The devs have decided to put the Roman civ in AoE2 and they won’t remove it now. Wether you approve it or not, I think this debate can bring nothing positive to the community at this point.
2 Likes
The first point doesnt mean anything. Names are nothing.
And they absolurely can portray the Western Roman Empire. They can portray it just as well as they portray the warly east Roman empire. Because the west and east roman empires were practically identical
Wrong.
1 Like
Teutons-Bohemians? Not this close I admit. But both are HRE in the end.
Not in the period the Lac Viet is representing. They were well enough in AOE2DE.
What I said is literally not wrong. The name “Byzantines” is literally referring to the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire. Despite what you claimed, names are important, and the Byzantines being called the Byzantines means they simply cannot represent the Western Roman Empire. If they did, they would be called “Romans.” But they are not, so they don’t.
2 Likes
Ok, I agree with you on a number of things but calling the Western and Eastern Empires identical is triggering. Not true at all.
1 Like
This is absolutely pointless but Im just saying that I dont like it. In fact I think most of the Euro civs pmdevs have added since DE have been bad choices. Did we need two Frank clone civs representing French subcultures to give people the Dutch, Crusader and Norman civ normies have been asking for decades? Was it even worth it when you couldnt call them Normans, Dutch or Crusaders? Do we nedd a completely made up Pole civ because Lithuanians already represented the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth so well? Did we need a Bohemian civ based on a twenty year period because otherwise the civ would be too similar to Teutons? Do we need Romans when we already have them? Like seriously its tiring at this point
2 Likes
I was hoping they’d change the mechanics of the AoE1 civs to be identical to AoE2, with the units and stuff, because AoE1 has not aged well in the slightest.
I disagree. Names arent ad important as what natiob and culture they represent. Sicilians are a Norman civ, doesnt matter if thry are called Sicilians.
Particularly when you are arguing it based only on a made up term western historian used after Byzantines already fell.
The early ones were the same. Yes, the east Roman empire evolved but thats what happened to all civilization that lived in the midfle ages, they changed. The new Roman civ will represent early East Rome better than East Rome itself because they are the se civilizatuon
1 Like
hey, does the rescale seems right for AOE2? or is it a custom zoom?
1 Like
They had a few in the AoE1 period. Nothing too crazy but they did have a few kingdoms if you go check
Adding the Vietnamese to AoE1 in this expansion is a load of nonsense, but I understand it was for money reasons.
Adding the Romans to base AoE2 was a no-brainer. I would not have bought the expansion if it was simply an extra AoE1 game mode in AoE2. I’m glad people like me who actually like AoE2 for AoE2 and not its much more primitive predecessor are getting something too.
The trailer mentioned new civilizations, but the Lac Viet are the only new one I saw in the trailer. Personally, I would have gone with Nubians or maybe Indians (as in either Harappan or Mauryan).
1 Like
1 Like
Nah it was dumb.
That I agree, but new campaigns for Persians and a Nubian/Vandal civilization would have been better imo
4 Likes
That’s YOUR opinion. They needed to add something to base AoE2 to justify calling it an AoE2 expansion and not just a separate game mode. None of the other civs in AoE1 would remotely qualify for inclusion in AoE2, as they’re either too early or already in the game in a medieval form. The Romans are the only ones that make sense, since they already appear in campaigns.
5 Likes
coughcough* Nubians.
6 Likes