Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I personally would've liked their campaign to be Syagrius (ruling the last "Roman" state after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire) or other latter emperors. At the latest, I might tolerate the crisis of the third century. Trajan, of all things?
For me, the ideal campaign for AOE2 Rome is a narration of the events that led to it's downfall.
Think of it as a prologue of the Dark Ages. Or the very transition from Antiquity to Dark Ages. The very start of the Middle Ages as we learnt in school.
I wanted to disagree with OP but all the good points were already made.
The Huns died in the 5th century CE and they were/are already controversial.
The (Crimean) Goths disappear completely in the 18th century but their Kingdoms vanish at the end of the 8th century CE.
Romans are on a completely different scale of not belonging to the game than anything else before.
Might as well add the USA next /s.
Did you heard about Alaric and Attila campaigns?
Whiners gonna whin, other will enjoy new civ.
Does that mean you'll stop complaining about the Huns being present?
Why don't the 'RoMaNs DoNt BeLoNg In AoE2' crowd not cry about this?