Imo Romans have specific weaknesses as counterweights for literary every of their naval bonuses, as I have studied.
yeah, Roman have a lot of bonuses for navy, which feels so wrong. They do lack a lot of crucial water techs but I would rather give them those missing techs rather than these bonuses.
1 Like
I like Pancakes with maple syrup
1 Like
So do I, but this is a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with anything.
That would be a nice change for better immersion
On centurion being OP i do not entirely agree, i think people tend to forget they cost much more than a knight and their cost is actually closer to a Battle Elephant than a knight. Compared to something like a boyar or leitis they do not seem busted to me given their cost
1 Like
You’re a walking contradiction. You simultaneously claim that water bonuses aren’t important, yet protest the removal of their water bonuses like I’m demanding you kill your firstborn.
You argue the bonuses shouldn’t be removed, then agree that changes could and should be made to them.
You claim they need these bonuses to fix holes in their tech tree, but aren’t considering just fixing the tech tree as an option.
You are here to argue. Nothing more. If you ain’t paying me for babysitting, you can find someone else to do it. # ###
Sorry, I can’t really reply while I have no clue wtf you’re saying. Would you mind typing that again but in English?
Rome wouldn’t be Rome if they didn’t check a LOT of boxes, their navy not being in the Top 5 boxes on that list. You could say “The Carthaginians wouldn’t be the Carthaginians if it wasn’t for their Navy”… Yes, but the Carthaginians WERE their navy. They didn’t honestly excel in many areas outside of their navy. Meanwhile, the Romans had MANY more things they excelled at outside of their navy. In fact, once Carthage and Egypt’s navys were out of the picture, it was almost like Rome’s navy was impressive because there were no more navy’s. No one else had a navy worthy enough to challenge the Romans in the first place. And as I’ve already said, ships were one of the fastest and most reliable sources of transportation during the era, so it made no sense to abandon or neglect their navy, which is fair.
They had the ability to build large fleets even when they first found out what a “ship” was. The First Punic War is still to this day the largest naval battle to ever take place.
Personally, as it’s been well established, I don’t see why there’s so much emphasis on their navy. Again, yes, they had a good navy, but why focus so so so much on it? AGAIN, there were so many more interesting things the Romans are famous for. Hell, their roads are still in use even today… yet there seems to be NO reference to them in AOE2. Or is that what that weird 5% villager bonus is in reference too? Bruh, come on. Their roads are more noteworthy and deserving than a 5% bonus to villagers.
I think they are way to strong but not OP.
They shouldn’t be a super expensive, super heavy cavalry units.
It’s strange that Romans of all civilisations basically have the strongest cavalry (in 1 to 1 comparison).
Yes because the Romans shouldn’t have a worse navy then the Goths.
I think the +1 attack bonus is especially well fitting.
It makes their navy strong in the Feudal Age but by the Imperial Age the +1 is gone because they miss Bracer, which also means they miss 1 range.
That fits with the history. They lost Naval Power later on while they were still strong early.
I think the civilisation bonuses should not be changed but the Unique Technologies should be.
Because fixing those holes would change other things too.
Bracer would make their Archers and Defences stronger, and they shouldn’t have good Archers or Defences.
Giving them Demo ships would be wrong because they are basically Gunpowder units.
Giving them Dry Dock would make their Fire Ships stronger, which is supposed to be the unique feature of the Byzantine Navy.
I think the theme of slow, heavy ships that leak range fits them well.
They can’t keep up with the micro of other ships that outrange them and also move faster.
The Unique Technology is what I don’t like, they get the Saracen bonus in even better and I don’t think they should.
The Romans, to maximize their edge, have to win a Galley war in Feudal and/or early Castle Age. On some maps that is determinative, and they will see use, particularly in team games. The lack of demos makes this harder, as fires can be problematic. They will be interesting if they see such use on those maps.
So you would be ok with the Roman have a complete dock with all technologies just so they don’t have a naval bonus in their techtree?
I don’t really think it’s worth arguing anymore.
Your core problems seems to be that you don’t like the idea that people think of Romans as a good naval civilisation because it would overshadow other things they are famous for?
Or do you play a lot of water maps and somehow hate the idea to encounter Romans on Islands?
