The fall of Carthage to the Vandals was hard on the Roman navy, but the Romans were a maritime power before that event. It could be called one of the greatest turning points in history that most do not know about.
For reference the Eastern Romans retained a maritime power status until a later emperor underestimated the significance of that status.
Not really, if we just consider the western navy it was probably the second largest in the whole mediterranean, only the eastern empire was far larger.
The roman navy was able to stop the vandals in combat, but it was not able to force head to head combat and eventually suffered a big treason in Majorian and Antemius time…
Don’t worry, a Polynesians civ can still work and be unique. I’m planning on posting a concept for an Oceania expansion on here soon.
1 Like
From everything I have read, the Romans stopped funding their navies properly by the time they controlled all the mediterranean
1 Like
If there’s a reason the Romans had a large navy towards the Late Empire, it was because being an Empire which encompassed the entire Mediterranean, keep in mind that ships were one of the fastest modes of transport back then. It was very, very common to convert ships from military, to merchant, to civilian, to military, and back again depending on the needs. So did the Romans have a large navy? Maybe… does it overshadow the power of the Roman Legions? BAHAHA! What a f**king joke, no! Which is why it baffles me why the devs think the Roman NAVY was one of the most important things they felt they needed to shine a light on… What about the roads, the trade, the fortifications, the legions, the governing, NONE of that was more interesting than boats? In Rome? Bruh…
So “Infantry” civilisations should not allowed to have any naval bonuses?
When did I say they’re not “allowed” to have bonuses? I don’t mind if the devs wanna give Romans a bonus. A as in SINGLE bonus… BUT THEY HAVE 3 BONUSES! THREE for an “infantry” civ. You’ve completely ignored the point of the post, ignored the pic, but you also lack the context of other civs in AOE2. THREE bonuses for Romans. How many bonuses do the Japanese have? Only 2. The Vikings? again, only 2 bonuses. The Portuguese? ONE bonus. “Oh but what about indirect bonuses like gold discounts or camps being 50% off?” Ok, Roman villages do EVERYTHING 5% faster and so on, so the Romans therefore technically have even more than 3 bonuses for water.
Bruh… when I think of Vikings, I think of raiders on longboats. Notice a word in that sentence? BOATS. When I think of the Portuguese, I think of the East India Spice Trade which was a massive trade empire in the Indian OCEAN. What are you likely to find in the OCEAN? BOATS.
When I think of the Romans, I think of aqueducts and Roman Legionaries… … Wait… Where’s the boats? Well according the the Devs, apparently everywhere~
You explain to me why Roman galleons NEED +1 attack. Why? What reason could they possibly have to NEED +1 attack on their galleons. And why not Goths? or Huns? Or Aztecs? Or Poles? Why don’t THEY get +1 attack…?
… … exactly. There’s no reason, the devs are memeing, making their navy obsurdly OP for no reason other than for lols, hence why now that they’re coming to Ranked, they need to be completely rebalanced
Imagine the Devs made Mongols but instead of bonuses like " The Scout Cavalry line has +2 Line of Sight" or “Cavalry archers fire 25% faster” you instead had bonuses like “Stone walls have +25% HP.” You’d be sitting there scratching your head like… “um… what…? I mean yes, the Mongol capital of Karakorum had stone walls around it but… really? THAT is what you’re focusing on. Not horse archers, not cavalry… walls? Really?”
That’s me with these stupid Romans. Like really? Their NAVY of all things???
Which is even more funny from historical perspective implying Dromon came after Caravel. 
I am waiting for my USA civ with Marines using Machine Guns at Barracks and M1 Abrahams at Stables.
2 Likes
Because those other civilisations don’t miss important naval upgrades.
+1 attack is worth a lot less then the +1 attack and +1 range witch Bracer gives you.
They also miss Shipwright which makes their ships slower and more expensive.
Both things basically equal out the civilisation bonuses they have.
The only real bonus they have it the Unique technology, but I kinda have the feeling that one might change.
Edit:
I mixed up Shipwright with Dry Dock.
They have Shipwright but they don’t have Dry Dock.
Dry Dock gives the 15% speed bonus.
Shipwright reduces Wood cost and and train time.
So they get the discount but their ships are slow as well as low range. That means it’s easy to micro against them.
The +2/+2 armour is not that impactfull because ships do a lot of bonus damage against the ship armour class.
The Galleon already has 8+1 base pierce armour while it does 8+3 pierce damage. The majority of the damage comes from anti ship attack which is 11.
3 Likes
That is not enterily true or false…
There are periods were the roman navy was neglected, and periods of civil wars when they were better funded.
By the end I think the fleet in Hispania and Africa didn’t lack ships, but men as did the army…
2 Likes
You’re avoiding the point. WHY? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY do the Romans need navy bonuses? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?
If I played dodgeball in PE half as good as you’re dodging the point of this post, I would have been the Grand Champion of my state
1 Like
There are many posts in here describing how West Rome had a pretty strong navy until the fall of Carthage.
Yes their navy was bad at the very end but pretty much everything was bad.
Having a good navy doesn’t come at the cost of being bad on land in AoE2.
