Will Smith has something to say about adding Romans in Age of Empires 2's timeframe

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

7 Likes
2

LMAO :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That was funny :grin: Thank you

3

BTW 50, congratulations :confetti_ball:

1 Like
4

Thank you! Maybe if we make it to 100 they’ll remove the Romans from AoE2’s timeline.

2 Likes
5

Let’s see how they implement it before complaining shall we? Romans already exist in the game and are byzantines, and if there are Huns, romans have the exact same, if not more, right to be there too

They would not be AOE1 romans anyway that’s for sure

6

Can you think of a good way to implement it? because I can’t. The only good way of implementing it I think is not implementing it.

While we have the Huns and Attila, they don’t lead to such immersion breaking games as having the Romans fight the Spanish. Not to say that Huns vs Spanish is completely accurate but in an alt-history scenario where they survived is. But Romans vs Spanish is just weird.

For the Romans there’s a whole set of extra issues that the Huns don’t have:

  • The Byzantines are already the Romans. So it’s not even French-Burgundians but more like having the Turks and then having the Ottomans.
  • We have the Franks (French), Italians, Spanish, Portuguese… and then the Romans.

You could make in your head an alt-history scenario where the Bohemians are fighting Huns, but Romans fighting French, it’s so weird to try to explain that away. Not to mention Romans having Paladins, Arbalester, Champion, makes you think “what the heck are they doing in this timeline?”.

I get that having so many civs will inevitably lead to some inconsistency, but Romans within AoE2’s timeframe is a bit too much for me.

7

So we can make an alternate scenario where Huns survived but can’t make an alternate scenario where western Roman Empire survived when the other half is already in the game? Sound like a bias to me tbh

For example, follow you, romans fighting french would make absolutely more sense than like 4/5 of other matchups in the game since that historically happened

1 Like
8

They’re the same guys who complained about USA on aoe3

9

The game doesn’t mention “Western Roman Empire”, it mentions Romans, the Romans civilization. You could easily make the argument that it’s the Rome before the split.

Yes, you can’t make an alternate scenario where western Roman Empire survived because you already have: Portugal, Spain, France and Italy.

Please, tell me more about the war between the French and the Romans which historically happened.

I didn’t complain about USA on AoE3. But I am complaining about Rome on AoE2.

10

Just treat Romans as Western Romans and Byzantine as Eastern Romans they coexisted. What is the problem. The Huns fought the Chinese as early as 3rd Century BC, earlier than the fall of Western Romans by 700 years. Also the Chinese weapon Chu Ko Nu was invented in 2nd century AD…

11

When they coexisted, they were virtually the same thing. A more accurate comparison is having the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey in the same game as 2 different civs.

The problem is again, the successors of Rome are already in the game: Portugal, Spain, France and Italy.

The Romans were perfectly abstracted by use of the Byzantine/Italian civilizations already in the game.

You can’t say the same for the Huns or Chinese.

12

They’re not even the Roman republic or the empire, they’re the 4th century Romans they weren’t even at their peak anymore I think you’re confused what Romans you will see

13

All the above issues still stand. The Byzantines never actually called themselves the Byzantines, they called themselves Romans, and they were Romans, they had an uninterrupted line of succession from Augustus. The Byzantines were the “Medieval Romans” not “Eastern Romans”. So having ancient Rome (even 4th cenutry) and medieval Rome in the same game is like having the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey in the same game as 2 different civs. Or Napoleonic France and the French Republic.

2 Likes
14

Dude the civ Is called Franks, not french, and Franks existed in the same time period of late romans and Huns for example. They literally Met each other and had conflicts, allieances, friendships, for like decades…

Also you can make that case for a lot of other civs. Like we can’t have byzantines because we have Turks Who destroyed byzantines…WTF that does not make any sense, Just like your argument

Also “romans” is just a culture, and every civ in the game Is called by a culture. You have no Kingdom of England, you have britons, for example, so it just make sense for them to call them romans

And again, we already have romans in the game. They are called byzantines, and are romans

15

Considering that Huns probably never really existed as a people but were more like a confederation of tribes from many different people like even goth, or middle-asia tribes, we could say we do not need Huns cause we have their successors in cumans, magyars, Turks, and other nomadic civs…

Ultimately, this game is not historically correct nor It tries to be, and that’s ok. It’s not like we are discovering It in 2023…and these boundaries of what make sense or no are entirely subjective. They might not make sense for you but for other yes