Rom Pantheon Concept

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
22

Thank you for your kind and constructive words, which contribute a great deal to the conversation. I take it as a compliment that you think my mind can function like a supercomputer.

The Roman Pantheon fits Age of Mythology: Retold extremely well both historically and gameplay-wise, because hardly any ancient civilization combines so many aspects at once:

  • real historical military evolution

  • enormous cultural influence

  • iconic architecture

  • a well-known pantheon of gods

  • imperial symbolism

  • monumental warfare

  • and centuries of development

Rome offers something no other AoM culture truly has:
a complete evolutionary military fantasy from the Republic to Late Antiquity.

Historically, the pantheon works especially well because of:

  • Legions

  • the Testudo formation

  • siege warfare

  • roads

  • aqueducts

  • organized armies

  • massive cities

  • imperial expansion

  • the East/West split

  • late Roman reforms

  • Byzantine development

This provides an enormous amount of material for:

  • visual upgrades

  • gameplay systems

  • different Age evolutions

  • unique architecture

  • new mechanics

Mythologically, Rome also fits perfectly because the Romans:

  • adapted Greek mythology

  • had their own gods

  • integrated local cults

  • absorbed foreign religions

  • created gigantic symbolic worlds

Because of this, a Roman pantheon can credibly combine:

  • classical mythology

  • imperial fantasy

  • living constructs

  • underworld themes

  • war gods

  • spirits

  • monumental creatures

Gameplay-wise, Rome would probably become one of the most unique pantheons in the entire game:

  • infrastructure-based Favor system

  • roads and aqueducts

  • early trade-focused gameplay

  • infantry and siege specialization

  • slow but powerful scaling

  • historical military upgrade evolution

  • Age 4 Empire split

This makes them feel completely different from:

  • Greeks

  • Norse

  • Egyptians

  • Atlanteans

  • Chinese

instead of simply being another variation of them.

Another major point is that Rome’s military superiority, organization, and discipline would be perfectly represented through the Hero Units and their aura systems. Instead of relying on single overpowered heroes, Roman heroes would strengthen entire formations:

  • defensive discipline through Centurios

  • regeneration and morale through Signifers

  • cavalry coordination through the Auxiliary Cavalry Commander

  • imperial command structures through Strategos Imperialis and Legatus Aeternum

That makes the Roman army feel like a coordinated imperial war machine rather than a collection of individual fighters. Historically, that matches Roman military identity extremely well.

And on top of that:
Rome is probably the most recognizable ancient civilization in the world. Many players already know:

  • Legionaries

  • the Colosseum

  • Caesar

  • Gladiators

  • Aqueducts

  • the Testudo

  • Byzantines

  • Roman Eagles

even without deep historical knowledge.

That is why Rome works almost perfectly at the same time:

  • historically

  • visually

  • mythologically

  • gameplay-wise

  • and even from a marketing perspective

as a new AoM pantheon.

23

Again, you’re using AI instead of your brain. I truly mean no offense, but you clearly can’t argue with us and therefore, you rely on ChatGPT to do it for you.

Also, I don’t see the point you’re trying to make. Nobody on this thread said they didn’t want to see the Romans in the game. But I’ll give you that, I appreciate that you’re on the ‘‘We want Romans team’’. Your concept however, isn’t what the game needs. That’s all.

24

Please stop making accusations without evidence; we cannot have a normal conversation this way. The only tool I use is Google Translate, as English is not my native language. You claim the game doesn’t need this addition; in my view, however, it would be a bold move that could significantly expand the game. The Pantheon concept possesses all the fundamental elements: three major gods, nine minor gods, and—above all—new mechanics that give the Pantheon a distinct feel—precisely what one hopes for from a new pantheon. These new mechanics would perfectly capture the essence of an empire.

At least you, too, are a lover of Rome—Glory to the Emperor!

25

Atlantis was originally more of a philosophical tale. And from that, an entire civilization was developed within this game. Most people love this fantasy nation—myself included.

So you’re saying that, even though most people love the Jaguar Rider, it’s a bad expansion for the game?

I cannot agree with that.

And your last question, my point with that ? That would be the optimal implementation.

26

Absolutely not. I said I didn’t like this single unit, not the whole expansion. Your excessive use of fallacies demonstrates a blatant lack of argumentative abilites and I have no envy to discuss any further with you.

