Why ROR campaigns focus on 1 ruler?

Everybody knows Persia mostly for the Greek wars and Carthage for it’s sacking and loss by Rome. That’s what I meant. Having campaigns about them without the most landmarking events in their history makes no sense, it will be incomplete.

And you can take little creative liberties, you can not stick to the narrative totally. It’s obviously the biggest event in Carthage history, so yes, even though they lost it is an important event for humanity so it makes sense to represent them defending their city.

Doesn’t make sense to omit this event just to stick to AOE2 guidelines for making a campaign…

It may be that since it’s an AoE 2 dlc (which is focused on characters) they wanted to do it that way, you can also develop more if you focus on a single character, but you’re right, campaigns like that are not seen in AoE 1 (except for the Caesar’s campaign)…

On the cover it’s not Wallace, it’s an English king but we don’t really know who it is…



It is Richard the Lionheart, since William the Conqueror and Philippe Auguste did not have beards…

Very sure…

Sure, though a Cyrus campaign for the Persians wouldn’t be bad either (since he conquered civs like Babylonia and Assyria)…

In the campaigns in antiquity you will see much more fictional or mythological things, since there is not so much information…

That’s true…

For that I prefer the campaign of enemies of Rome and that’s it…

Sure, like the Hautevilles…

That seems fine to me…

Sure, like AoE 4 campaigns…

Yes, AoE 1 needs to have its historical battles section to fill in the gaps from Megiddo (1457 BC) to Adrianople (378 AD)…

Sure… AoE 4 campaigns are the modern version of AoE 1 campaigns…

Sure, that’s true…we need AoE 1 players to also have a say in what campaigns they want for the game…

1 Like

Not only about the campaigns, but of the game mechanics themselves. They take in account the opinions of AOE2 players, of course they will want the game to be more like AOE2. Most of them have played only casually AOE1, so they have limited knowledge of the balance and of the mechanics. It is way different, villagers and economy don’t matter that much, defenses as well, there are very OP units and in general units and buildings hit harder and die faster. Game is a lot more fast paced.

We receive this abomination between the 2 games and it will not satisfy a lot of people, not the AOE2 players, who will stick to their game, not the AOE1 players, who get a game that’s so different than what is originally intended and still broken, but in different ways…

So that’s a big reason as to why we don’t need to stick to the blueprints for the AOE2 campaigns. Players that haven’t played extensively AOE1 campaigns (not only the original, but the custom campaigns, on AOEheaven there are some real masterpieces, 10x better then the originals).

Sure, moving to AOE2 engine is great, but at least make some tweaks for god’s sake. especially when you want money for the third time…

It feels weird playing scenarios where you “win” but then the cutscene says you lost. That’s why they only make scenarios where the civ in question won. And it doesn’t matter if the destruction of Carthage was the most important event in the history of Carthage, because… they lost. You know what’s also quite significant? Hannibal Barca’s campaigns. And he won enough battles to make for a coherent campaign.

In short: significance of a battle ≠ viability for a scenario. Not to mention, the campaign ideas I showed you have a lot of importance already.

You are just arguing with me out of hard-headedness and still not providing sufficient reasons except that you feel weird about it.

If you want to win the argument, then sure, you are right for yourself but you are not contributing much to the topic as to WHY exactly your option is better. Did you take into account my arguments?

The original Battle of Tunis demo btw is based entirely on this event btw.

From playing the DLC, it still feels a lot like AoE 1, just with the right amount of AoE 2 QOL without “destroying” AoE 1’s identity.
If you previously played “Rome Returns” for AoE 2: The Conquerors: it’s basically that.

They took in opinions from AoE 1 players as well, especially from the Vietnamese community which is why we’ll get the D3 Mode. Also, you can play more than just one game.

Kinda like 4’s Hundred Years War campaign.

1 Like

What else can I say? Age1 campaigns are less fun. That’s what matters most in the game, besides I already explained plenty of things as to why that is: worse narrative, unrelated scenarios, worse gameplay, no cutscenes, no dialogues… Age2 campaigns are an improvement in every way. I have played both games since my childhood, and I can say for sure that Age2 has better campaigns. And no, the Battle of Tunis is based on… the Battle of Tunis, from the First Punic War, which Carthage won.

1 Like

To be fair the king in the DE artwork is more bearded than on the AOK box, where he looks like he didn’t shave for one week. So it’s reasonible even for a king that’s on campaign, despite prefering to be clean-shaven at court.

I’m nitpicking of course, that’s not as blatant as Barbarossa who is called like that because of his beard. But despite not being playable until The Forgotten, Richard appears in both Saladin and Barbarossa so he’s indeed a strong choice.

