Roman navy better than Portuguese, apparently

If you think they have a good navy, congrats, but you are the exception. Not the rule. Even at a very surface level of social research, you will find that the vast majority of topics and discussions around the Roman Empire have very little to do with their navy.

I find it ironic that you said “I do think of a good, navy… and other people too seems from the answers of this topic… so your argument already crumble…” and then followed it in the next paragraph with “I have this idea/think this so most people should agree with…isn’t a really great argument.”. Bruh, bats can see more than you if you wrote that with a straight face and at no point thought “Am I invalidating my own statement…?”

Firstly, I think you mean “Historical evidence”, not “scientific fact”. Not the same thing buddy. English.
Secondly, mare nostrum was what the Romans called the Tyrrhenian Sea, which isn’t even a fraction of the Mediterranean as a whole. The Mediterranean itself they referred to as the Mare Internum or “Internal Sea”.

Once again, you begin a sentence with “When I think of the romans,” which is ironic when we can refer to your other comment not two paragraphs above, " “I have this idea/think this so most people should agree with…” isn’t a really great argument." Bruh, bricks are less dense than you. You either better start phrasing your words better or get a first class ticket on the Hypocrite train.

Bahah! Wait, so “I do think of a good, navy” but you’re happy to change the bonuses anyway? What happened to “mare nostrum”? You disagree with my whole argument, but my argument is based on historical, not scientific, context for the bonuses being misrepresenting of the Romans achievements. So you agree with me, but disagree with me about agreeing with me, despite agreeing with me.
What are you smoking? It can’t be legal

Literally a Wikipedia page has more credit that a random guy ranting on a forum since at least they report the sources and not just claim “I said so and I know that everyone agrees with me…”

Are you just trying to find ways to attack me?

I mean, english it’s not my first language, but I thought I was clear… the romans were designed to be OP, that was clear as it was stated several times, and the so the water bonuses too are too much, so probably condensing them into just 1 water bonus and the UT it’s enaugh.

But that for balance reasons, not because “I think romans didn’t deserve water bonuses because I don’t think at roman navy when I think of them…”

Then since you speak of scientific research bring me evidence, archeological researchs, papers, as right now it’s just your word against mine, and I don’t see why your should be more valuable.

Anyway, there is little breath to waste again here with people who doesn’t want to actually discuss history.

2 Likes

Who had a better navy then the Roman Empire in 400 AD before the fall of Carthage?

You can’t compare them with civilisations that appear literally 1000 years later.
The Huns and Goths would be not thread for an army with heavily armoured knights and cannons but they never faced those.

You always have to see it in the context of their time.

1 Like

You mustn’t be up to speed. We’ve already established that there’s no reason for the Romans, a civilisation not particularly famous for their navy, to get SO many water bonuses, especially when Goths, another infantry civ from the exact same time period, who used the same Roman navy as well, don’t get a SINGLE water bonus. Hence, the water bonuses make no sense, historically or balance wise, and don’t fit with their theme. Not to mention it takes away from the actual water civs themselves. Eg; with SO many bonuses on water, it would be really disappointing to start seeing Portuguese or Italians picked less before we now have Romans, which is just depressing and makes no sense

See what I mean? There are SO many fun and interesting little pieces of information about Rome. Even if you branch outside of what most people typically know about the Roman Empire, you can find all sorts of interesting bits and pieces of information that the devs could have incorporated in some way, shape or form, like what we’ve already discussed above…

But apparently the devs were like “Nah, +1 attack on Galley-line hehe~”

We told you multiple times already that it’s not just the number of bonuses that determines if a navy is good.

Goths have Bracer and they have the Demo Ship Line. The Goths only miss Dry Dock but so do the Romans.

To Goths Galleons have the same attack damage but +1 ranged compared to Roman ones.
They also have a whole ship Line the Romans don’t have.
With the Dromon the Goths actually have a pretty good navy in AoE2.

It’s only really big bonus the Romans have is their Unique Technology.
And I agree that it is too strong, both on land and water.
They already have 2 bonuses for the Scorpion and get all upgrades for it.

For the Portuguese on the other hand, every bonus they have is directly or indirectly a naval bonus on top of a very good naval Unique Unit.

