Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition

[Genava55]

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

 

@Stan`@stan check that ai feature

[Genava55]

@Lion.Kanzen Last post was July, 2021. I scrolled to the 6th page to find it!

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

@Lion.Kanzen Last post was July, 2021. I scrolled to the 6th page to find it!

this topic is perfect.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Micromanagement 

The video says that the most damaged ones must be removed and the healthier ones killed.

 

And also focus on attacking all of them on the first unit.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Genava55]

Return of Rome review and testing

Edited May 6, 2023 by Genava55

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 06/05/2023 at 8:46 AM, Genava55 said:

Return of Rome review and testing

I'm curious as to why they are depicting the Roman army as the 4th century Dominate instead of the usual 1st-2nd century Principate. 

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm curious as to why they are depicting the Roman army as the 4th century Dominate instead of the usual 1st-2nd century Principate. 

Probably to fit with the Goths and the Huns...

Although I find it really weird they are including the dromon only for the Romans while it was a Byzantine warship as well.

Edit: I must correct my claim, it seems they gave the dromon to the Byzantines too. According to aoe forum.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Genava55

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Probably to fit with the Goths and the Huns...

 

None of the civs had to fit with each other before. So, it's still an odd or noteworthy design choice.

[Fabius]

On 07/05/2023 at 4:16 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm curious as to why they are depicting the Roman army as the 4th century Dominate instead of the usual 1st-2nd century Principate. 

Late Romans fit the medieval setting better aesthetically and also from a historical aspect, granted there are considerable historical liberties taken throughout Age II, however it is very nice seeing late romans get some attention instead of the practically cliche earlier period with lorica segmentata armour and tower shields etc. Centurion is a bit odd being on a horse, but mechanics wise does work better for commanding foot units if you giving a speed buff and need to reposition.

[Fabius]

On 07/05/2023 at 6:41 PM, Genava55 said:

Probably to fit with the Goths and the Huns...

Although I find it really weird they are including the dromon only for the Romans while it was a Byzantine warship as well.

Edit: I must correct my claim, it seems they gave the dromon to the Byzantines too. According to aoe forum.

They gave Dromon to four civs, Romans, Byzantines, Goths and Huns as replacement for cannon ships

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, Fabius said:

Late Romans fit the medieval setting better aesthetically and also from a historical aspect, granted there are considerable historical liberties taken throughout Age II, however it is very nice seeing late romans get some attention instead of the practically cliche earlier period with lorica segmentata armour and tower shields etc. Centurion is a bit odd being on a horse, but mechanics wise does work better for commanding foot units if you giving a speed buff and need to reposition.

I don't really buy this justification, since this expansion is supposed to bring AOE's time period to the AOE2 engine.

[alre]

30 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't really buy this justification, since this expansion is supposed to bring AOE's time period to the AOE2 engine.

mmh not really, the roman faction shown above goes in the list of medioeval AoE2 factions, while what you seem to be referring to (AoE1 time period) is represented by a separate list of factions.

 

[Genava55]

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, alre said:

mmh not really, the roman faction shown above goes in the list of medioeval AoE2 factions, while what you seem to be referring to (AoE1 time period) is represented by a separate list of factions.

 

That is really confusing, but if true then it makes more sense. Still kind of weird since they already have a much more appropriate Byzantine faction for that.

Edited May 9, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

 

I would like to have Highland in 0 A.D.

[Fabius]

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

That is really confusing, but if true then it makes more sense. Still kind of weird since they already have a much more appropriate Byzantine faction for that.

Byzantium is the eastern half, Romans represent the western half

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Just now, Fabius said:

Byzantium is the eastern half, Romans represent the western half

REALLY

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, Fabius said:

Byzantium is the eastern half, Romans represent the western half

Byzantines called themselves Romans.

Edit: in the DLC, the campaigns for the Romans are based on Trajan's reign. While the new Romans faction added in AoE2 is based on 395 AD Rome.

The description from the webpage:

<<In game, the Romans date back to about 395 C.E., making them contemporaries with the Goths, Celts, Britons, Franks, Persians, etc. By this period in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages – Rome was a crumbling shadow of its former glory. Plagued by an inability to pay its soldiers, lack of manpower, and its older fortifications in disrepair, they could not face the invasions of their former provinces or fend off attacks closer to home.