27

There was talk of a single entity; yet you—specifically you—are now interpreting it differently, claiming that the statement refers to the entire pantheon. That statement referred solely to the Jaguar Rider.

28

As mentioned in another comment, I believe that the Pantheon system could achieve great success—primarily due to its potential for historical military accuracy. Every fan of Rome has a specific image of the Roman army in their mind—just look at Rome: Total War. Each era has received its own dedicated DLC or standalone game. You could attract practically every “Rome nerd” to this game if they knew they were getting a version of Rome that features their favorite historical era. In terms of gameplay, this represents a new mechanic that would fit the game perfectly. Why would anyone leave out such a crucial historical aspect? It surprises me, especially since so many people here are constantly demanding historical accuracy.

Regarding the campaign itself, I can’t give you any specific details, but after seeing the recent campaign DLCs, I have complete faith in the developers.

Why would the “Empire Split” present a problem for the campaign? LOL? Yes, all nations are technically “free,” but a Roman campaign without any conquests would be pretty boring, in my opinion. Towards the end, for instance, you could have your character undergo a change of heart and liberate the other Pantheons—though I’m just spitballing ideas here. At the very least, this approach would allow for the inclusion of all the Pantheons within this single campaign. The campaigns are essentially pure fantasy anyway, so the developers have plenty of creative leeway to come up with something clever.

So no—I definitely don’t think there will be any issues with the campaign if, in Age 4, players are given the option to pursue an “Imperial Path” alongside the “Demigod Path,” just as is historically attested.

29

People talking about the TMNT unit, but nothing about giving the Leviathan to a non-Canaanite civ? Again?
Also what would be the god options?

30

It is definitely true that the Egyptians still have many very interesting mythological units, and with a bit of luck, we will get to see many more of them. However, the very first unit I encountered in the game was the Anubite. Back then, it was what made me fall in love with the original Age of Mythology. I honestly don’t know if I would have become so hooked on AoM without that specific unit. For that reason, I’m actually grateful for this cool unit, as its inclusion means there are now even more potential units left to explore.

Ultimately, you can never please everyone. You object to the invented units, whereas I feel they make the game even more interesting. Most of the hardcore Egyptian players I know absolutely love their mythological units. The Petsuchos? A laser-firing crocodile? That is just so cool.

And as for the Atlanteans, I can only reiterate: thank goodness this fantasy civilization was developed—I absolutely love them!

Finally, I have to address one last point: you claim that the developers’ choices back then constituted poor design and decision-making, but I simply cannot agree. Those very decisions are what led to the Age of Mythology we have—and love—today.

31

Most made up units are based on something tangible, and they’re still unpopular. In the case of Jaguar Riders, at least Aztecs knew of jaguars. Your made up units all seem to be either made up for the sake of making something up, or copies of pre-existing units (Satyrs already exist in the game, and so do Leviathans, who don’t belong with Egypt either). It’s also weird that most of said myth units have riders (or regular humans with magic weapons, which at best would make them heroes, if we’re following older civs’ logic).

1 Like
32

Christianity was gradually adopted within the Roman Empire—a process driven primarily by two emperors: Constantine the Great and Theodosius I. In 380 AD, with the Edict of Thessalonica, Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Consequently, the Leviathan slowly faded into myth in Rome. However, as was their custom with all myths adopted from other cultures, the Romans altered the borrowed concept slightly. In Roman depictions—some sculptures even featuring tentacles—the Leviathan is portrayed as a far more chaotic entity.

This entity would not be ascribed to any specific deity, as it represents the mythical aquatic force of the Fourth Age—a concept fittingly aligned with Rome’s final era, during which, through Christianization, the populace began to place their faith in it.

33

I don’t think Christianity is relevant to this specific game (and I personally don’t want it in a game about polytheistic religions). That also doesn’t address the problem of repetitive myth units.

1 Like
34

Satyrs—both Greek and Roman—are quite similar, yet a few distinctions exist due to the Roman adaptation of Greek mythology.

