I understand very well that due to the huge differences between the three new civs and the 45 old civs, if they are included in the ranking competition from the beginning, it will inevitably cause a breakdown in balance; In addition, there are definitely many ‘history buffs’ who will think that these three new civilizations do not conform to AOE2’s timeline or worldview, and will criticize these three new civilizations;
However, currently the three new civs cannot participate in the ranking competition, but their databases are connected to AOE2’s database and can also engage in non ranking matches with the old civs; Moreover, in essence, there is a one-to-one correspondence between many new units, new technologies, and old civs that have emerged in the three new civs. The difference is not as big as imagined. In the future, as long as the balance is gradually adjusted, it is fully conditional to be included in the qualifying race.
As for the clamor of ‘History buffs’, I think it’s better to ignore them. In fact, after V&V came out, facing overwhelming criticism, AOE2 did not collapse, and the clamor of “History buffs” was even more unlikely. Don’t think that just because there are many people in this forum who hold this view, you’re afraid of offending them. But if we zoom in on the entire AOE2 player community around the world, not many people will care about this matter at all.
Well, what are the possible reasons to not include them?
I’ll address some that I can think of:
Balance: the new civs are too different and could be too broken.
A: Let them be played for while only in lobbies and give time to adjust the balance, with just a few months, they should be fine to be added to ranked play. So, not a strong argument.
Theme: their theme, Antiquity, is disconnected from the theme of the other civs.
A: There’s already some antiquity civs, but they’re represented in the end of their existence. Romans in the transition period from Antiquity to Middle Ages, for example. So, this is an argument against adding them to ranked play.
Mechanics: They have unique core mechanics. Town centers that can switch policies, trade wood in addition to gold, new ship types, gold gathering with ships etc.
A: I think the tendency is, if those mechanics are expressively well received, they will be added to the base game, and this argument would be dropped. But, while those big differences are still there, it’s hard to mix those new civs with the others.
Still, I think there could be a ranked queue only for civs from the Chronicles series of DLCs.
I agree that these three new civs can be evaluated for a long time. And if these mechanisms can be accepted by players, they can even provide broader space for the future development of AOE2.
If this is the first installment in a series, I have a feeling that there will be more antiquity Chronicles, alllowing for this to be a 3rd game mode separate from AOE2 & RoR.
AoM has Egyptians & Norse, plus Chinese DLC, so that could be a starting point to guess the next Chronicles.
No, it’s ridiculous, you don’t need to be a “history buff” to realize the only thing weirder than Incas fighting (late) Romans is Incas fighting Ancient Greeks, there’s 1000 years between the former, but almost 2000 between the latter
I understand that the game is not 100% historically accurate, and I agree that it shouldn’t be, but, to put it into perspective, this would be arguably more of a stretch than adding the Cobra Car as a trainable unit (there’s only ~1500 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the invention of the Shelby Cobra, and only around 400 till the last event depicted in a historical battle and that). More time has passed between present day and the fall of the Incas, than between the events from the Battle for Greece DLC and the (late) Roman civilization from the Return of Rome DLC
Not to mention the completely differently named and skinned units, completely different dock mechanics, etc.
It was already mentioned that it will work like RoR, as a completely separate menu for a reason
Also no one complained about V&V for being historically innacurate, it was criticized for a lot of things but that wasn’t one of them
Another reason for not adding them is that there are still a lot of civs that DO fit the medieval era and theme that have yet to be added, we are not starved for ideas, but we are limited in civ design somewhat, we don’t want to waste that
This is my biggest reason for being against intermixing the antiquity civs with the medieval civs. That and i’d rather see more antiquity civs added for a full suite than just three antiquity civs intermixing with medieval
Exactly, it’s the main reason I was against seeing Romans as its own civ, I woudln’t mind so much if there weren’t a lot of other “more relevant” civs that are missing, even in the same peninsula (I mean Venetians, which wouldn’t be my choice the next DLC, or even the next after that, or the one after that, but would have still definitely preferred over Romans)
Some of the new mechanics could be added to the base civs (like the water overhaul), while some could be added to new medieval civs (customizable town centers, heroes with auras etc).
That’s better than mixing ancient with medieval civs.
Gameplay-wise it would be almost the same, but the theme would be fitting.
Granted I mainly play campaigns, but I actually thought Romans was pretty relevant because there are a number of campaigns set during the fall of the Western Roman Empire. If there are Huns and Goths then I think Romans are plenty relevant enough.
Yeah your dismissal of “history buffs” for pointing out that these civs dont fir the theme of the game is silly. If you think timescale isnt important we may as well be able to play as Austria Hungary , Prussia, Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union
I am absolutely against it, too much time distance.
The Romans, despite the fact that many people write without having opened a history book, are fine. It is not that because the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 A.D. suddenly they all disappeared from the face of the earth.
Moreover, we already have the Huns, whose period of significance is between 370 A.D. and 469 A.D. (death of Attila’s son Dengizich). Right on the edge of what many historians consider the beginning of the Middle Ages (410 A.D. or 476 A.D. are two symbolic dates). So the Huns are OK, and the Romans are not? Double standard.
But to integrate the Athenians, Spartans and Achaemenids would be to jump back too many centuries in time.
Absolutely against. It completely breaks the immersion of a game with a medieval theme. And no, Romans do not break the immersion, at least not that much, since late romans military garments and overall aesthetic are closer to the middle ages than to classical rome
Please no. Those are great as a additional content outside the main game (better would have been to be developed as content for AoE I)
BTW
Romans in AoE II has the right to exist.
Their depiction its about their later timespan not the ancient Roman Empire we all know
In fact, they co existed with the Huns, Goths, and its Fall became the begining of Middle Ages
I can not possibly agree with that. Of course, the time window is completely different, and this alone should show they are not meant to be played against each other, but mostly it’s the dynamics and balance of the civs which are totally different.
I would be in favour of another ranked queue with only the chronicle civs though, this would certainly be interesting!
I sort of have another, although maybe this just falls under theme – it would reinforce the outdated idea that the middle ages were no more technologically advanced than classical antiquity. In fact, from the previews I’ve seen, BFG already does this somewhat – the tech trees still include medieval technologies like heavy plough, horse collar, crop rotation, mangonel, blast furnace, etc. But including these civs as standard AoE2 civs would really double down on that.