Again, with that argument, the earliest a campaign can be set is 224, as this is the start of the Sassanian Empire. In the same vein, the start of the Western empire is the same as the start of the Eastern Empire. This has been since 1997, so it’s not something that just appeared now
I actually made an effort to port Yamato to Age 2, but got bored
Edit: I’m willing to transfer what I already have to someone who’s actually interested and can promise to finish it AND preserve my vision of it
I totally agree we need campaigns for civs that haven’t one. I am ready to pay 1€ per scenario, so about 55€ for them all (5x11).
Fine then you start your desired campaign about 70 years before my planned campaign. Well done…
I did not write anything about that either.
224 AD was still in the Roman Empire.
I suppose I wasn’t clear. What I’m trying to get to is that the start of the earliest civ is not necessarily the start of the game.
In 1997, we had the start of Sassanid and Eastern and Western Empires in the third century and that doesn’t mean that the earliest date for a campaign should be 224
Well now it is clearer.
I just think, that an Western roman campaign with the Western Roman emperor Diocletian would be appropriate enough for the game, since Diocletian has also a certain notoriety compared to other emperors of that time.
Yes. But it someone wanted a Sassanian campaign set in 224, wouldn’t that be too early?
Wouldn’t an Eastern Roman campaign be a better fit for Diocletian?
A question to think about it… It is an overlapping period between the European iron age and European antiquity. Since the Iron age and Antiquity started earlier in Iran than in Europe, a Sassandid campaign for Age of Empires 2 is certainly feasible yes.
Age of Empires 2 covers as prime age next to the Antiquity (Dark Ages), the Middle Ages (Feudal age) and the Renaissance (Castle age) also a smaller part of the Early modern period (Imperial age).
Age of Empires 1 covers even much larger epochs in terms of time period, next to the Iron age also the Bronze age, the Neolithic age and the Mesolithic age.
I am pleased to see, that Microsoft want now also advance the first Age of Empires part and have donated 3 new civ campaigns to the game, with the new Age of Empires 2 map environment. The technical refinements should from time to time be adjusted for this part. Of course I hope like much other people, that there will be a few more civ campaigns will come.
According to the displayed graphic, which I made in the first post on the subject yes.
This is also the start date for the Roman civ, according to this post on the official website:
In game, the Romans date back to about 395 C.E., making them contemporaries with the Goths, Celts, Britons, Franks, Persians, etc.
Pushing it any further back seems excessive to me, especially now Return of Rome exists. Anything from before that would make more sense as a Return of Rome campaign.
This is a very strange interpretation. The Dark Ages (a term that isn’t used much anymore) is generally taken to be the end of antiquity – they’re not the same thing. I don’t know why you would think the Castle Age is the Renaissance, since castles, knights, crossbows, chain mail, etc. all existed well before that. The Imperial Age probably does include some of the early Early Modern period, but most of the generic units and techs are not Early Modern (I guess the exceptions are hussars and galleons).
At core this statement has parts of truth but your mentioned exceptions about some units as well as my mentioned campaigns for it, confirm the other case.
The Dark Ages represent in stronger form the later part of Antiquity but in a larger extent also the whole part.
While that is true, but of incorporating individual units and missions from entire campaigns from the Early modern period, the Castle age is attribute rigthly to the Renaissance, to make a gametechnical sense.
Even yes…
That is correct, since the Early modern period covers few units, technologies and some campaigns, but yet for these reasons the Imperial Age is still appropriate for the Early modern period.
Also the Aztec and Inca campaigns refer to the Early modern period and not to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
I’m full for a Campaign pack. Also for RoR civs.
Civs that never got a campaign pack deserve their history to be told.
Very good yes. If more people vote for it, write comments, do likes and create topics at the forum about it, then is rather a possibility, that will be new campaigns packages as update content, that can be purchased with real money.
Absolutely agree. To make the game more complete, missing campaigns should be added.
Imho having aoe2 Romans start from 395 doesn’t make much sense if you make them end with Theodoric (489). It’s too little, too late. After stilicho in fact (410) western Romans were not able to field armies anymore if not in the form of foederati (so I guess they should fight with huskarl, tarkans etc). That would mean 30 years of Roman military history to be generous. Also the battle of the frigidus in 394, usually referred to the beginning of aoe2 timeframe, is a strict consequence of Adrianople and a cause of the sack of Rome, it’s even mentioned in Alaric’s campaign.
I think there are two possible solutions to this:
I wouldn’t go as far as to include the third century crysis (even if there are arguments for that) but I don’t see what’s the difference between having Theodosius or Valentinian, constans or Constantine… Historians usually make the process of disintegration of western Rome start with Adrianople in 378 so it’s kinda strange playing a civ already disintegrating but at least you could start from there. Personally I’d go back until Constantine and Christianity becoming legit which I think it’s the real turning point of antiquity Vs middle ages: from the battle of the milvian bridge in 312 to the completion of Diocletian reforms that would give the late Roman empire its final “medieval” incarnation. And the funding of Constantinople shortly after.
This to give aoe2 Romans a little of breath and meaning in the game by either expanding them onwards or backwards (or both if you ask me). Aoe1 doesn’t cover the 4th century at all and hoplites and many other units are out of place (already a stretch by the 3rd century, plus Christianity being inexistent) to depict something like the gothic war in 376 even if they add Germanic tribes as civs in the future. Military warfare already changed by the time of gallienus and shifted to medieval cavalry even in Rome. I feel aoe1 for now already has the huge duty to represent bronze, iron and proper classical antiquity and Hellenism so adding civs from there (early Germanic tribes like alemanni and marcomanni could still be added joining palmyrans at the tail end of the timeframe) while aoe2 could potentially do a better job with late antiquity and the migration period already having Huns, goths and maybe soon vandals and Lombards…
@RealMatrim2, sorry, I find it basically impossible to understand any of your responses to me.
