Sure I’m making one myself, but in the case of goths Vs Franks idk you just have better picks I guess and it sounds like trying to ignore Alaric or Theodoric because of not wanting to add Romans.
I guess that’s always been a bit of an issue in both AoE and Civ: because these games pick famous nations across a broad timeframe, there’s some overlap, and Europe and Mesopotamia in particular tend to get a bit stacked. Babylon for example was culturally Sumerian, Assyrian and Persian at various points, as well as becoming an empire in its own right, and all of those factions are in AoE1.
1 Like
Overlap? sure. You have Huns and Bohemians in the same game, but adding Romans in AoE2 is more than an overlap. The Byzantines are already the Romans. The Byzantines never actually called themselves the Byzantines, they called themselves Romans, and they were Romans, they had an uninterrupted line of succession from Augustus. The Byzantines were the “Medieval Romans” not “Eastern Romans”. So having ancient Rome (even 4th cenutry) and medieval Rome in the same game is like having the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey in the same game as 2 different civs. Or Napoleonic France and the French Republic.
Not to mention, what about the successors of Rome that are already in the game? Portugal, Spain, France and Italy. This is not an issue that the Huns or the Goths have.
We stopped moving horizontally to search for new civs, and started moving vertically, having ancient romans and medieval romans in the same game as 2 different civs.
2 Likes
how steep is considered steep?
I don’t see the problem in it and I don’t see how it’s different for goths and Spanish. I would not be against a vertical division of franks for example instead of having throwing axemen in Joan of arc you know …
We’ll, it’s kind of similar, as Franks gave rise to East Francia and West Francia, Teutons and French.
I would like to know if the Romans in game represent the unified Empire or the Western Empire. If it’s the unified Empire then there should also be a Western Empire
My opinion is byzantines split so not confined to western Rome even if more western focus than them. Byzantines being from VII century on. But I don’t know what Devs had planned.
I think they should change the civ name from Romans to West Romans and Byzantines to East Romans since most people I think are mistaking that the devs would add Ancient Romans to AoE 2 (which would be immersion breaking indeed). Personally, I have no problem with Romans added to the game, it’s just that Romans feels like what Byzantines is supposed to be for me, but given how many people think Byzantines are fine as it is, this is their solution.
1 Like
I see what you mean but that’s up to them. It’s obvious that Romans in aoe2 are not classical Romans, that would be out of place. It’s true people seem to not be able to split between the two but that’s their bad.
I’m against west Vs eastern rename because that’s not the point of having Romans and byzantines in the same game, at least for me. Byzantines were Romans until more or less the VII century so it’s a time split more than a geographical one.
75% off before bundle discount. Probably going to get them at the earliest in 3-4 years.
1 Like
Huns and Goths have a history that continues into the middle ages, especially goths.
While Romans are clearly bound to the ancient world since the majority of serious historians tell you that the downfall of rome in 476 started a completely new era, thats why the first age in aoe 2 is the dark age (all the civilized achievements of rome are gone now).
Its just not logical for an even mildly historically interested person to accept a roman civ starting in dark age advancing to the castle age and engage against teutons, italians, turks, bohemians etc a lot of these civs exist due to the absence of rome.
A roman civ is simply unfitting in the whole narrative of the game (see age of kings) and everyone senses it, it is just a way to monetize on the game and its player base in a quite unimaginative way.
1 Like
I don’t know why are you angry that much, I am against even adding civs like Huns & Goths not only Romans.
But with all due respect, if they said it will not be in ranked so no issue for me actually, so I don’t know what it is the problem. For me as long as they stay away from ranked it is fine which is a very repectful and good decision to exclude them from Ranked Games.
Are you aware that Aoe2 Rome will just be a fun mod civ, basically? You can’t play Huns or Portuguese vs Rome on ladder, it will be exclusive for single player and unranked multiplayer games only.
One big question mark is that the Trojan campaign says the Dataset is “Official AoEII DE”
Some possibilities:
- The campaign is actually an AoE2 campaign with AoE2 civilisations
- AoE1 and AoE2 mode share the same Dataset somehow (that doesn’t mean crossplay)
- It’s just display is just wrong and it will automatically switch to the AoE1 Dataset
3 Likes
Wish they don’t remove the bundle offer once pre-purchase is expired.
1 Like
And then Ensemble made Conquerors and decided to add the Huns and give them the Attila campaign that takes place just before the Fall of Rome. That extended AoE 2’s time line to feature late antiquity.
2 Likes
And then Forgotten added the Alaric Campaign which is even earlier, but people want their “historical accurate” game where their Chinese-Mali alliance can fight Aztec-Vikings
11 Likes
The problem is thar the ammount of civs the game can get are limited, and adding this kind of subfactions is a waste
Huns = Magyars/Bulgarians. Ensemble at one point thought of calling them Magyars but later re-introduced as a new civ in FE.
To my knowledge there was indeed a civ limit coded into the game but this limit is not the case anymore.
5 Likes