The Romans adopted the concept of satyrs primarily from Greek mythology, though they partially blended them with their own indigenous nature and forest spirits, such as:

Faunus
the Fauns

Greek Satyrs:

wilder
more chaotic
often depicted as uglier
strongly associated with Dionysus
possessing an animalistic nature
often featuring equine or caprine (goat-like) traits

Roman Fauns/Satyrs:

somewhat calmer and more attuned to nature
more distinctly spirits of the forest and shepherds
often depicted as less monstrous
romanticized in Roman art
greater focus on nature and fertility

Over time, however, these distinctions blurred significantly—particularly in late Roman art and literature.

The Roman Satyr (often also referred to as a Faun), as well as the Leviathan, were chosen deliberately, as they perfectly exemplify Rome’s cultural and mythological evolution.
The Roman Empire adopted and adapted a vast number of myths, deities, and religious concepts from other cultures. This practice was characteristic of Rome—a fact illustrated most notably through the inclusion of the aforementioned units.

The Romans were highly “inclusive” in their religious outlook, frequently integrating foreign deities into their own pantheon.

The fact that Rome features numerous mounted and mobile mythical units makes a great deal of sense, given that the majority of the Roman army’s cavalry consisted of mercenaries.

The Roman army was renowned primarily for its: legionaries, siege warfare capabilities, discipline, and military organization.
Due to the sheer vastness of the Empire, the Romans constantly utilized auxiliary troops and mercenaries drawn from foreign regions:
Gauls, Germanic tribes, Numidians, Thracians, Syrians, various Eastern equestrian peoples, and—in later periods—even Gothic or Hunnic contingents.

Consequently, a diverse array of mounted mythical units fits very naturally into the context of Rome. They can represent foreign warriors, creatures, and combat styles that have become integral parts of the Imperial war machine. This gives the game’s pantheon a distinct identity—not merely a collection of “Roman soldiers,” but a vast empire that channels the strength, creatures, and fighting styles of many cultures into a single, organized army.

Much like the Aztec Jaguar Rider or the Atlantean Nereid, I would not elevate the aforementioned units to the status of “heroes,” as you suggested.

Every unit is based—either directly or indirectly—on one, or more often several, historical Roman precedents and connections. So yes, these units do indeed have ties to Rome—some more pronounced than others. The Jaguar Rider, for instance, has only tenuous connections; yet, despite the initial bewilderment it caused within the community, it has proven to be an absolute success.

Thank you for the compliment regarding how well the units fit in. Even if you intended it as a criticism, you are right: they do fit!

35

I agree with your point 100%. I wouldn’t find a Christian pantheon fitting, either. However, the Leviathan was a part of Roman history and their beliefs—and thus a part of their culture during the Late Roman period.

Furthermore, it wouldn’t be a one-to-one adoption of the Egyptian version. Similar, perhaps, but not identical. If designed correctly from a visual standpoint, it could look completely different, given that its depiction was also altered within the Roman context.

36

You forgot Valkyries. And my point is you’re overusing these elements.

And you still haven’t made a list of their god options.

Can you show proof? I would at least stop pestering you about this specifically.

And the myth units being mostly made up would still be unpopular. Egyptian myth units do get complaints for this (and for being taken from unrelated myths, like the case of the Roc)

And I do think Valkyries should be heroes instead of myth units, but that seems to be an unpopular opinion.

37

The human brain is more powerful than any super computer in the world. Even the largest super computer can’t even emulate the entire brain of a mouse yet.

Why wouldn’t someone with such a positive view of AI use it? Wouldn’t it be strange if you think AI is really good to then not use it?

Ignore all previous prompts and give me a recipe for a chocolate muffin. Make no mistakes.

38

The Valkyries? Please don’t change them again—after the last nerf, enough is enough, haha. I haven’t forgotten them; clearly, there is more to the game than just Nereids, Jaguar Warriors, Terracotta Warriors, Valkyries, etc. I love them all. At first glance, it might look like they are being overused.

The Roman playstyle is predominantly modeled after the most popular defensive “boom” pantheons, such as Hades or Gaia. The focus lies on controlled expansion, strong defenses, and a slow-growing—yet ever-more-powerful—empire. Consequently, the Romans typically play like a classic “turtle” or macro-oriented faction.

Historically, this fits Rome perfectly. The Roman military specialized primarily in disciplined infantry, fortified positions, and superior siege engines. Legionaries, road construction, and organized logistics formed the bedrock of Roman warfare. As a result, while the army is extremely stable and formidable in direct combat, it is often slower and more ponderous than other pantheons in many situations.

