I noticed that in some discussions people say that they would like to see a Roman campaign. It’s not that I don’t understand their desires - they are a technically strong and hyped civ. But I’m almost sure that their campaign will never happen (at least in the coming years). Causes:
-
In AoE 1 there are as many as 4 Roman campaigns, they just need to be ported. I have a neutral attitude towards RoR, its content is generally unplayable in AoE 1 itself, but in the transfer it all plays well. Although there is not enough voice acting of the events taking place. There is not and will not be another civ in the entire game that has that much campaigns.
-
We also have a full-fledged Trajan campaign in RoR. And this is already happening at the beginning of our era, which means that we have a very small gap of time left until the 5th century, when Rome fell.
-
Significant event during this period was the Roman–Parthian wars. But for this it would be necessary to create the civilization of ancient Parthia, since the existing late Persia would not work. And this creates further difficulties. And this is the 2-3 century - not even what is usually depicted in the time period of AoE 2.
-
History of late Rome is already fully revealed in the campaigns of Alaric and Attila. Although it would be good to add some more arts there and remove the ahistorical nonsense about Aetius leaving military. But overall, the end of an era is shown well.
Edit. The players convinced me about points 3 and 4. It is well proven in the discussion that Rome still has many stories in its decline. In addition, it spread its influence to other countries and stories could take place not in Rome itself but in the cultures where it assimilated. However, the other points remain valid, we still have content overload on Rome. Card of Rome has been played too many times. And the last point.
- A difficult technical decision would have to be made. The race itself has already been released as part of one dlc and the campaign will be in another? Make the race free? Give its unlock in two different dlc? These are all dubious schemes that will repel players.
However! I believe it is possible to create 1-2 historical battles. This could be a compromise between having and not having such campaign.
This already exists in the game with the Prithviraj campaign. You can play a DLC civ for free with it.
If anything, the ability to play a paid civ without paying for it as part of a campaign is a good advertising strategy.
3 Likes
You can play a DLC civ FOR FREE with it. In the main game.
And here you must buy 1 dlc to play for free the civ from another dlc. Head goes round.
I believe it will eventually happen and here’s why: it would sell.
Unofficial Rome themed campaigns are popular and I remember playing at least three of them.
(Not to mention its reach as a pop culture phenom like that “my Roman Empire” stuff meme)
History isn’t that important. All devs have to do is tell a good story about the empire final years. Maybe a defend-your-homeland one like El Cid’s.
But I do agree that it is more likely a couple scenarios as Historical Battles will pop up in the near future.
1 Like
Even RoR did not sell well, and yet it offers as many as 2 races of the Romans and the Trajan campaign. And 4 more campaigns seem to be promised to be postponed. And all this did not help sales.
In addition, the remaining points remain in force. What can we talk about about Rome in the 3rd and 4th centuries? Repeat? Tell the same story from Aetius’ side? Show a very late era, when emperors were changed every 3 weeks and Rome caved in to the Germans? I just don’t believe it. I don’t know what’s left to show.
I suggest just waiting for the 4 old campaigns to be transferred. It would be nice if they added at least a little dialogue inside missions, although this is extremely unlikely.
ROR didn’t perform poorly because of Romans but rather because it is AOE1 and AOE1 doesn’t have half the playerbase AOE2 has.
Again, the events per se aren’t the problem. Storytelling possibilities are infinite. It’s not a matter of “what” you tell but “how” do you tell it. The player fights the same battle against the Teutonic Order twice in DOTD but in two wholly different ways.
So to have Aetius’ – to use your example – military life told would not be a problem. Quite the opposite, the prospect of facing the Huns on the last scenarios would create huge antecipation.
Having nothing to brag about isn’t an impeditive too. Look at the Aztec campaign. A sad ending isn’t a problem either – Ivaylo’s has the saddest ending ever but in my opinion is one of the best campaigns.
They care about selling and Romans sell. They did the hardest job putting the civ in the game even against staunch opposition in this forum. A Roman campaign is a much less riskier task and one which bears a way greater rewards.
4 Likes
Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for a AOE2 Roman campaign. I’m just saying it makes sense though not in the near future.
I would rather have AOE1 Roman campaigns. Maybe these would even help sell the game/ROR.
