I don’t think that would change Saracens position at #3.
I’m only wondering if it would change Vikings since they might lose their water siege advantage for the catapult are getting a new Cav archer and the Varangian guard. Any other changes are debatable mind you
We really should stop letting the pros dictate what happens to this game. That’s why the historical elements are getting further and further sidelined in favor of arbitrary gameplay.
3 Likes
For reference see below :
Reminds me of AoE3DE’s Germans: No matter how much the civ is getting changes and new stuff, people still endlessly request it to be changed…
After getting a complete change of Saracens’ unique techs I don’t see any need to change them further or giving them the Vikings treatment 
Obviously we don’t know what mounted crossbows will be like yet, but for AoK civs I think they won’t be that useful because the European ones don’t have thumb ring, and most miss bracer and/or bloodlines.
AoE fans seem to cry out for the games to be changed all the time.
1 Like
Pyrrus will probably be like the Theban, modified macedonian as opponent. Why that ? Because adding a second macedonian phalanx style civ just having elephant in it in a dlc centered on rome is just never gonna happen.
They will probably showcase Pyrrus invasion of italy with roman player as defender, probalby on mission 3 of the campaign.
First punic war topic requiere Greeks, Carthaginian and Romans. We already got Spartans, Athenians and Macedonians available, and we had a mission about Siracus in BfG, so we technically got the greek part of the need. Macedonian are also good to represent Pyrrus troops.Early rome history requieres some italics civ, I’d say Estruscan are a need, as they were very different from greeks and italic peoples, but samnites, umbrian and other famous groups of the italic areas can be blended with the same civ as the one for the roman player with extra scenario units.
Celtiberian are not necessarly needed as a civ for the punic wars, nor the numidian, as it was mainly Carthago hiring mercenaries rather than them fighting on their own.
That’s also when Rome gained its naval supremacy for the years to come so punic wars are mandatory to be covered, and it will probably be the topic of the next chronicle.
This one is probably the most complexe one, if you split into multiple dlc then you need names for them, like Pompean and Cesarean, which basically were more a leader rather than a civ style so they can be done in the same civ. But it’s not the Triumvirate that marks the start of that period but the end of the second punic war with the Marian Reform, swapping the military system from a social class system to a professionnal army system.
That’s probably the main point that needs to be decided if they do one or multiple roman. Also keep in mind the Romans are already in the game … So they will probably not name the SPQR civ “Romans” like the vanilla one.
The gauls will definitly be someday in the game, so maybe a dlc where the focus is split between the gaul campaign, the civil wars before and after caesar is possible.
Starting right after the civil war, with Octavian. That’s probalby the one that will be a dlc no matter if they do rome in one pack or not, because of the Teutobourg battle. I’d say here we’ll play the German tribes. It’s eventually even a dlc where we won’t play the roman at all indeed.
You mean, Attila’s campaign ? That’s where the chronicle timestamp can start to overlap the main game.
Again, two civs will never have the same naming. So if they add goths it’s more the visigoths, ostrogoths, etc. But that’s probably also one plausible dlc topic, but this is 2030 content, so it’s not now.
My guess on the next chronicle is early rome, with unification of the italic areas, facing pyrrus and the two punic wars.
They could also just do a bigger dlc so they can have enought feature in it, and it would also explain why we’ve not heard anything about it yet, that it’s going to be a “mega dlc”, with 5 civ and 36 missions or something like that, more closer to The Conqueror xpack.
3 Likes
No, the “Roman downturn” I am referring to is the "Crisis of the Third Century in the 200s AD, not the actual collapse of Rome in the late 300s and early 400s.
I think they are a possibility for the Second Punic War, although I’m betting on Iberians with one or two scenarios.
First and Second Punic War and maybe Pyrrhic Wars as a introduction would be enough for 20 scenarios. It’s the Third Punic War that i don’t think will be addressed unless the devs skip the conflicts with Macedonians, Illyrians and Greeks.
Not gonna lie, the idea of a mega DLC with 36 scenarios or so would make me throw my money at them.
2 Likes
Is Hera really dictating anything? Not sure. His comment might imply some insider info or it might be just guessing on his part.
Didn’t he said “Saracens”?
Anyway, that immediately reminds me Cysion’s interview where he talked about Vikings and Saracens and how those 2 could get split after Chinese. Now we have Vikings split after new South Americans. So a Saracens split after touching a new region is highly possible. Alternatively they can merge Saracens split with North or East Africa.
