I don’t see why not unless there’s a technical limitation. I also don’t see why there has to be a certain number of civs after which the game ends. It sounds completely arbitrary and not good for the game. If you don’t add stuff the game dies and do not attract players anymore… Are we not here because of waiting for a dlc?
It’s like asking for designers to stop making custom campaigns because there’s enough. Or to stop writing new books because nah they’re already enough lol
It’s not that I want, it’s just that I don’t see the point in having aoe2 Romans stuck in the 5th century ad while late Romans were a bigger and wider civ. And it’s harder for aoe1 to cover the same time period cause as I said they don’t have civs representing Germans and there was nothing classical anymore by the time of Adrianople about Romans (you’d need byzantines and goths in aoe1 to represent them in that battle).
Also I made the Adrianople battle, check it people and tell me what you think ahah shameless self ad…
I read that at one point the original Devs of aoe2 back in 1999 thought of adding the hasburgs as a civ. I guess what they meant was to represent Austria (?)
Byzantines are not an ethnicity for what I know, neither were Romans. You could say they represent Greeks in middle ages but if you don’t like dynastic names then you should call them Greeks, Hellenes or romaioi maybe instead of byzantines which is more a concept than a group of people.
If you don’t like dynasty names you can find a workaround like calling umayyads Syrians (I don’t personally like it but it’s just my taste) and for Spanish I’m pretty sure you can do the same instead of using crowns.
If you break Italians you don’t find dynasties but cultures like Venetians or Sardinians which are way more apt for a medieval game. Italians is a modern concept.
Same with Teutons, if you break them you find Bavarians, Swabians etc that are people which originated at the time of barbarian migrations just like Burgundians.
if this DLC (rome return) is a separate age2 DLC, type a separate tab within the main menu containing all of Age 1 (and its civilizations and technologies separate from age2). I would really like to add rams as a siege unit, as they also ancient civilizations already had access to this technology (unit), I believe, even more than elephants.
Theres not an infinite ammount of bonuses we can use and in both the long and short term I think the devs should fpcus in represemting the less represented regions in the world instead of adding factions splitting current civs
Particularly when the west Romans are so short lasting they shouldnt be a priority
I meant that it would be more common rams (units) than elephants (units) for civilizations in antiquity. because I believe that not all civilizations used elephants in war.
They don’t have these civs yet…and in the case of Adrianople being classical,it only 5 years later that the last “Imperium Romanum” mission,“Coming of the Huns”…
This is not a good representation of most peoples’ qualms with a(nother) Roman civ. Very, very few people seem to object to it on the basis of not wanting more civs added to the game. Most of us would just rather have civs from other (usually non-European) regions that aren’t already covered under existing civs or umbrellas. When the DLC comes out, I’ll buy it to support the game, not because I’m particularly interested in the AoE1 port or a new Roman civ. I’m very much a fan of what I’d call traditional DLC content (new Medieval civs), and I hope the devs focus more effort there in the future than they have on their peculiar recent adventures.
Yeah,in fact they called themselves simple “Romans”…the term Byzantines is from the eighteen century for diferenciate them from the classic “Romans”…in wikipedia you see the two dates for the end of the parts of the Roman Empire:Western Roman Empire (476 CE) and Eastern Roman Empire (1453 CE)…between them is we call the Medieval period…
Yamato and Japanese isnt the same things, as roman and italian and roman and byzantin isn’t, as Xia, Shang, Zhou, chinese isnt too.
If they add Roaman, why not Yamato ? True…
Its just because Roman is popualr and its easy to have civ already existing with some little update. (byzantin stuff, infantery special bonnuses, legionary special units) and you have romans (probably)
I know its subjective, its the same thing and finally isn’t if we consider time periods etc.
And yamato have really nothing to do in aoe1, he can’t still fight in time periods all civ in aoe1 except one or two…
Well well, I don’t think this dream come true but if they think about Yamato (I can dream a long time).
why would dlc attract vietnamese player when they already have the free aoe1 in their country? if they dont bother with aoe de they wont bother with aoe de in aoe2 game either
The reason for me is simple.
Microsoft wants money. They are not very interested in selling to current AoE2 players. They want to sell to more people and for that they need to attract a new community…
They want to sell to NEW players. It is said that there is a large Vietnamese community that plays AoE1. Logically, if it manages to win the hearts of the Vietnamese, they will be selling to many more players who will now be New consumers, thus increasing the player base.
I believe that the Vietnamese have some interest in playing for something new and improved…you just have to get in their good graces.
Unfortunately for AoE2 players, it might mean that this AoE1 isn’t much of a deal, as we’d like to see a lot more new units and more upgrades for each civilization, something that’s closer to AoE2. Something that apparently won’t be. This suggests that they will try for the SECOND time, to win the hearts of the Vietnamese… However, I have no idea if they will succeed.