2 Likes
Aetius is a better choice imo
1 Like
Well, in such campaign they could show both Aetius and Majorian, they lived the same time. I accept arguments about those persons and a sad story. But there is still TOO much Rome in the game and there is an intractable “dlc on dlc” problem. And I don’t believe in bestsellers in this case. We have other nations to show rather than making Robert Downey out of Rome.
There is no such problem DoI already did this with ################## with and without doi dlc can play ########### campaign.
Why is p rit #### raj censored?
1 Like
Inside the MAIN game. This way Romans campaign must be in the main game too! Will they do it? No!
All the civis are in the main game already so not a big problem.
Lol no. Who told you that? All civs from dlcs are locked behind them.
What you advice is literally: buy one dlc to play Romans in skirmish and buy the second to play their campaign. Guess what ppl will say on this.
Locked yes but data is already there or else how can you play against someone without the dlc civis while you have it?
People will buy the dlc with campaigns.
1 Like
That’s your opinion. Partly it is true - many ppl will buy any weird shi. But any good marketer will say this idea is bad. First Romans must be transferred to the main game civs pool. And devs never did this yet inside DE.
Also a good marketer will say that if Romans didn’t sell the RoR 1 then they will not sell RoR 2.
The dlC on DLC problem isnt a problem imo.
I agree that we already have way more than enough Roman content. Imo we shouldnt have gotten Romans in the first place in a medieval game with Byzantines aoready present
This is unlikely, but I’ve always kind of hoped they make an official Romans campaign for aoe 2 for people who bought RoR. Sort of like a DLC update for RoR like how they are adding in old aoe 1 campaigns. Probably to much to hope for but it would be nice.
It’s also probably the cleanest way to add a Roman campaign. I assume people would be upset if they had to buy 2 DLC’s to play the Roman campaign, and if you don’t have to buy RoR for it, those who bought RoR expecting a Roman campaign might get upset.
3 Likes
An idea I had was a Roman campaign showing Romans after the fall of Rome. But it needs a knowledge of historical details I don’t think you can expect from Devs or the average medieval history enthusiast.
Scenario 1 (500 circa): romano British culture hence the battle of mons badons where Ambrosius Aurelianus (many historians believe him being the historical figure for king Arthur) defeated the Anglo-Saxons.
Scenario 2 (570 circa): Gallo Roman culture, general Eunius Mummolus patrician of Merovingian Franks, best general of Gaul at the time (could have more than one scenario).
Scenario 3 (600 circa): Thracian Roman culture, here you could depict the rebellion of centurion Phocas against the eastern emperor Maurice, Phocas would succeed and become emperor in Constantinople but he always had a strong link with Rome being the last emperor to erect a column in the city’s forum, acclaimed by the roman senate (last time you’ll hear of them) and even donating the Pantheon to the Pope who will transform it into a church.
Scenario 4 (670 circa): hispano Roman culture, there are other earlier options but I’d choose the rebellion of dux Flavius Paulus in septimania against the Visigoths.
Scenario 5: African Roman culture, here you can choose from a vast period and different kingdoms, from the earlier Mauro Roman one to later Altava and Aures. I’d say the romano Berber rex Caecilius (knows as Aksil among Berbers and Kusayla among Arabs) winning against Muslims at the end of the 7th century would be a good choice to end the campaign but I already made my own campaign with him and Dihya eheh, so I guess we could go with an earlier king like Masuna or Garmul (6th century) or either fighting for or against byzantines.
Scenario 6: Italo Roman culture, as an extra you could depict the rebellion of exarch Eleutherios, he marched from Ravenna to Rome in 620 to be elected by the senate western Roman emperor, he would be the last trying to do so before Charlemagne, he ended up being killed by his troops so if like OP you find playing as the loser “depressing” you could depict instead the Byzantine regime of the magistri militum in Venetia and the struggle of soon to be Venetians to elect their own dux (early 8th century) like Ursus and Theodatus Hypathos against byzantine generals from the likes of Dominico Leo to John Fabriacus.
If you instead want a more Roman Roman aoe2 campaign wait for me, I’m making it out of a character from the 4th century (again since OP says there’s nothing to tell about I’m probably inventing it all eheh)…
3 Likes
Did it? I remember someone showing a graph about pre tMR dlc sales and RoR was far ahead of the other three.
3 Likes