What would you like added to the Return of Rome DLC?

One issue.
Age of Mythology Retold.

They won’t make a new ancient setting game any time soon.
RoR and AoMR both provide ancient content.
Especially AoMR will likely be very big. Look at all the content AoE3DE got, arguably more then AoE2DE and that with one less year of time (unless you count RoR as AoE2 content).

I’m very hyped for AoMR. More so then I was for AoE3DE or any other Definitive Edition or AoE4 even.

AoM has so much potential but it’s limited by the technology of it’s time as one of the fist 3D RTS.
It had also the awful fate of being released in the same year as Warcraft 3, which is probably the biggest RTS of all time.

All we know is that they are investing a lot of work in improving the AoE2 engine at the moment, which is only something that you’d do if you plan to do more with it in the future.
The other thing they announced is porting some of the AoE1(DE) campaigns to RoR.

I think further RoR content depends on the demand. The demand for AoE2 content is higher though so I expect the next DLC being a classical AoE2 one.

My bet is in Armenia and Georgia.
I might be wrong and it ends up being East Asia.

I’m one of the people who pushed for the AOE1 campaigns to be brought into RoR. I do like the three campaigns we got, but I was half expecting AOE1 to be ported (to a degree) into AOE2 so when none of the original campaigns were there, I was confused. I think the confusion was mostly caused by like I said above, what is going on? I know part of the reason for this DLC was to try and bring the Vietnamese community to AOE2 so I was afraid this DLC was just a greedy cash grab.

Personally, ever since they split Indians into 4 separate civs, I think the Chinese DESPERATELY need similar treatment. China is so big, so different, so diverse, and it’s all crammed awkwardly into just one civ, which leads to all the weird shenanigans like Chinese not having block printing, gunpowder, etc. Splitting it up would make those kinds of weird things easier to manage

Oh I am aware we aren’t getting a brand new AoE anytime soon, just saying effort in changing RoR gameplay is better placed towards a new eventual game, instead of changing a classic too much.

Also excited for AoMR, but cautious after that Chinese expansion…

I have the theory that they originally intended to port all the campaigns, some early interviews implied that.
But then had to scrap that idea later in the development.
Either because of time/budget reasons or because they felt there was a disconnect between the new AoE2 style campaigns and the old AoE1 style ones.

Considering they decided to add half of them so quickly now, it feels like they are already partially done.

I completely agree.
China is to big and too complex to be represented by one civilisation.
But maybe it should be done like the Burgundians which are kind off a Franks split in some way.
Instead of replacing China with 3-4 civilisation, add 2-3 new civilisations that represent other ethnic and cultural groups form around China.

Current China is kind of only the Song dynasty, that’s what they were called during the beta.

I hope they will get cool regional units that aren’t just cavalry again.

They fixed that, they have block printing now.

AoM EE and the Chinese expansion was made by a totally different team.
The Chinese Expansion is basically just a mod tbh. reusing unused assets and a lot of stuff from AoE3.

They already said they will rework the Chinese. We don’t know how much though.

I’ve heard from some people that they may not have wanted to port them because they don’t fit the AOE2 narrative storytelling style of campaigns. It’s been YEEEEEEEEEEARS since I played AOE1 but according to these people, the AOE1 campaigns are fairly disjointed, have large time gaps and don’t focus on any particular characters. To that degree, I can understand why they weren’t ported. I guess it’s just why not remake those old campaigns and update them? Why make brand new ones?? It’s not like Antiquity was boring!

Yes yes yes!~
When we got civs like the Burdungians, I was like “Ok, ok, so we’re filling out the little guys, alright…” Then the India DLC dropped and I as like “Ok, ok, we’re filling out a complex region like India, alright…” Then I was like… “But China…”

I know, I know but the meme isn’t going away XD Plus they STILL don’t have gunpowder while LITERALLY EVERYONE IN ASIA DOES… Bruh, give them cannons, PLEASE~ They deserve it! THEY’RE CHINA!!

I’d personally do:
Song (current China), Ming, Jin/Jurchen and Tibetans.

I know many people hat the idea of having 2 dynasties of the same “civilisation” in the game but I think that’s a pretty good split in this case. That would allow giving the Ming all the gunpoweder things, gunpowder Unique Units but in return for worse Archer and Cavalry.

The Romans, Byzantines and Italians also exist in the same game and so do the Celts, Britons (that are practically Normans) and Sicilians (that are also Normans) while the Anglo Saxons are represented as the Goths in the Historic Mission.

Hillforts!

Add compatibility with original AoE1 custom campaigns files like AoE1 DE. Age of Empires 1 is my favourite AoE game and I love to play the custom campaigns at AoE Heaven. AoE1 DE is compatible with those

I wish they would give us a conversion tool.
Same for AoE2 scenarios.
Why can’t I upon an AoE2 scenario that just has terrain and animals in it that exist in RoR too in RoR?
So many awesome maps out there that I’d love to port to RoR but I don’t want to manually recreate the whole map.