Well, if you are mainly an AOE2 player and don’t like the original campaigns, then probably you have a preference for AOE2 over1 ?

The games look similar on the surface, but are actually very different. A lot of AOE2 players have disdain for the original. So if you do not care much about AOE1 and want just more AOE2 content, I get what you say but I think opinions of AOE1 players have to be prioritized. Like I said your game is good and ours is broken.

And I actually liked the original campaigns, I just saw ways of improvement. If you go ahead and download from AOE heaven the top rated campaigns you will see the potential of the game.

It CANNOT be fixed if you copy-pasta AOE2 into it. The issues are specific and need to be adressed differently.

And regarding the Carhaginian defeat scenario, they were defending untill they got defeated right?
So you could have the scenario where you replay how they defended the city and you could imagine it got sacked by a later point in time, it isn’t that big of a stretch of the imagination, isn’t it?
And we will have something new and interesting. New and interesting is good.

Here are some basic scenario types:
The “Build-Up” and Conquest Style.
The “Fixed-Force” Style
The “Puzzle” Style
The “Diplomatic” Style.
The “Defend” Style
The “Quest” Style

Good scenarios feature different types of styles. What you say is always have a build-up and conquer scenario. This is boring, we can always play random map and multiplayer and beat up stuff. Campaigns are few and the same every time, why not add original ideas to them?

Well, you’re the one hanging up to the game’s title and pretending everything is designed after this title. I don’t think “Kings” in this name is meant as a synonymous to “any possible kind of ruler or war leader”, because it wouldn’t help differentiate “the age of kings” from the previous time period. To me the title always refered to the rise of European kingdoms that would later become modern nation states, in opposition to the Roman empire, Greek city states and so on whose legacy is more diluted. So replacing it with any other title doesn’t really work.

We don’t know that. For all we know, the viking dude could be a random rider and the Japanese guy could be any bushi, not necessarily a daimyo or even a shogun.

Three out of five. Two are about war leaders with no land titles.

Conquerors is an extremely generic term, one could say every rts game is designed after conquest. Pretty mich all of the characters depicted on Age of Empires games were conquerors. If an expension was called “The warriors” it would pretty much be the same.

That’s debatable. I personally feel more invested in a campaign in which the scenarios are somewhat connected with each other and have an interesting narrative. The Greek campaign for instance felt extremely disjointed, with the focus jumping from one state or time period to another without having a real cohesion between them. You could arguably have a campaign in which the main character is “the city of Carthage” (I would probably feel more invested in it than I was in Bari), but there’s no guarantee it would be more interesting to play as Hannibal, and it would most certainly need to leave some interesting parts out just like the og campaigns did.

I would be okay with a campaign about the Achaemenid dynasty, but how is it different from any AoE2 campaign focusing on a dynasty rather than a ruler, such as the Hautevilles and Grand Dukes of the West? Wouldn’t doing things the same way AoE1 did mean also covering the Sassanids and possibly the Parthians?

I wasn’t talking about it in reference to the game’s cover, just pointing out the fact that none of the AoK campaigns (leaving the Conquerors out) had a king as its main character.

That’s several questions at once. I don’t think the 5 scenarios focus is necessarily tied to the focus on one individual (which you persist to pretend is systematic in AoE2 even though we’ve pointed out several times that many campaigns break this mold), it’s probably more a constraint of time and budget. Those campaigns take a huge part of a dlc’s development, so if you want 8-12 scenarios each would probably mean only 1-2 campaign per dlc. The og campaigns usually took 6 scenarios, and I don’t think it was changed because the smaller focus forced the devs to write shorter stories (some campaigns such as Babur definitely feel like they are short of one scenario) but because of external constraints.
The one character (or sometimes more) matter has already been answered several times.

The original devs were not some omniscient divine beings who by essence always made the perfect decision. If you actually listen to them, you will realise that there are a lot of things in those games that they’re not satisfied with and would do differently if they had the opportunity. They are also the same person who made AoE2, and it could be argued that AoE2 style campaigns were how they improved upon their own work.

But the OG campaigns DID exactly that. A huge chunk of Greek history is missing from the Greek campaign, and even the events shown in the scenarios are not covered extensively enough to properly represent them. The entire Pelopponesian war is covered with only one battle. The Greco-Persian Wars aren’t even in the game. I’d rather have the entire story of an event spanning a few years or decades than the story of a whole civilization with huge holes everywhere.

It’s only its pinnacle from a Greek point of view, from the Persians’ perspective it was a (rough) monday. At least until Alexander arrived. And as such, it would probably be more interesting from a Greek perspective.