Yes, that’s why I said “that I would remember”…it’s just that every now and then they release big patches and I might miss things…
Yes, but the German discussions in AoE 3 are divided into “meh we want to divide them into Austrians and Prussians”…and for Indians into “meh we want to divide them into Mughals and Marathas”…
Yes, I wouldn’t know how else to change the Saracens except by giving them the Dervish (or Camel Monk) instead of the Imam…
Yes, we already have Macedonians, we would only need Epirotes (for Pyrrhus) and Romans (or Republican Romans) to have the Pyrrhic Wars (281-275 BC) and the Macedonian Wars (214-146 BC)…
Yes, they could start with Arminius and Boudicca (the Iceni rebellion learned a lot from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest to fight against the Romans)…
Yes, I would stop before the Attila and Alaric campaign… I’d be happy if Chronicles ended with the Battle of Adrianople in 378 CE…
If that’s true…then we could start thinking about a Middle East DLC next year (September 2027?) (Mamluks, Crusaders/Outremers, Nubians and Somalis?) (the Saracens would still represent the different Arab dynasties) (and connect it with a Middle East DLC for Age of Empires 3) (which would be Persians and Omanis)…
Sure but they don’t need to be a civ. However we had thracian for a very low amount of scenarios in AtG.
I will no matter the amount of scenarios ahaha.
Yeah definitly, a revolt themed dlc, also one about Britania and the adrian wall would be cool.
I think it’s still okay if they revisit some AoE2 timestamp content, in a different narrative more solo focus variant. I’d love to see the 100 years war in a chronicle version, don’t you ?
2 Likes
Precisely the purpose of an Iberian or Celtiberian civ would be the same as Thracians for any faction outside of Africa or Italy.
The Hundred Year’s War, La Reconquista, The Crusades, The Mongol conquest, Charlemagne, a mega campaign for Bizantines, etc. There’s so much potential with Chronicles
3 Likes
I think the Battle of Milvian Bridge is a better choice for where Antiquity Chronicles ends. I think Adrianople could be represented in base game AoE 2
This is fair as well though, yeah
1 Like
Haha, ok, I thought we had wildly different ideas of what kind of changes are significant… Nope, you’d just forgotten!
Isn’t most of the discourse on this forum like this? “I hate civ X, please change it beyond recognition and/or replace it with civs Y, Z and Q”?
At one point in development dervishes were considered for the Saracens’ unique unit – the concept was “mounted berserkers… should have a scimitar”.
Yes, I seem to recall that in Age of Empires Online there’s a questline where you have to help Boudicca in her Iceni rebellion against the Romans… so it would be interesting to see that in Chronicles…
Yes, but they should just release a regular DLC for the game, like this Viking one… besides, Age of Empires 4 already has the entire Hundred Years’ War as a campaign, and it would get kind of repetitive… I’d leave Chronicles for pure, unadulterated Antiquity…
Yes, either one works… I was saying it to get the most out of Chronicles…
Yes, it happens that I leave AoE 2 for a while and then I come back and I think, “What did I miss?” and I have to go look it up on the wiki…
Yes, let’s respect the original civilizations as Ensemble Studios left them and stop making such a fuss… I’d accept that the World Edge/FE developers tweaked the Chinese and Indian civilizations in TAD, because it was a BHG expansion, but even so, they’re already beloved civilizations, however strange they may be…
Hmm…would they be like Arab “jarls”?..
The design document also calls them “religious fanatics”. An article in Computer Gaming World issue 168, also from mid-1998, says: “The Saracen elite fighting unit has a devastating attack against heavily armored units.” Though the model used at the time was not mounted, but lots of stuff was not finalised then, anyway.
The Mameluke’s internal name “DERVI” still hints at the earlier unit concept.
1 Like
Mameluke was probably called “dervish” in the 1998 alpha and then mutated into the one we’ve known since 1999, since dervish was something like this…
As iconic as the Mamluks may be in the game, in my opinion, they are among the units with the poorest implementation. Name, historical background, appearance, mechanics—absolutely nothing about them really fits together. They are essentially an abstract, cartoonish unit slapped with a historical name that actually suits the civilization. Nothing about them aligns at all—except, perhaps, for the basic concept of such a unit in terms of game balance.
1 Like