All civilisations are balanced to be played in Arabia and Arena, where you have no water.
So having a good navy is always just a bonus.
Why do you want the Romans to have a bad navy?
You will not get any land related bonuses in return for making their navy worse.
1 Like
Aoe is not an historical simulatore game so there is little reason to point out what’s historically accurate. We have chinese without some techs they invented for example
Anyway, late romans, which are the one represented here, did have a strong navy, so i don’t see that big of a problem here
Also some of your suggestions are basically asking to make serjeants even worse than they are now, by making legionaries build stuff for example, so that would not be and upgrade.
And no, romans are never gonna outpick portuguese on water maps…they are going to be good as they should since they dominated the mediterranean sea so It make sense they have a better navy than many Continental civs, but they also lack importante upgrades of unit line, or serious eco water bonuses
1 Like
Why are you asking pointless questions?
People already answered you, there is the historical evidence that they had a strong fleet, those bonuses are balanced by the lacking of other techs (and we still have to test them enough) and the number of bonuses doesn’t denote the strength or balance of a civ. On top of that, it was said many time by the devs the romans will be subject to changes before being released in ranked.
1 Like
I would argue even after. I mean, the romans had the technologies, the knowledge and the latent economic strength to muster more ships and go after cartage.
Majoan did it and lost only because of a storm, and some years later, the germanic king theodoric the great was able to must an even bigger fleet with just the resources of the Italian peninsula, which was basically still the same roman province just under a new management.
1 Like
Why do you want the Romans to have a bad navy?
Bruh… when I think of Vikings, I think of raiders on longboats. Notice a word in that sentence? BOATS. When I think of the Portuguese, I think of the East India Spice Trade which was a massive trade empire in the Indian OCEAN. What are you likely to find in the OCEAN? BOATS.
When I think of the Romans, I think of aqueducts and Roman Legionaries… … Wait… Where’s the boats?
You’re not even reading my replies anymore. I’m literally talking to a brick wall. You have no interest in discussing or debating because you’re not even bothering to read what I say. It’s all going in one ear and out the other. The only thing you know is you have to argue the opposite of whatever I say, regardless of whether you provide an explanation, a reason, a counter argument, or not.
You might as well # ### now cus you’re not contributing jack sh*t
Aoe is not an historical simulatore game
As I’ve asked, then why not give Goths +1 attack on their Galley’s? Why not? It’s not historically accurate but who cares. They’re an infantry civ but who cares? They fit all the same criteria of the Romans, including coming from the same point in history and geographical location. Hell, some of the Goths while migrating even used Romans ships so there is literally no excuse what so ever which would deny Goths that same +1 attack on their galley’s right?
You starting with “Aoe is not an historical simulatore game” and then following that up in the next paragraph with “Anyway, late romans, which are the one represented here, did have a strong navy, so i don’t see that big of a problem here”… bruh, you literally just destroyed your own argument. You going left or you going right? Pick one. What you just did was spin in a circle.
I suggested it be locked behind an Imp unique tech. How does that make Serjants worse? I didn’t realize Serjants needed a (probably) very expensive Imp unique tech at the castle in order to build Donjons. What was that tech called again, can you remind me…?
Oh no, don’t talk about how much they dominated the Mediterranean sir, you already said “Aoe is not an historical simulatore game” so that entire paragraph is nullified by your own comment. Good job, tool
Why are you asking pointless questions?
How is it pointless? Do you think of stone walls when you think of the Mongols? No. Just because they had a strong navy does not mean it was one of the Roman empire’s most defining features. You walk into the street and ask 10 people to name the top 3 things that pop into their head when they think of the Roman Empire and I guarantee you no one, no one at all will say “Oh well they had one of the most powerful navy’s in the Mediterranean!”
As I’ve said many times, then why don’t we give Goths +1 attack on their galley’s? Both come from the same time period and geographical locations. The Romans do not need +2/+2 on their galley’s armor, just like Goths don’t need it. There is no reason that one could have the bonuses while the other one couldn’t.
I’m asking why weren’t references made to their roads, aqueducts, Colosseum, governing system, logistics, fortifications, ya know… the things they were ACTUALLY famous for. Hence, you go onto the street and ask 10 people. I promise you not a single one will even hint at their navy. If they do, they’re obviously an AOE2 developer cus they seem to be the only one’s who care
I do think of a good, navy… and other people too seems from the answers of this topic… so your argument already crumble…
Also, usually trying to extend the idea that we have about something to generically everyone, without any scientic fact to back it up, it’s not a solid argument to start with… the “I have this idea/think this so most people should agree with…” isn’t a really great argument.
Romans called the whole Mediterranean “mare nostrum”, our sea. They had flottilas in the sea, in the oceans and in the rivers of europe, asia and africa. They had the apex of the technologies of the time.
When I think of the romans, I don’t focus on the square shields, but I think of an idealized state and culture that had so much influence on the medioeval world that it’s hard to ignore on all aspects.
NOTE: by the way, I’m too in favor of changing a bit the romans water bonuses, but I disagree with the whole argument at the base of this topic.
4 Likes