Why are you being so angry?
You don’t have to buy the Return of Rome DLC. It doesn’t matter if you can’t play them on ranked, because they would be unbalanced. Nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC. You don’t have to buy it.
A Roman civ can be very fun for a scenario based on barbarian invasion of Rome Total war or something. Europe diplomacy with Romans could also be very cool.
This is appealing for scenario and mod makers.
I think because for the people that don’t like it, it’s seen as a waste of developer time and resources that could’ve gone into civilizations that make more sense within the timeline, and can be played in ranked.
“Hey I know this part of history!”
I don’t think the dlc will be canceled because 10 guys are whining, Romans are not even going to be played on multiplayer Ranked, so what’s the problem? They wont see them ever
My only issue is that the Romans are within AoE2’s timeframe. I have no issue with the AoE1 port into AoE2.
Well, there are multiple reasons to be dissatisfied.
First of all, the Romans civ was announced yesterday to be added as an AOE2 civ, which compelled AOE2-only players like myself to pre-order the DLC. But today the Steam entry was silently edited to say that it wouldn’t be playable on the ladder, which makes it an unplayable civ for people who play the ladder. Of course people will be upset.
In my opinion a civ should either be added or not. I really dislike the current approach where the civ is only “playable” in some settings but not others. Either add it or don’t. This is just confusing and misleading. It’s also breaking a precedent (that each civ is playable on the ladder) that shouldn’t be broken. Not adding Romans to AOE2 at all would have been much better than this.
Another reason is that I don’t like the concept of a DLC that has pretty much nothing to offer for players who just want to play AOE2 (instead of AOE1). The “just don’t buy it” argument ignores the fact that this DLC is competing for time and resources that could have been spent on a proper AOE2 DLC (from my perspective, of course), so yes, I do mind.
The only thing I may have an issue is the ladder thing, I would be very disappointed if they took them out out of the ladder because of backlash but I don’t know so…
It’s a controversial choice as they were knocked out very early in the AOE2 timeline, in 476 (or 486 if you count Soissons). Some also see them as redundanct (we already have the Byzantines and the Italians), a waste of civ slot (apparently there is a hard limit in the engine, though it’s been increased over time) and an use of resources that could have been put toward other new civs.
Putting them as an AOE2 bonus in ROR also feels like inciting to buy the DLC despite not wanting anything related to AOE1.
IMO, all new civs that can be used in ranked should be balanced properly in unranked first before they are released to ranked.
The fact is that most of the civs were OP and got nerfed later
52 topics about the same DLC, we are getting closer, Hurray 
(apparently there is a hard limit in the engine, though it’s been increased over time)
This is new to me. What hard limit? I could imagine the hard limit being a byte, but then we would still have room for about 200 more civs.
Putting them as an AOE2 bonus in ROR also feels like inciting to buy the DLC despite not wanting anything related to AOE1.
I wouldn’t even mind this if they had done it properly. Now they’re just pissing off multiple sides (people for and against Roman civ).
The devs would need an insane amount of play testing for that (assuming they have a wide enough skill range…), they can not predict accurately how powerful a civ will exactly be. When using official stats they have the average of hundreds of thousands of matches, and can adjust accordingly.
Overall by using statistical feedback the balance is very good, despite the number of civs.
Are you really counting ? xD
I disagree. The ranked ladder is the best way to test the balance of a new civ (after initial testing of course so that the civ is at least somewhat sane). The main issue is that for some reason it takes the devs a relatively long time to release a new patch with balance changes, but even then with the random civs option it’s not even a huge issue overall.
Hey I think a lot of people that dont like Romands didnt like the last two Euro DLCs that much either
Yes 
If we are going to beat this subject to death, I guess I will do my part, hopefully we get to 100 before the release, so we can have another 100 of Whining about it after the release…lol 
I personally don’t think it’s that funny. These are legit complaints that should be taken seriously.
But not OP and that group of people
I think the limit is currently 48 civs. So 5 slots left unless the devs expand it. It’s easy to understand why one of the 6 slots currently available is taken by a civ that’s nowhere near the top of the list asked by the players (the Jurchens are number 1 for me, for example. I also wanted the Romans so this is a welcome surprise for me, but I understand why others are angry).
The best way of adding the Romans would have been making them free (both UUs already existed, they’ll probably use Constantine’s Arch as the wonder so it mainly needed making the tech tree, this civ was probablè lighter to design than others) and add them with the next update. They picked the half measure of making it only available in singleplayer and unranked (which will hurt the feedback on how balanced they are).