2 Likes

Possibly, otherwise they would not have spent so much to port all the civs and make new campaigns for AoE 1… I think that new dlcs for RoR will come later covering northern Europe and India…

Or just AoE Online DE xd…

Sure, we were forgetting that little detail…

Me too, just not as much as when 3 DE came out (I expected campaigns and everything), but I’m optimistic and restrained with AoM, a bright future awaits him…

WC3 came out in 2001, a year before AoM (2002) (for a reason Retold was announced last year)… in 2001 SWGB came out and AoM was announced at E3 and shown in its beta base (with Misenus as the protagonist, Gargarensis as a Cyclops and the Greeks with Byzantine walls)…

Of course, I think the same… for me they also go to the Caucasus or the Balkans (to further divide the Slavs as they did with the Indians in DoI)…

Sure, we all expected the same thing, but they didn’t communicate well what the dlc brought…

Yes, but the Chinese maintained a certain general culture throughout the centuries, they only divided into kingdoms in between during the changes of dynasties and governments (something similar to what happened with Egypt and Japan)…

Yes, at least we won’t have it until 2027, remember that a new AoE comes out every 6 years: AoE 2 (1999), AoE 3 (2005), AoEO (2011), AoE 4 (2021, since World Domination came out in 2015)…

Of course, of course…they do it so that AoE 1 doesn’t feel so outdated…

Yes, they are going to remake the entire Chinese expansion, both campaign and mythology (it will be an intermediate between AoE 1 and AoE 2 with some archaic mechanics and units from AOE 3)

Yeah, and that’s why the AoE 4 ones are kind of meh because of that…

Or flamethrowers like in AoE 3 xd…

Minor nitpick: they were called Chinese in the beta, and even in alpha versions (at least, the ones I know of). They were referred to as ‘the Sung’ in an internal Ensemble Studios document from mid-1998 – presumably a draft version of the in-game history section. I assume that’s where the idea that they specifically represent the Song dynasty comes from. (The same document also has English and Germans, rather than Britons and Teutons.)

3 Likes

I would like to add more people playing online

3 Likes

I would like to be able to mod the game properly. Currently you cannot mod both the base game and RoR at the same time.

2 Likes

I mean… you could say the exact same thing about India or the Muslim Middle East, yet they all got more particular and individual attention as to better separate and balance the characteristics they’re known for. I see no reason why the Chinese couldn’t get some “Indian” treatment

2 Likes

By power you can, but it is somewhat controversial…

  1. Defenses need double HP, and siege units need their bonus damage doubled vs buildings.

Towers are garbage. They are so weak. Massed Chariot Archers and Horse Archers destroy walls so easily. Siege units are weak against buildings. Ranged units destroying buildings so fast makes 0 sense and siege units would be good at what they are supposed to be.

  1. Let us start with a a scout (already on some MegaRandom maps)

Of course not a mounted scout, since they weren’t tamed in stone age. Instead they should add a weak clubman. It is very ineffective to scout with a villager economically

  1. Unit upgrades

Camels die to Cataphracts because there is no Heavy Camel.
Chariots are so broken and they dominate trash wars. Horse Archer is the strongest gold unit. Add Heavy Slinger, Horseman and Elite Horseman with all having bonus damage against archer units. To avoid foot archers being useless, add a Recurved Bowman (Composite Bowman) in Iron Age and Levy Bowman (Bowman) in Bronze Age. Horseman would counter Chariots, Slingers, Archers in the lategame, so add Bronze Axeman and Heavy Axeman, as trash unit cavalry counters.

  1. Add uniqueness to civilizations

Unique wonders and languages wouldn’t change the balance. Unique units and unique techs would, but they are neccessary for the game, because civs just seem the same. Crossbowmen for Shang, Immortals for Persians etc.

  1. Add new civilizations
    Xiongnu, Magadhans, Scythians, Nubians, Celts were all EXTREMELY important. Scythians invented chariot warfare. Magadhans unified most of India under Maurya Empire. Xiongnu invented horse riiding warfare. Nubians were the first black empire and conquered Egypt. Celts inhabited much of Europe and fought Romans for centuries.
8 Likes

I think this in general is a good idea. I’d love to see a little bit more unit variety by giving some of the old tiers a bit of an upgrade into the late game.

idea: upgrade axeman into spearman into … Auxiliary? Better represents the “anti-cavalry” bonus that the axeman already gets, and gives a role for light infantry that isn’t really filled by either the swordsman or hoplite line.

2 Likes

Some good thoughts. I like the idea of a weak clubman “scout.” It would make early scouting easier.

It appears that a good number of people find towers relatively weak, and chariot archers too potent for their cost. I think the chariot issue needs to be addressed. As for defense, I like skadidesu’s idea of the ability to upgrade a town center with firing capability and greater strength. My concern with upgrading towers is the ability to use them offensively, which I find a bit of a negative thing.