… But then you lecture me on my core problems, accuse me of what my ideology is (instead of just reading it in the multiple comments in which I’ve already state my ideology behind the bonuses and changes)…
And then accuse me of hating the idea “to encounter Romans on Islands” even though you already admitted that given the choice between Italians and Romans, you’d pick Italians since the when it comes to Infantry civs…
So why would I ever encounter Romans on Islands? Even YOU wouldn’t play them
But they are already OP on land, do you want to give them more land related bonuses?
To give them more bonuses on land you would have to take away something else on land.
And why should the number of naval bonuses have any relation to land bonuses.
You can give a civilisation just more bonuses.
The Teutons have 6 bonuses while the Persians have 2. But there is no indication that the limit is 6.
Ok suddenly the number of bonuses doesn’t matter?
Almost every naval battle before the invention of guns was fought in melee, everywhere in the world.
The depiction if naval combat in AoE1/2 is inherently wrong.
How does +1 attack on Longboats reflect Viking warfare?
How does shooting 25% faster reflect the way Saracens did naval combat?
The +1 attack reflects the Roman navy better then the other 2 bonuses they get.
The Roman navy was the strongest in the Mediterranean in the Late Antiquity until it was neglected and Carthage was conquered.
In the late game the +1 attack disappears because they don’t have Bracers.
The increased armour is a compensation for having slower ships.
The higher armour and lower range makes them better at short range, which could be seen ar a representation of melee combat since there is no melee ship unit.
Giving them a complete new unique ship would be too much, and then you would complaint about them having a unique naval unit instead of another unique land unit.
Yes. Having a good navy will not impact the gameplay on land at all.
Removing their naval bonuses will change absolutely nothing about how Romans play on land.
It will not suddenly make them more famous for being an Infantry civilisation if their naval bonuses are removed.
The much bigger threat to their i####### ## the Centurion.
Why do the Romans have the strongest and most expensive cavalry unit in the game? No Castle Unique Unit costs more gold!
I never said I’d pick the Italians over the Romans, someone else did.
Hard to judge if the Italian bonuses are better because they are all cost reduction bonuses instead of combat improvements.
Cheaper Fishing Ships is an important one because it gives you an economic advantage on water maps.
The Italians are also only missing Heavy Demo ship, a line the Romans completely miss.
That was apparently the favourite movie of who ever designed the Celts in AoE2 and who made the Tutorial campaign.
I never watched the movie.
I wish AoE was more historically correct but I don’t think the issue are civilisation bonuses. They are just numbers after all.
The Romans sail out with 15th century ships, if they have +2/+2 armour or not. It’s completely wrong either way.
If the game would support modding the sprites of selected civilisations without changing the dataset I’d give the Roman the Triremes from RoR.
And we haven’t even talked about the Dromon yet.
A Byzantine ship that also was the ship they used for their Greek fire, is a long range artillery ship for the Romans now? That makes no sense.
I said multiple time that I don’t like their unique technologies but that I do like their civilisation bonuses.
All of them actually. Especially their Infantry bonuses are really nicely designed.
Didn’t I say that giving them Bracers doesn’t just affect ships.
It makes Archers and defensive buildings stronger too.
And Romans should have bad Archers. There are too many civilisations with good Archers.
Missing Dry Dock is important in the combination with missing Bracer. They have lower range and lower speed as most other Galleons. The worst combination for micro.
The Demo ship line would be very historically wrong. It is also wrong for other civilisations, but not as wrong as for Rome.
But apparently you are ok with Rome having gunpowder.
I’m pretty sure you mix up people here.
I wouldn’t pick the Italians on Islands.
I might pick them against the Romans though because having a ranged anti Cavalry unit is good against a Cavalry civilisation.
I already agreed that half their bonuses would probably be yeeted when they’re balanced for Ranked, particularly I think their blacksmith bonus is too much. Clearly you either can’t read or don’t remember I said that.
YOU are the one who claimed that the NUMBER of bonuses in total was an issue. I was talking about the number of WATER bonuses being an issue. I’ve already said if the devs want the Romans to have A SINGLE water bonus, I’d have no issue with that. I do however have an issue with the “Infantry” civ, NOT a naval civ, having FOUR bonuses. You rambling about “But the Teutons have 6 and the Persians have 2” is meaningless. One of the Teutons bonuses is “Murder holes is free”. No one cares except if you’re playing campaign. Meanwhile the Persians have one of the best economy bonuses in the f-ing game.
