-Byzantines…or at least different from the Byzantines we know and the Italians of the game…
Just leaving this here to see if any inspiration was drawn from it for the (Western?) Romans civ:
Exactly you nailed it. Having el Cid to portray Spanish don’t make sense at all, Spanish didn’t exist back then and they’re a modern nation. I could argue that it’s a mistake to call a Spanish civ in middle ages “Spanish”, it would be better to break it and have Aragon, Castile etc. In that way you could probably give el Cid campaign to a more fitting civ (not training conqs in 1000 ad) and having another Spanish faction called in another way to have a more late medieval, early modern focus (Isabel for the castillans or Pizarro and co).
I think Persians could be split as well. Current ones are Sassanids but safavids make perfect sense. Also because Persians right now are quite an outdated civ that needs a rework like Celts etc.
About Chinese idk I’m very ignorant about their history but for sure they could be diversified. I’ve seen a very good built based on jurchens by robbylava and he said further splits are totally needed for Chinese.
For Goths I don’t think you have much space for a split and this comes from a late antiquity enthusiast. In which way would Visigoth be different from Ostrogoths? I couldn’t point a single distinction tbh. But maybe I lack imagination or historical knowledge, the same guy of the jurchens said he’d like to split Goths. I’d personally focus on vandals, Alans, hepthalithes, gokturks, Saxons and other late antiquity civs before goths. And most of all Lombards! How is possible to still not have them in aoe2 is such a mystery to me…
Ahah i didn’t want to come off aggressive, I’m totally calm, just discussing. I’m sorry, what did I say that made you think I was being aggressive?
We agree that 476 is not that important but I don’t totally agree to call byzantines Romans, even if it’s becoming more and more accepted. I’m not against it, it makes some sense but it’s too vague… Is the holy Roman empire Roman? Nah it’s just a formality, with byzantines is just a tradition but if you look at history as I already said to me not even Constantine was properly Roman anymore, in the classical sense of the word. If you’re son of a physician that doesn’t make you a physician, specially when it comes to being Roman which it’s hardly an ethnonim and rather an abstract concept which was culturally grounded in classicity, paganism and Hellenism. With Christianity becoming a reality Romans started to lose their identity, it survived for a while at the point you can speak of medieval Romans without being silly (early byzantines if you want but early Germanic kingdoms too were full of culturally Roman people) and that’s indeed my point: medieval Romans are aoe2 Romans who are not byzantines but remaining Romans in both western and eastern world after the rise of Christianity. You can find Roman generals as late as 7th century, for example a certain flavius Paulus in Visigothic Spain, since you spoke about them, that rebelled the gothic king.
Theodosius diving “definitely” the empire is a historiographical invention like 476. Even less significant than that I’d say since Theodosius couldn’t know that his division was gonna be the last (well he could suspect given how things were going lol).
The empire was being divided officially since the times of Diocletian (and even before unofficially during all the 3rd century crisis) from time to time, Constantine reunited it but then it was divided again by his sons, then reunited again by constans, then divided with Julian, then reunited, then divided by valentinian and then reunited by Theodosius. Technically when Romulus was overthrown the empire was reunited again since odovacer was formally a viceroy of eastern emperor Zeno. The same with Theodoric until the gothic war.
So there’s no such thing as a “definitive division” if not as an historiographical convention.
My take is that Constantine or Diocletian are the best bet to start aoe2.
The early kingdom of Rome was hardly “classical” since Greece was not classical yet… It was still iron age.
Classical Rome is roughly from the republican era (500 BC) to the end of Hellenic kingdoms, the last one being Egypt with the battle of Actium (31 BC) and by inertia the early Roman empire, what historians call the principate period, which officially lasted until Diocletian (even if in reality the empire was in decline and in the process of becoming an absolute monarchy since Commodus).
But by the time of Diocletian Rome had very little “classical” remains, indeed Constantine just adopted Christianity like an acknowledgement that times have changed and paganism was in ideological crisis and outdated. To me this is the best place to start a medieval game unless aoe1 already covered well the 4th century which it’s not the case.
Yes, that is, if you want to take it that way, well, okay, the devs can stretch the chronology of AoE 2 a hundred years more, until 284 but the crisis of the third century, has to remain AoE 1 yes or yes … I doubt that they stretch it so far back, but if they could do it it could be done…
They could make historical battles that fill the gaps that are in AoE 1, example Adrianopolis in 378…and then the campaign of “The Good Emperors” against the Goths in the second century, also the foundation of Israel in 900 BC…and the foundation of Aksum in the fourth century CE and a long etcetera…we should make a post about possible historical battles for AoE 1 for the next dlc…
But we cant add all these civilizations while still tryinf to have a wider representation of the medieval world. The design space of AoE2 is limited, we cant have civs for all major Chinese dynasties or all major Iberian kingdoms.
105% agree
I wouldn’t personally like spliting Spanish but I get the point, like splitting Italians or the Teutons (which I also wouldn’t like) but the game has never been about dynasties.
I didn’t understand what you meant…
Could AoE4 have a DLC with civilizations from the “ancient age” in the future? Example: Romans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Gauls ?
Dividing the game into periods, like what is being done in AoE2?