I have seen quite a few players recommending an upgrade to camels. That would not be bad, but would only help those civs that have them.

Unique wonders would be cool, but I would prefer re-skins for regional units rather than unique units and techs. I would prefer further balancing first anyway.

2 Likes

I’d love to see a little bit more “spreading out” of some of the current upgrade chains. It strikes me as a bit odd that you can upgrade from “Improved Bowman” to “Composite Bowman” in the same age. By placing the Composite Bow in the Iron age instead and upgrading that unit accordingly would give that line a bit more utility. Similarily, as Akos mentioned, upgrades for a few of the “dead ends” would be pretty nice.

1 Like

This is my post from another topic:

Axeman line upgrades:

Bronze Age - Bronze Axeman:

60 HP, 6 damage, no armor or 1 pierce armor because RoR balance change, moves 5% faster than swordsman line.

Iron Age - Heavy Axeman

75 HP, 9 attack, no armor or 1 pierce armor because RoR balance change and moves 5% faster than swordsmen line.

Iron Age - Falxman (axeman elite upgrade only for select few civs and preferably to barbarian factions when added)

85 HP, 12 attack, no armor or 1 pierce armor because RoR balance change, +5 vs hoplite line and moves 5% faster than swordsmen line.

Short Swordsman +5 HP from 60 to 65.

If spearman will be added I would remove axeman bonus vs mounted units, which was added in RoR.

Tool Age - Spearman

40-45 HP, 4 attack, +8 vs mounted and no armor.

Bronze Age - Improved Spearman

50 HP, 5 attack, +10 vs mounted and no armor.

Iron Age - Auxilary Spearman

60 HP, 6 attack, +14 vs mounted and 1 armor.

Slinger line upgrades:

Bronze Age - Improved/Heavy Slinger

30 HP, 5-6 range, damage 3, pierce armor 2-3, is effected by melee armor upgrades and damage bonuses are same.

Iron Age - Elite Slinger

35-40 HP, 6-7 range, damage 4, pierce armor 3-4, is effected by melee armor upgrades and damage bonuses +1.

Scout line upgrades:

Bronze Age - Light Cavalry

75-80 HP, 6 attack, 1 pierce armor, +3 vs ranged units and +5-10% faster than other cavalry or as fast as horse archer. Should also have conversion resistance like chariots since some civs don’t get chariots.

Iron Age - Lancer

100 HP, 8 attack, 1 pierce armor, +4 vs ranged units and +5-10% faster than other cavalry or as fast as heavy horse archer + conversion res. As special power it could have +10 charge attack with cooldown.

Camel rider should have iron age upgrade.

Iron Age - Heavy Camel Rider

140 HP, 8 attack, 1-2 armor, attack bonuses either same or +2 vs cav and +1 vs chariot/elephant compare to regular camel rider.

Heavy Cavalry +15 HP from 150 to 165.

Iron age upgrades to some Archery range units.

Iron Age - Heavy/Royal Chariot Archer

85 HP, 7 range, 5 attack, no armor and has conversion resistance like other chariots.

Iron Age - Elite Composite Bowman/Recurve Bowman

50 HP, range 7-8 (should have higher range than mounted archers, it thats not too imbalanced), damage 6, no armor.

Ballista Tower damage from 18 to 25.

I would add Rams to Siege Workshop so we could have more diverse siege options.

Bronze Age - Battering/Light Ram

150 HP, pierce armor 20 ( Ballista Tower should be capable to destroy them so they should have 5 pierce armor less than basic ballista tower damage), damage should be better vs buildings compare to Stone Thrower or it has faster attack and better DPM.

Iron Age - Armored/Heavy Ram

185-200 HP, pierce armor 35 (it would mean that ballista can deal 5 damage per shot), damage vs buildings should be better than Catapult or it has faster attack and better DPM.

Iron Age - Siege Ram

250-300HP, pierce armor 40 (it would mean that helepolis can deal 5 damage per shot), damage vs buildings should be better than Heavy Catapult or it has faster attack and better DPM.

Perhaps there should be also ultimate Scout Ship line upgrade to some most powerful naval factions.

Iron Age - Quinquereme

225 HP, 15 damage, 7 range and no armor.

Since cavalry is suppose to counter archers perhaps cavalry should get tech, which gives them +1 pierce armor to make them more effective vs bronze and iron age range units.

3 Likes

AoE1 buildings have no armour, their HP are practically the same as AoE2 because all units do 1/5 damage vs. buildings.

There is a unit called explorer in the scenario editor that is a little faster but weaker then a clubman. It looks like a clubman but that’s probably just a placeholder.

Everyone agrees.

Most people agree with that too.
Especially no unique Wo##### is disappointing.

AoE1 covers a large time frame then AoE2 or any other AoE, there are so many missing civilisations.

1 Like