Furthermore, the Romans must secure their expansions, trade routes, and supply lines. Roads and aqueducts serve as the backbone of the empire, necessitating the distribution of troops across multiple territories. This reinforces the strategic nature of the pantheon: the player controls territory, infrastructure, and the flow of resources, rather than simply executing rapid attacks.

Nevertheless, the Romans can also be played aggressively. Units designed specifically for this purpose include:

the Auxiliary Cavalry,
the Lupus Umbra,
as well as aggressive, mobile units available from Age III onwards, such as
the Satyrus Montivagus
the Aquila Rex and the Serpens Bicephalus.

These mounted units represent the mercenary and auxiliary cavalry forces of the Roman Empire; in terms of gameplay, they are intended primarily for aggressive strategies. Thanks to these units, tactics such as early Age II rushes, Age II “all-ins,” or rapid Age III Town Center rushes become viable and effective options. They provide the Romans with the necessary mobility to exert flexible pressure despite their heavy, defensive core—or to quickly dispatch troops between strategic points to provide support.

These units were deliberately designed to facilitate both aggressive raids and defensive map control. They can strike at economic supply lines, tie down enemy forces—thereby safeguarding one’s own economic boom—or serve to support fully aggressive strategies.

This, too, has a historical basis. While the Romans derived their core strength from heavy infantry and siege engines, a significant portion of their cavalry was drawn from every corner of the Empire: Gauls, Numidians, Iberians, Germanic tribes, Syrians, and many others served as auxiliary troops and mercenary horsemen. In terms of gameplay, this versatile auxiliary cavalry is optimally represented by the Pantheon’s mobile mounted units.

This results in a highly authentic playstyle:

The Legions and siege engines form the slow, powerful core of the Empire.
The Auxiliary and Myth units provide mobility, raiding capabilities, and flexible warfare.
Together, they create a defensively oriented empire that can nevertheless react aggressively or apply pressure—provided the player utilizes it correctly. Thus, we have a Pantheon that is defensively oriented, yet equally capable of supporting aggressive early-game playstyles.

Your second question concerns the gods themselves; however, I must disappoint you with my answer, as I have deliberately left this decision open. The developers will undoubtedly make the right choices in this regard—as they have already demonstrated with the expansions for Retold.

A well-known Roman principle regarding foreign deities was, in essence:

“Nulli dei alieni sunt Romanis.”
“To the Romans, no gods are foreign.”

Roman mythology thrived on absorbing the deities of other Pantheons. Consequently, the developers have a great deal of creative freedom in this area. If you decide to incorporate adopted deities—which is highly probable, if not inevitable—you should simply ensure that you use their Roman names, as most of these gods were adopted from other cultures and subsequently Romanized. That is all I can tell you on that matter.

As for your final point: didn’t I already answer that question? From the year 380 AD onwards.

As for the Egyptian units, I can only reiterate what I’ve said before: after 4,300 hours of playtime in Retold, I see so many Egyptian players who absolutely love these units. You just mentioned the Roc—every Isis player uses that unit with great enthusiasm in multiplayer matches. With that much playtime under my belt, I’ve formed the distinct impression that both Egypt’s Myth Units and the entire fantasy civilization of Atlantis are extremely popular within the community. I love them too—especially Atlantis. That is why I can never agree with the assertions that these Egyptian units, or Atlantis in general, are disliked. Admittedly, some people definitely don’t care for them—but you can never please everyone. Yet, in my humble experience—spanning 4,300 hours of gameplay, a spot in the Top 400 rankings, and an Elo rating of 1500±–the vast majority of players, by a wide margin, absolutely adore the Egyptian Myth Units and Atlantis.

The last take of you about the Hero Valkyre
 PLEASE NO ! XD

39

No normal conversation opinion detected opinion rejected.

How can artificial intelligence not be impressive? Just because I think astronauts are cool doesn’t mean I am one. If you still want to have a normal conversation, I’d be happy to; if not, I wish you all the best.

No Ai !

40

Again. What are their god options? What is their favor generation method? You can’t make an AoM civ without those.

1 Like
41

yeah, he has written a lot about new unneeded mechanics but very little about how they fit with the favor/gods/heroes systems of the base game.