Direct bonuses:

  • All ship +10 HP
  • Carrack: +1/+1 armour for all ships

Indirect bonuses:

  • All units cost -20% Gold (that includes ships, obviously)
  • Foragers generate wood in addition to Food (more early Wood to build ships with)
  • Arquebus: Gunpowder units have Ballistics (includes Cannon Galleons)

They only miss Fast Fire Ships and Shipwright which decreases Wood cost and makes ships train faster.

It’s not that Romans have 3 powerful bonuses on top of a good tech tree.
They have a bad dock techtree so 2/3 bonuses are basically just compensating for that.
It’s only really the Ballistas UT that makes Roman ships so strong.

I also said that multiple times.
Water is completely independent from land.
Every civilisation is balanced on land maps. Romans having a good navy never came at the cost of giving them land bonuses.
Having a good navy is always just a bonus in AoE2.

2 Likes

One sentence after that: By 30 BC, Roman dominion had extended from the Iberian Peninsula to Egypt, and Mare Nostrum began to be used in the context of the whole Mediterranean Sea. - Seems like you also didn’t bother to read.

3 Likes

This is why we can’t have nice things

Don’t even bother, he know this argument better than he shows, he just purposely cherry-picking part of sentences and aguments that just favor him and hope than no one else actually read the whole story…

If someone wants to talk about history I’m here, but certain people is just better to ignore them at some point, like a fire they’ll run off oxygen at some point.

2 Likes

The Romans were maritime power. The very maintenance of pax Romana necessitated it.

1 Like

We told you multiple times already that it’s not just the number of bonuses that determines if a navy is good.

I’ve told you multiple times already that they don’t even need those bonuses in the first place. They aren’t a navy civ, they’re an infantry civ and no one who thinks of the Roman Empire immediately goes to “Oh yes, their navy” so it makes no sense to focus on water when they could have focused on much more interesting and relevant things.

Then lets give Goths +2+2 on their ships too. Why not? Literally 0 reason not to using your own logic.
Again, why does anyone care if the Goths have a good navy? No one, I guarantee, NO ONE is deliberately picking Goths when they see Islands pop up.

I don’t mind the bonuses to the scorpion since it’s a clear reference to the ballista that the Romans were fond of. I think they’ve done it in a bit of a gimmicky, over the top way, but I think it anything, that’s highlighting how under powered the base scorpion is in AOE2.

As I’ve said before, if you want to count indirect bonuses, then the Romans have more than 3 bonuses.
Villagers gather, build, and repair 5% faster” This includes building docks, gathering from shore fish, and repairing ships like fire galleys
PS. No one cares of CG have ballistics. You’d never use them to try and hit moving targets anyway. They’re not Spanish CG.

So all you’ve established is, best case scenario, Portuguese have the same number of bonuses as an Infantry civ, a civ that also has:

…on top of their 4 water bonuses, same as Portuguese…

Again, no one cares if they get compensation for their navy. No one would be queueing up for Islands and then picking Romans. Just like no one was picking Huns. Huns also technically have a pretty big wood bonus, or Celts, or Turks… all have indirect bonuses for water as well as having access to demo ships, etc, etc… but no one plays them FOR water. The indirect bonuses and what they do have in their tech trees are there by necessity, not for actual, genuine competitive water play.
Turks technically have 5 indirect bonuses when it comes to water play. CG create 25% faster, have +25% HP, researching ECG is 50% cheaper, they get +2 range AND gold miners work 20% faster… BUT NO ONE PICKS THEM FOR ISLANDS. Your argument of “indirect bonuses” has been nullified. No one cares if the Romans have a bad tech tree for water, the Aztecs have a better tech tree for water, and no one cares. No one plays Aztecs on Islands, despite ALSO having many indirect bonuses.

Every civilisation is balanced on land maps.

Then why are you so desperate to protect their water bonuses? Why is it SO important to you that they keep their water bonuses if “Every civilisation is balanced on land maps” and people have already admitted they wouldn’t pick Romans if Islands popped? If you honestly think “Having a good navy is always just a bonus in AoE2.” then why do you want their water bonuses so badly? Why argue?