By the time of Attila, Rome simply couldn’t field any large armies of note, and relied on Germanic tribes to guard their frontiers, but those tribes often went rogue and became enemies instead. The old Roman-controlled area was inundated with an influx of different peoples who settled the land, bringing their own culture and customs, annihilating the old Roman ways.

By the end, Rome could not overcome a collapsing economy, loss of manpower, an inability to pay troops, plus bad leadership. When the “official” end in 476 came with the ousting of the last Roman emperor by a Germanic king, the Roman Empire had already silently melted away.>>

So even if it is not really correct, it seems they indeed depicted the Romans as the Western Roman empire...

Edited May 10, 2023 by Genava55

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Byzantines called themselves Romans.

Edit: in the DLC, the campaigns for the Romans are based on Trajan's reign. While the new Romans faction added in AoE2 is based on 395 AD Rome.

The description from the webpage:

<<In game, the Romans date back to about 395 C.E., making them contemporaries with the Goths, Celts, Britons, Franks, Persians, etc. By this period in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages – Rome was a crumbling shadow of its former glory. Plagued by an inability to pay its soldiers, lack of manpower, and its older fortifications in disrepair, they could not face the invasions of their former provinces or fend off attacks closer to home.

By the time of Attila, Rome simply couldn’t field any large armies of note, and relied on Germanic tribes to guard their frontiers, but those tribes often went rogue and became enemies instead. The old Roman-controlled area was inundated with an influx of different peoples who settled the land, bringing their own culture and customs, annihilating the old Roman ways.

By the end, Rome could not overcome a collapsing economy, loss of manpower, an inability to pay troops, plus bad leadership. When the “official” end in 476 came with the ousting of the last Roman emperor by a Germanic king, the Roman Empire had already silently melted away.>>

So even if it is not really correct, it seems they indeed depicted the Romans as the Western Roman empire...

Yeah, it's a mess. If they want them to depict the 4th/5th century Western Romans (which is not contemporary with the "Celts" and "Britons" in the game, who are depicted around 1200 AD, wth!), then their campaign should have nothing to do with Trajan's campaigns, which should use Romans from the high empire era, with lorica segmentata. Their campaign should have been about Aetius or (pushing it) Constantine (would have been cool, since it genuinely would allow the player to triumph). 

Edited May 10, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Fabius]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, it's a mess. If they want them to depict the 4th/5th century Western Romans (which is not contemporary with the "Celts" and "Britons" in the game, who are depicted around 1200 AD, wth!), then their campaign should have nothing to do with Trajan's campaigns, which should use Romans from the high empire era, with lorica segmentata. Their campaign should have been about Aetius or (pushing it) Constantine (would have been cool, since it genuinely would allow the player to triumph). 

That campaign to my knowledge is for the Age I port, far as I am aware the only thing the Age II section is getting is the Roman civilization, everything else will be contained in the Age I section. 

However would definitely love some late roman campaigns in the Age II section covering all that which you mentioned. I really hope they do a Belisarius one eventually.

[Fabius]

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Byzantines called themselves Romans.

Edit: in the DLC, the campaigns for the Romans are based on Trajan's reign. While the new Romans faction added in AoE2 is based on 395 AD Rome.

The description from the webpage:

<<In game, the Romans date back to about 395 C.E., making them contemporaries with the Goths, Celts, Britons, Franks, Persians, etc. By this period in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages – Rome was a crumbling shadow of its former glory. Plagued by an inability to pay its soldiers, lack of manpower, and its older fortifications in disrepair, they could not face the invasions of their former provinces or fend off attacks closer to home.

By the time of Attila, Rome simply couldn’t field any large armies of note, and relied on Germanic tribes to guard their frontiers, but those tribes often went rogue and became enemies instead. The old Roman-controlled area was inundated with an influx of different peoples who settled the land, bringing their own culture and customs, annihilating the old Roman ways.

By the end, Rome could not overcome a collapsing economy, loss of manpower, an inability to pay troops, plus bad leadership. When the “official” end in 476 came with the ousting of the last Roman emperor by a Germanic king, the Roman Empire had already silently melted away.>>

So even if it is not really correct, it seems they indeed depicted the Romans as the Western Roman empire...

I was aware the Byzantines are Romans too, just using the geographic distinction as a justification for having two Roman factions in the same game.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

I was aware the Byzantines are Romans too, just using the geographic distinction as a justification for having two Roman factions in the same game.

The Byzantines are Greek-Latin with Eastern influence from the Sasanian Empire.

 

Not to mention the differences in bureaucratic and military thinking and organization.