As I said before…
Again, you either can’t read or don’t remember what I wrote not an hour ago.
Nope. Ramming was the primary mode of warfare during Antiquity. Look it up. While boarding’s did occure, the Romans are FAMOUS for it. Ever since the First Punic War when they invented the corvis and used it to secure naval superiority over the Carthaginians, that’s when boarding became their primary mode of warfare and became the primary mode for any navy that had superior marines.
Shut up about Bracer! No one cares about Bracer. Boo hoo, their Galleons are missing +1 attack and +1 range. NO ONE CARES. If it’s SUCH an issue, limit them to archers and CA at the archery range and give them bracer. Big whoop. That’s the third time you’ve used “But the +1 is to compensate for bracer~” excuse.
BIG FOOKING WHOOP! Who cares if they have slower ships? Ships from Antiquity are slower than ships from the late Medieval period ANYWAY and they certainly weren’t more durable. Stop using these lame tech tree excuses!
Great. Finally we agree on something. Now since “Infantry” don’t do much on “water” maps, maybe we focus on making the Infantry civ really good on “land” and if we DO decide to give them one or two water bonuses cus, hey, they had a pretty good navy for their time…
I agree. As I’ve already said, limit them to archers, don’t even give them crossbows (it makes sense.) Then even if they have bracer, it doesn’t mean anyone will blink twice at their archery range. As for castles and towers? Meh, their castles can afford to have bracer, especially if you also insist on their navy (which was famous for ramming and boarding) having +1 attack and +1 range. Teeeeechnically Romans were famous for their fortifications anyway so their castles having bracer isn’t a massive stretch of the imagination. Hell, maybe give them a version of the Krepost instead? Smaller, less HP, less attack, exclusive to the Romans. There you go! We’ve fixed that dumb bracer problem you keep banging on about AND we’ve made them more fun and unique to play, AND we’ve made them more historically accurate while remaining balanced. See all the great things you can accomplish when you stop throwing the same excuse over and over and apply some critical thinking?
Goths and Huns have the Heavy Demo so who cares if Romans demos. After all,
So it’s not like millions of players will complain. It’s not historically accurate, but it rounds out the Romans “Paper, rock scissors” water mechanic which is why I’m guessing Goths and Huns got it way back in the day
Possibly a reference to the famous Gallic cavalry? But I agree, dump the horse. Thing is stupid. Make the Centurion more like a Teutonic Knight. Slow, heavily armored, inspires surrounding Legionaries.
Why not pick Italians? Focus: Foot Archers and Naval
Would you pick Malay instead? Focus: Infantry and Naval
Vikings? Focus: Infantry and Naval
Portuguese? Focus: Naval and Gunpowder
No no… you’d pick the Romans… Focus: Infantry
From the official wiki btw, not just my opinion
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Civilizations_(Age_of_Empires_II)
And you cannot have already watched both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Oversimplified videos if you’re replying ALREADY which means you’ve either already watched them and you just forgot about the part where they explain how the Roman boarding’s changed naval warfare in Antiquity…
Or you didn’t bother to watch in which case, you are indeed, somehow, about to make an EVEN BIGGER fool out of yourself.
Like I said, no, it was by ramming. They discuss the Romans and naval warfare in Antiquity at 17:42 by the way. Just so you can double check your facts before trying to claim random things with no evidence~ https://youtu.be/yRmOWcWdQAo?t=1042
19:53
“The Romans excelled at combat on land, not on water. “But what if,” they said, “We could somehow turn a sea battle into a land battle?” Sounds crazy, right?”
Their bonuses are not that strong.
The black smith bonus is not that strong either.
The essentially have +2/+1 armour in Castle Age but only +1/0 in Imperial Age because they miss the last upgrade.
5% better villagers is good but other bonuses are better.
Scorpions costing less and benefiting from Ballistics is not OP either.
Arguably the Scorpion should just benefit from Ballistics for everyone.
The number of water bonuses is still about a number.
Giving them I don’t know one water bonus that is +5/10/15 attack for the Galley line would be much much stronger compared to what they have now.
The fact that they have 2 water bonuses, is down to formatting. The bonus could just be like “Galley Line has +1 attack and +0/+0, +1/+1 and +2/+2 armour in Feudal, Castle and Imperial Age.” or something like that.
