Just checked steamdb.info and it looks like 2 new achievements called “Law Maker” and “Philhellene” exist now among others.
Hope they would also add a co-op campaign in RoR. It seems like Trajan’s campaign was built for that given that you always have an ally but never implemented.
Glory of Greece and Voices of Babylon was in Oct PUP.
Unfortunately there was no balance changes, new techs or new units, which I am still hoping will come like slinger, scout, axeman, camel rider and chariot archer upgrade or rams to siege workshop.
Agree absolutely with you. I`m just not sure, if an upgrade for the chariot archer is a good idea for balance reasons (because the chariot archer doesn’t cost gold). I know Age 1 hasn’t the best balance, but imo I would prefer improvements in that regard instead of more inbalanced units.
And I would like to see new campaigns, because the three from Return of Rome are great. Faction DLCs would be great aswell - especially a “barbarian” DLC including Celts and Germans and an indian DLC.
“Law Maker” alludes to Hammurabi Code (the first legal code of the human code) (Voices of Babylon) and Philhellene means “admirer of the Greeks” (Glory of Greece)…
I agree…RoR needs campaigns between the end of the Bronze Age and prior to classical Greece and the founding of Rome (1000-734 BC) and then barbarian campaigns fighting against the rise of the Roman Republic/Empire (509 BC-69 AD) and then the barbarian invasions of the 3rd-4th centuries (250-380) prior to Alaric’s campaign of AoE 2…
Well one campaign could be dedicated to Celts. In one moment they inhabited big portion of Europe. Scenarios could be about their expansion and invasion of various part of Europe such as Italy and Greece.
Of course, Viriatus, Vercingetorix, Arminius, Boadicea and you can even put historical battles in RoR from Meggido (1500 BC) to Adrianople (378 AD)…
Only select few civs should have access to chariot archer upgrade such as Egypt and maybe Babylonians and Assyrians since they have no access to Heavy Horse Archers.
85 HP, 7 range, 5 attack, no armor and has conversion resistance like other chariots. That was my idea how strong that unit could be.
New unit and unit upgrades ideas for Return of Rome - Age of Empires II: DE / II - Discussion - Age of Empires Forum Here is my post about new unit upgrade ideas that should be in RoR.
I would love Cyrus for the Iron Age period, maybe extending into Cambyse II. That’s after the founding of Rome, though.
Too late, they would look anachronistic with iron age units without specific additions but that’s not useful since the 4th century is already much better covered by aoe2 which already has Huns, goths, late Romans and Persian Sassanids. Aoe1 ends at best in 284 AD just because of Palmyrans but actually the latest AI name ruler of Romans is Marcus Aurelius who died in 180. I don’t see much of a sense in adding again Goths, Huns etc in aoe1 when proper antiquity is still lacking.
I think what is really missing in aoe1 is a camel upgrade in iron age now that camels are trainable in bronze age. And probably a way to make axemen, archers, scouts and slingers go past tool age.
Also they missed the occasion of adding ancient Armenia which was big in aoe1 times and maybe another civ like Bosporus, Scythians or some other Caucasian related… The price of the DLC is high enough to justify that expectation, for people who already spent 15 bucks on a game that seems already aborted (Ror).
But they’re doing many things wrong (no new arch set) or just being lazy with ideas so I’m losing hopes… Paying designers just for Ror specifically would have been an investment that could have payed in the long run but they seem to look more at safe short term cash in which is a pity.
Yeah, for example in AoEO you have a Cyrus the Great campaign with the battles of Tymbra and Opis
Yes, I agree, anyway, the Iron Age lasted until 800 CE (Viking Age)…
The concept of the Iron Age ending with the beginning of the written historiographical record has not stood up well in the modern era, as written language and steel use have developed at different times in different areas across the archaeological record. For instance, in China, written history started before iron smelting arrived, so the term is infrequently used. For the Ancient Near East, the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire c. 550 BC is traditionally and still usually taken as a cut-off date; later dates are considered historical by virtue of the record by Herodotus despite considerable written records from well back into the Bronze Age now being known. In Central and Western Europe, the Roman conquests of the 1st century BC serve as marking for the end of the Iron Age. The Germanic Iron Age of Scandinavia is taken to end c. AD 800, with the beginning of the Viking Age.
In my country iron age lasted to 1227 when Germans conquered and Christianized my homeland.
Yeah but apart from semantics what I meant is that there are no units in aoe1 to correctly represent the 4th century (Christian monks missing, not even a single Germanic or steppe unit, no late Roman units, I guess just cataphracts and cav archers could sort of work but again chariots and other common aoe1 units were long gone and all their equipment is anachronistic even by the 3rd century which the game kinda covers already). I can see in the future if the game is still alive trying to cover late antiquity but as it is now it’s just useless cause aoe2 is doing that already now there are Romans (just Vandals and other few key civs missing) in a decent way so I’d probably prefer to give priority to proper antiquity and bronze / iron age, and I say this as a late antiquity enthusiast.
RoR definitely needs to be more radical in unit roster.
Like upgraded Camel, counter chariot units…
Having civ bonuses and pathfinding do break the balance of AOE1DE gameplay in ROR settings.
Doesn’t help for ROR, devs literally don’t care imo. They ported the worst version of Carthage campaign.
I am not convinced that devs don’t care its more likely that microsoft doesn’t care and is not giving money them to do such things.
Yes, but I say it in general…
Of course, I still doubt that they will move the timeline of AoE 2 as far back as the 3rd century; that is why they would have to carry Christian units and buildings from AoE 2 to RoR to represent the late Roman period of the 4th century (which is when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity)…we could see the first barbarian invasions of the 3rd-4th century and the founding of the Byzantine Empire by Constantine in 330 (playing with Greeks and Romans obviously)…
Yes, in order to squeeze out AoE 2 they are going to continue making the most of RoR… yes now with the Balkan DLC they are going to include the Greece and Babylon campaign; so the next DLC is Africa in AoE 2 and then India but in RoR, and finally North America in AoE 2 (there they put another dlc in Southeast Asia or Oceania, but I find it difficult)…
Didn’t say it should cover the 3rd century, just the 4th.
That’s very inconvenient, now that there are Romans why don’t just use aoe2 instead of carrying everything in Ror?
I also feel like a missed opportunity to add Armenia to RoR. I had hoped that future DLCs would also add something to RoR to keep it alive. Adding Armenia civilization would have been perfect.
Because AoE 2 is more medieval, and it would seem strange to me that they went so far back in time… I prefer that everything prior to 395 be kept in RoR and the rest, yes, be in AoE 2… AoE 1 goes up to 740, but it is very anachronistic with Iron Age units, AoE 2 fits better there (they could remake the Yamato campaign in AoE 2 and then the Japanese would have a campaign, even if it is the same as AoE 1)…
Yes, maybe they will do it later, the type that Armenians and Scythians put in RoR…
I like the idea (for a fanmade rather than official campaign), but without a customised civ it would end up with the opposite problem: instead of anachronistic Iron Age/classical units that mostly look Greek, you’d end up with anachronistic mid/late medieval units that mostly look European. This isn’t helped by the fact that samurai are (a) anachronistic for 740 or earlier, and (b) useless anyway.