Less and less. LotW and DotD’s campaign were more dynastic than individual.

So we should have campaigns about what everyone already knows rather than things to discover?
As we already mentioned, those events can be told from the Greeks’ perspective, it was more important to them than it was to the Persians anyway.

1 Like

Carthage is probably better known for Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants, than for being salted by Scipio Aemilian, Hannibal is by far the strongest choice.

Just because it’s the most famous doesn’t mean it should be portrayed, the frankish campaign in AOE2 is not being on the french side at Agincourt (if I had to guess the most famous medieval event from an anglo-saxon perspective)

You can have other types of scenarios, for sure. Kotyan Khan is a perfect exemple of a good campaign from the “loser’s” perspective. You spend all your time running away and seeking refuge elsewhere. The difference with the destruction of Carthage is that Kotyan Khan still manage to achieve something by saving as many people as possible, while Carthage would just get destroyed and have its field salted and its population slaughtered. Dying after one hour and one minute rather than dying after fifty night minutes doesn’t feel like such an accomplishment if lasting this long doesn’t grant you some form of alternate victory.

I don’t know what to say. You discredited every single argument of mine and pushed your point of view. That’s amazing, never seen such great debating skills.

The question is, what was contributed towards the topic and what improvements to the game will it lead to? Yea sure, AOE1 sucks, I don’t like it, lets make everything in it like AOE2 because I haven’t played it and don’t feel like accepting new gameplay mechanics because they are weird and new, let’s just replace everything in it with AOE2, even though it won’t work because the games are mechanically different. We can even ditch the civilizations and take Celts, Goths, Huns and byzantines and have those 4 as AOE1 civs, because the old ones suck.

Great idea indeed.

And you put Kotyan Khan as an example for AOE1 play style even though the post was intended for AOE1 scenarios. I design AOE1 scenarios, I never made AOE2 scenarios so I have no idea about how those work.

If I have played AOE1 for 10+ years, in multiplayer and campaign design and absolutely every single thing about the game I said was wrong, then gosh, I must be really spasticated.

Those kind of passive agressive replies don’t really contribute to anything except making the community more toxic. I guess I’m at fault because this is turning into a dogpile and I guess I’ve contributed to it, so I should probably stop arguing.

1 Like

The idea is what and how can we fix the game, what new things can we add, not arguing who is right, because we contribute nothing. And i is obvious that AOE1 is broken and even the devs are confused as to what should they do with the game.

That’s why im posting those type of stuff, there’s obviously a problem and we have to fix it. That’s why I’m intensive in these topics, not just to argue.

I can assure you I am more respectful to the AOE community than anywhere else I have been on the internet. If I wanted to argue I’d go play WOW or GTA, plenty of toxicity there Here we try to find out what’s wrong and how to fix the game we played since children.

But no one in this thread said that AoE 1 “sucks”? Everything that happened was just pointing out that the narrative aspect in AoE 2’s campaigns is stronger as campaigns follow a story (whether individual or dynasty) whereas in AoE 1 it’s mostly just a couple of scenarios put together.


Well, 1 guy said that he disliked the original AOE and the campaigns.
And let’s be honest, the game is broken, there’s a reason so few ppl play the DE.

Question is, why should we make the game like AOE2 entirely? Why isn’t there a separate forum for ROR, where the majority are AOE1 players? There we can have constructive criticism with players who know the game, because it’s obvious that AOE2 fans that have casually played AOE1 won’t be as a majority.

I’ve just read through every post again and can’t find the person saying they disliked AoE 1 and the campaigns. Maybe I’ve missed it?

It’s rather several reasons, the most striking one was probably making it a Windows Store exclusive for one year apart from being a bit too conservative on the changes.

Because ROR isn’t a 1:1 ancient reskin of AoE 2 and there’s overlap between players.

1 Like

The main reason is how underwhelming the DE is compared to what was expected from AOE2, comparing to the HD edition at the time. When it retains the horrible original pathing instead of nice clean formations and other missing QOL features like that, when the scenario editor remains as limited (AI script instead of triggers), that was disappointing.

Poor performances and not having a lot of new content, only 1 or 2 campaign (and without upgrading the editor to AOE2 standards it would not have the quality expected with AOE2) and no new civ, also did nothing for players still on the CD version (hello Vietnam). So it didn’t do much to attract either AOE2 players or AOE1 players.

Finally, it was exclusive to some platform at launch, instead of being available on Steam. That didn’t help

1 Like

The Norman Conquest (of England), surely?

(Actually I’m not totally sure what you mean: the most famous medieval event involving France from the perspective of a modern English person, medieval English person generally, or an Anglo-Saxon specifically? Or something else?)