Take a look at robbylava channel on YouTube and then tell me there’s not a lot of bonuses still to be invented lol. He did 20 civs and any of them feels very unique and even better than some existing aoe2 civs. You don’t take bonuses, you invent them, there’s not a limited set of that, it’s called creativity.
Compared to him I’m a little more “conservative” while he really likes to make wacky designs but everything is very grounded to the civ history. Reality is that I’m just bad at imagining bonuses lol but it would not be fair to say that there are little bonuses to come up with.
It almost looks like people want to put limits to imagination, in a game they love… Why? I genuinely don’t understand it.
Indeed in that scenario you see hoplites fighting a Japanese civ that should represent Huns lol is this how you’d like to depict Adrianople? Goths represented by idk Greeks fighting with famous gothic hoplites at Adrianople against classical looking Romans? Wasn’t that the thermophiles instead? Aoe1 just don’t represent late antiquity aside from one single civ arguably, the palmyrians. (Which by the way were not a ethnicity but just a rebelling kingdom lasting more or less a decade but the Devs seem to have not been stopped by thinking they were useless… Thanks God!)
I agree but calling byzantines Romans is like calling an apple a fruit. It’s true for sure but it’s just so vague it become meaningless. The point of words is to fence categories, if a category encompass everything from Romulus to Constantine XI is not very useful to understand what a civ or culture is about. What I’m saying is that classical Romans had virtually nothing in common with the paleologos if not in name.
Yeah byzantines is a pejorative term invented during illuminism because they loved to think of an universal multiethnic empire like Rome who conquered the world and they loved to think, that even if in constant decay, it lasted all the way till 1453. But if you look closely you see how not all grain of sands are identical even if you still call them a desert (this quote is from my upcoming custom Berber campaign ahah).
I completely agree, on top I have America, specially south America, and Africa. I’d be excited if after this dlc a proper one from one of those areas would be announced for the end of the year.
I’m also very curious to see Caucasus represented in game even if it’s more or less Europe again.
It’s just that I love late antiquity and on top of all I’d like for it to have some kind of representation in aoe2. Just having Huns and Goths feels bad, not even a campaign for Persians… And Bari is later. I’d like to have a dlc with vandals, Lombards and other main Germanic civs.
If you’re sensitive to underrepresented areas like America and Africa in aoe2 you’ll surely have noticed that before 1000 ad you only have like 4 campaigns! 4! The ones I said plus Tariq. And only 4 or 5 battle scenarios ahah. Isn’t middle ages before 1000? So I really hope this new Roman civ create a premise in the game to finally cover dark ages history properly.
Indeed, the world and history are so complex and varied you naturally love to give a game you like a similar variety so I wouldn’t put too many limits in that sense.
There are people arguing for Oceania or north America in aoe2 and I’m still not sure of the latter but a Polynesian design from Robby convinced me about the former, it just sound very different and intriguing.
Anyway I’m open to people changing my mind with arguments and ideas!
Sure I’m not an expert but some of those wacky designs have been tested and they seem to work pretty well. The Rome at war mod with many new ship types I saw on a spirit of the law video was amazing, makes the original game pale in comparison at how complex water battles could be. And I was amazed by how much I could do with just basic condition/effect triggers in scenario editor even without being that competent in the field. I think this game has more potential than what we would give it credit for!
Sounds very interesting, I’ll try it! No problem with self promotion, I do it all the time ahah it takes a lot to design custom campaigns, it’s only natural wanting to know what players think of it at least.
I can’t tell you.
Probably having a time period selection in the main menu or the multiplayer lobby.
But who knows that they actually plan on doing.
We don’t even know how RoR will work yet.
As someone who is interested in history it makes more sense to focus on all the empty sport on the map.
But I think the history interested people are like those who would buy any DLC anyway. I don’t think there are a relevant number of people that boycott a DLC because they added some more mainstream civilisation instead of the cool unique missing one.
On the other hand there are probably a lot more people that you can get to buy the DLC, or even get interested in the whole game, when you make a DLC for something big an popular like Rome or splitting up China.
Yamato does have to do with AoE 1, as it is a late-antique civ (250-750 CE)…
Good point, but as with AoE2, they can put civs in AoE 1 to represent the civs properly…
I very much agree with it…we need new campaigns that represent the dark ages (500-1000): Belisarius and the restauratio imperii (6th century) (527-565), Pakal the Great or Lady Six Sky in Yucatan (7th and 8th centuries) (613-741), Charlemagne (8th and 9th centuries) (747-814) and Harald Hardrada (11th century) (1030-1066)…
Yes, but since dividing China is controversial, they went for the easiest thing, which is to port AoE 1 DE to AoE 2 DE and have both games in the same game-engine…