I’m bleeding from my eyeballs reading this thread.

It’s almost summer time.

This thread has run its course, you do not need to read any further. If the topic interests you there are books on the subject matter, including a recent one by James Bloom called Rome Rules the Waves. It would likely be better to go to a library and read older works as there is a criticism that he is over reliant on translation software, which can mislead.

1 Like

Also just double checked…
One excuse people seem to have for why the Romans need to many water bonuses is “It’s to balance their navy since they don’t have demos” … Both Huns and Goths have Heavy Demo ships, so just give the Romans Heavy Demo as well, remove the shitty water bonuses and call it a day. Boom, done.

People have already admitted they wouldn’t play Romans on water maps anyway so then why keep the bonuses. Any problem with their tech tree can be easily solved without the dumb bonuses. And we’ve established that while they did have a good navy in history, it wasn’t in the Top 5 things that made Rome famous in the first place, just like the Mongols aren’t famous for their stone walls around Karakorum.

Remove the water bonuses, keep one if you really want. Make their unique techs more relevant/historically meaningful, get the Centurion off the fucking horse

Rome woudn’t be Rome if it wasn’t for their navy… Without a good navy they wouldn’t defeated Carthage

Augustus defeated Marc Anthony in the naval battle of Actium

Until the very end of the Western Empire they had the hability to build very large fleets, although they were defeated and humilliated.

I really like the idea they get a powerfull navy that eventually will be at a huge disadvantege against most civs at Imperial Age.
Most likely they won’t be able to stand against more dedicated naval civs like Koreans, Portuguese, Vikings also Byzantines and Italians could have and edge in Castle Age.

But I do think Romans UT should get a huge nerf before we see them in ranked matches. Both of them.

2 Likes

Why are you so obsessed with the number of bonuses.

Persians have 2 civilisation bonuses. Overall.
Does that make them the worst civilisation in the game?

They slightly changed one of their civilisation bonuses when the Definitive Edition was released which instantly made them a top civilisation so they had to roll that back.

The number of bonuses also comes down to the working in the techtree.
Galley line +1 attack, War Galleys +1/+1 armour and Galleons +2/+2 armour could be one bonus and Dromons +2/+2 armour the other one.

But anyway.
The core trades of a civilisation have never been changed before.
They never turned an Archer Civilisation into a Infantry one or anything like that.

I know the Romans are new and not even available in Ranked yet but I still don’t think that completely removing a big aspect of a civilisation is not an option.
Many people already like how Romans play on water and they will be very sad if that is completely removed because some people think it’s not historically correct enough.

There aren’t many good naval civilisations in the game so water maps are pretty boring to play. You are going to run into the same civilisations again and again.
Every new water civ improves the variety on water maps.

But I do agree that Romans need a little rework. Their civilisation bonuses are all good but their UTs are not.
And pretty much everyone agrees that Centurions should be Infantry.
Romans kinda feel like yet another Cavalry civilisation on land, which in my opinion is a much larger issue then them also being good on water.

And about the Scorpion thing.
If a 60% Gold discount on top of a big combat bonus (Being affected by Ballistics) doesn’t make them viable, the whole unit line needs a buff.

3 Likes

Nah i did not destroyed my own argument i merely sayd your argument was flawed from the get go, ut Eve if we were to follow it in its logic, It would still not be a problem since romans did have a nice fleet.

So yeah, drop the attitude

1 Like

I don’t, I think is ok that the castle UU is a cavalry unit as it fits the changes of the late empire armies…

I just would change the UU names to Comes and Cometatensis instead of Centurions and Legionaries

And of course, I would change a bit the current Centurion, they have just too much dmg and armor… nerf one of them

1 Like

But isn’t that what the Byzantines are for.

Romans could still keep their current bonus for the Cavalier, making it a good addition to their army.

Right now Romans feel to much like a cavalry civilisation because the Centurions are too good.
Their aura bonus doesn’t really matter when you don’t need Legionaries.

Making them an Infantry that is mostly focused on supporting Legionaries would be more interesting because it’s more unique then just having yet another strong Cavalry Unique unit that is not quit a Paladin.