It’s one bonus written in 2 lines.
So the number of bonuses only counts when it’s about water, ok.
Ramming is not melee?
The Rome At War mod has ramming as a mechanic, the Triremes have a charged melee attack.
That’s why they stopped using it immediately?
Because they only used it in the First Punic War and never after that.
So you are ok with making Romans stronger on water if it reduces the number of bonuses in the tech tree?
The Goths also have Hand Cannons. It’s even the only unit they can fully upgrade.
But I’d be fine with removing Demo ships from both.
Vikings are an Archer civilisation.
The labels given to the civilisation don’t always reflect how it’s actually played.
I don’t care if I have “won” or “lost” a debate in a forum. But you already insulted me twice.
I don’t have anything against you, we disagree on one things, that’s ok. There are other things we agree on. That’s life.
1 Like
There are so many things wrong with your argument. You split hairs about 3 times alone in your latest reply.
But since you’ve been perfectly civil on other topics we’ve commented on, and it’s 3AM, I can’t be bothered arguing with you anymore.
When the balancing is redone, you’ll either be right, or I will. I don’t care at this point. My disappointment in the Romans is peak and I’m convinced any change would be good change at this point. I’m honestly, mostly just gonna sit and wait for the next DLC if anything. If I was able to refund this DLC, I would, hence I can’t be bothered arguing anymore.
PS, sorry, couldn’t help myself.
They removed thumb ring because people keep playing them as an archer civ but the devs don’t want you to, because they’re an Infantry and Naval civ! Not an archer civ!
Couldn’t resist but just one last time… This comment is dumb and you’re wrong. Lol
If the devs change anything doesn’t mean it was a good change.
But why did they add a new Unique Technology that gives their Archers +1 attack in the last patch?
Thumb Ring -
The main effects are:
- 100% accuracy
- +17.6% firing rate or -15% reload time
Bogsveigar -
Development
- Following the removal of Thumb Ring with update 56005 due to fast-Imperial plays, the Vikings were considered a very weak civilization in the late game on land. Using this technology, the developers made their Arbalesters strong again without touching their mid-game.
In preparation for this technology, Elite Longboats lose 1 attack against ships and buildings. The purpose of this technology is to simply provide +1 attack against land units.
The issue of Viking archers is clearly something the devs are still perfecting. However, this it’s been very clear that the devs have not only been trying to push for more melee infantry with the addition of things like Gabesons, but also with the additional changes to the Vikings:
- With update 81058, Gambesons and Bogsveigar introduced. Chieftains costs 600 food, 450 gold, and has an additional effect: Infantry generate 5 gold when killing a Villager, 20 gold per Monk, and 20 gold per Trade Cart. Berserkergang replaced by Bogsveigar, (Elite) Berserk healing is 40 HP per minute, and Elite Longboat 10 bonus vs Ships, 7 vs Buildings.
As you can see, they are trying to encourage players to make more Berserkers but understand that without their archers, they struggle to have a well rounded land army. So the devs are toying with the concept of making Vikings perfectly viable and well rounded on land, but encouraging the player to make less and rely on archers less, focusing more on the thing that made Vikings famous in the first place, Longboats, Berserkers and the concept of raiding.
This is why I’m not opposed to the Romans having one or two navy bonuses. Hell, let them keep the armor bonus, it’s good and as you say, they’re missing bracer so the armor would help compensate. Wouldn’t make them a monster on the water, but at least they’re not stock standard.
However, I believe while the devs want the Vikings to be represented as “raiders” more, keeping in tone with the theme they’re famous for, I feel the Romans should be the same. There should be references to their road networks, fortifications, Republic, or the title of Caesar, etc.
PS. To go in a different direction, you could get rid of the Centurion and replace them with the Praetorian. Just like a Legionary except stupid expensive, 140f, 90g, they’re slow but have 18 attack and 5/5 with 110HP. (I’m pulling numbers out of my 4ss, don’t take them seriously, it’s nearly 4AM here, but you get the idea)
I also think a cool UT for Imp would be “Veteran Legions.” We know from campaigns that AOE2 has a mechanic where the longer a troop attacks, they gain stat bonuses. Do that with Legionaries. It’d be easy to balance because you could just adjust the time it takes to attack to scale up or down how OP it is