What do you mean by “stronger form”? The whole part of what? And why do you believe this?
Do you mean that some campaigns that are set in the Renaissance feature the Castle Age, therefore the Castle Age is the Renaissance? That’s what I understand this to mean, but that doesn’t make sense, since there are campaigns set earlier than the Renaissance that feature both Castle and Imperial Ages. You can even reach Imperial Age as early as AD 408 in the Alaric campaign – the campaigns don’t actually use the ages to represent specific time periods at all.
I don’t disagree with that, but I disagree that the Imperial Age is exclusively the Early Modern period. Trebuchets, hand cannon, bombards, etc. are all pre-Early Modern.
I almost agree with everything, some civs deserve a better campaign or just an honest and complete campaign. I would just point out that Magyars have a one-scenario campaign called “Honfoglalás”, which is not that much but still we have something related to Magyars. As far as persians, slavs, chinese, japanese and vikings are concerned, they DO deserve a full campaign of their own with their detailed history.
Regarding Romans, it could be difficult and tricky to create a campaign for them, since middle ages represent the end for this civilization (referring only to the Western Part of the roman empire and not to the eastern); so in this case i would cover the civil war from 306 to 324 under the ruling of Costantine the first. This is a possible idea, but middle ages would have begun in 476 AD.
Of course we know that, I mentioned this in a thread at my theme. But this one scenario in the Historical Battles is not enough for the Hungarians. They deserve their own campaign, as the Lithuanians, Poles and Bohemians received more than 2 years ago.
Also a suitable campaign suggestion.
The Middle Ages begins around 750 AD, which match to the early Middle Ages before takes place the Dark Ages or otherwise called the Late antiquity.
Yes pity. I wrote them clearly enough, so I hope, that you will still understand the answers.
I mean it, as I have written. The Dark Ages represents mostly the second part of the Antiquity, around the period of 500 to 750 AD.
From the Antiquity as I have written.
I not only believe it, I know it. You can find this information from reliable history sources on the internet.
Yes I mean it like that.
A lot of things in this game do not make sense, since a lot is shifted, especially campaigns start points in relation to the Historical time epochs as the Dark Age, the Feudal Age, the Castle and the Imperial age.
That is true. I did not write, that the Imperial age includes only units from the Early modern period. Of course they mostly contain units from the late Middle Ages or to parts of the Renaissance.
Aah, so this is just a case of you using a word in a completely different sense from everybody else – like that time a few days ago when you insisted that Edward Longshanks was an Anglo-Saxon.
The idea of the Dark Ages was introduced by Petrarch, and the whole point was to contrast this period with antiquity. The Dark Ages can’t overlap with antiquity by definition.
In any case, you’ve contradicted yourself here. You were arguing that Diocletian wouldn’t be too early for AoE2, because he was alive in antiquity and the Dark Age includes antiquity, but now you’ve said it starts around AD 500, almost 200 years after he died.
Ok, let’s follow your logic then. Some campaigns that are set in the Crusades feature the Castle Age is the Crusades. Also, some campaigns that are set in the Hundred Years’ War feature the Castle Age, therefore the Castle Age is the Hundred Years’ War. Do you see the problem yet?
I’ve wondered about doing this, but the original campaign is so weird and unlike the AoE2 ones that I think it would end up more of a remake than a port. (Also I have basically no campaign making experience.)
The issue is, that you do not read things carefully and do not want to accept historical facts.
I still insist, that Edward Longshanks has an Anglosaxon background. Even if the time when he lived already belonged to the linguistically following English. In any case I wrote, that he has no Celtic background and that is so true, you can not deny it.
Having an idea and seeing facts are two different things. Well if you follow with the theory of Petrarca, then there is an Early Antiquity and a Late Antiquity which corresponds to the Dark Ages. It is regretful, why you make a big issue out of a small issue.
The Dark Ages correspond to the Late Antiquity, this is a clear overlap.
No I have not. But you keep twisting my true written facts again and again, which is just nonsensical because you obviously do not want to recognize historical facts.
Yes, I still argue for that, Diocletin as a Hero is not to early for a campaign integration in Age of Empires 2. I wrote, that the Antiquity includes the Dark Ages and not the opposite. You are again twisting things, that I have described differently.
I am not saying that, you say that. I said that the Late Antiquity or the Dark Ages begins around 500 AD. However, there are certain historians, who even extend the Dark Ages to Early antiquity.
@Temudhun, I believe and I hope so from now on, that if you further constantly like @TommoChocolate more and more provocative comments, the devs will ignore your umbrella civ wishes of very much different civs… It is just ugly, how you react to my positive comments to this campaigns topic. The people including myself which comment here, make an effort and it takes time, that means that we do not want constantly being insulted by other users. English ist also not the native language of every user here, what makes it even more difficult to respond to counter arguments and or provocative messages. Therefore your way of communicating is even uglier. Please both of you think about it and have more respect…
I started with the idea of just using the original victory conditions and dialogues and stuff, not touching them too much. I also wanted to use only AoE2 units that were present during the AoE1 timeline. No pikes, no halberdiers, no trebuchet and so on
