You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.44 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Best AoE game and why?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Best AoE game and why?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Ragnax
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 03:28 AM ET (US)         
I would like your thoughts on this
AuthorReplies:
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 04:43 AM ET (US)     1 / 44       
In the series?
hittite_man
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 05:51 AM ET (US)     2 / 44       
The original is the best and will always be, unless they remake it tho
Ragnax
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 06:04 AM ET (US)     3 / 44       
Well the rise of italy mod looks damn good

On one side we got hittites with overpowered Cats
On the other we have Rome with super infantry

WHO WINS?
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 06:17 AM ET (US)     4 / 44       
hittite_man
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 08:18 AM ET (US)     5 / 44       
Havnt tried it yet
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 03-05-12 06:35 PM ET (US)     6 / 44       
Age of Empires: Rise of Rome.

Why? It has the best civilizations any game would have.
hittite_man
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 00:49 AM ET (US)     7 / 44       
I'm having trouble downloading anything
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 01:40 AM ET (US)     8 / 44       
If only Age Of Italy was called Age Of Greece, it would have earned instant respect. BTW why don't you put some details in the download page of the things you have done/changed Thompsoncs ?


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 03:50 AM ET (US)     9 / 44       
I'm not going to discuss the age italy/greek thing. That discussion went wrong quite a few times I noticed.

I do mention the things that are possible and not possible in each version, and the people who follow the thread will know most of the changes. It would indeed be good to give a small summary of the changes in the downloads page. In fact, the entire site needs an update (the civs pages most of all), but I will do that when the final version is released. My active team got even smaller and I am busy enough myself.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-06-2012 @ 07:15 AM).]

ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 04:03 AM ET (US)     10 / 44       
I hope you never finish it. You turned Magna Gracia into Magna Fartpower. Seriously the train time for elite hoplites, loss of heavy catapaults, no towers, slow hoplites you turned Greece into some kind of cannon fodder civ.

They in reality would get fortified building bonuses because since Minoan times they fortified the islands and cities. They had advanced ballista and catapaults and Heliopolis and other siege craft. Their hoplites were disciplined and could cross land quicker than any other civ hence the speed bonus. They were the only ones who actually did have triemes. etc.

And you took away nearly everything they had going for them and added horse archers?


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 04:27 AM ET (US)     11 / 44       
You do seem to have some biases towards things involving greeks, and some wrong understandings of my mod.

The elite hoplites are among the best infantry in the game, so a little bit more expensive and longer to train is reasonable.

There are catapults and ballistae in the mod, same as towers. Yes hoplites aren't the fastest units, but they move as fast as other heavy infantry. I divided the speedgroups in heavy infantry/hoplites/phalanx, medium infantry, light infantry and archers, cavalry, heavy cavalry, elephants and cataphracts.

The term cannon fodder is strange to hear. In rise of rome, all infantry are cannon fodder for fast shooting ballistas and heavy catapults with large area of attack. In my mod, artillery has lost most of it's use against units, thus is restricted to it's more accurate role, the role of siege engine.

They surely don't have horse archers, recheck your facts please. I think you meant the tarentine cavalry. Though they have the horse archer graphic, they are in fact javelin cavalry. Just like the Numidians and Cantabrians.

In fact, the greeks and greek colonies got overpowered quite easily by the romans, before that by the macedonians and even persians. I attempted, and personally think I succeeded, not to make the romans to strong. And it is a work in progress. Instead of making comments like 'I hope you never finish it', you could give suggestions, backed by actual facts and with the idea of total balance in mind. I'm not going to make the greeks a super civ, nor any other civ. If that's a reason why you dont like the mod, fine. I cant make everybody happy, I just do my best to improve the game and make these forums more active.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-06-2012 @ 04:30 AM).]

ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 04:57 AM ET (US)     12 / 44       
You speak of Macedonia as if they were not Greeks. Alexander the Great at the prime of Greek civilisation took his Greek Macedonians into Persia during it's peak or zenith. The Romans only achieved what they did because the Hellenic States extinguished each other through internal fighting. The Hellenic World was at it's weakest when the Romans struck. It was a non achievement and was rather quickly reversed by 285AD. From 100BC-285AD is the extent of Latins controlling Rome. Thereafter Byzantines took their possessions back.

But regarding gameplay, the catapaults are very very slow, and the train time for the elite units is extraordinarily slow. Plus the movement speed of Heavy Infantry as you state is just so slow that you can walk around the map with some archers and pick them off by hit and run. Just a bit faster movement would make them better units.

Also where are the armour and weapon upgrades? I only played a few Polybian age games and couldn't find anywhere for the upgrades we normally get in Iron Age.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 06:08 AM ET (US)     13 / 44       
Just for your info: Byzantines or the Byzantine Empire did not exist. It's a name given to it by later historians. Certainly untill the fall of the western empire they considered themselves a roman power, and even after that. Only the language changed more and more to greek, which isn't so strange, considering that greek speakers were living throughout the eastern empire thanks to the macedonian conquest. And after that the Turks conquered much of the balkans.

Macedonians were at least in language and culture related to the greeks, but their society and military were really quite different. You wont hear me deny that alexander had greek allies on his great conquest, but the base of his conquest was the macedonian phalanx and it's cavalry that had smashed the greek city states.

It's true that catapults are slow, but why shouldn't they? I might have made them a bit too slow, opinions will differ on that I expect. But siege engines were hard to transport. They were probably more moved like trebuchets in aok, packed on wagons. One of my goals was to reduce the way-overpowered artillery.

From a gameplay perspective you might be right on the speed of heavy infantry. But it is accurate. Archers and light infantry were far more mobile than the heavy units with heavy shields and armor. It is thus a gameplay-accuracy battle. I would like to hear the opinion of others on that.

I removed the armor and weapons upgrades. My mod already had many techs so I had to strip a few. There are however still some upgrades (like iron, or godly techs as mars, hephaestus and such). And units are auto upgraded every age.

But please, let's continue this discussion in the mod's thread. And lets just leave the greek discussion behind and stay to gameplay arguments. Let's just say that greeks have done great things, had a lot of influence on europe (both ancient and modern), but were too vulnerable thanks to their division. A united greece would have done even bigger things, but Sparta, Athens, Corinth, Thebes and such decided to fight each other.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 06:30 AM ET (US)     14 / 44       
Just for your info: Byzantines or the Byzantine Empire did not exist. It's a name given to it by later historians. Certainly untill the fall of the western empire they considered themselves a roman power, and even after that. Only the language changed more and more to greek, which isn't so strange, considering that greek speakers were living throughout the eastern empire thanks to the macedonian conquest.

Ridiculous perspective!

The Western Empire consisted initially of Greek settlements that had been there as early as 900BC all the way to Spain. Greek was the common language of the Romans in the West. Needless to say the Greek cities in Africa including Carthage and Alexandria and all the way to Persia retain a common Greek language. After the rise of the Latins in Rome Latin was forced onto the populace of the West. Some records of Genocide against Greeks by Latins exist. But in the East not a single Roman soldier used Latin. Infact the only two emperors of Rome that DIDN'T speak Greek were Nero and Julius Caesar. Latin never penetrated into the East. But in the West Greek was already being used prior to Latin. This is further ratified by the fact that the clergy and all religious documents entering Western Europe were still written in Greek up until 700AD. The Irish Monks adopted Latin very late in 800AD. This was entirely due to the Germanic control of the city Rome or as you call it the fall of Western Rome.

The Macedonians were as Greek as were the Spartans or Athenians or Pontians. They were exactly the same in all matters and used the same language and dialect. Stating they were any different is being blind to thousands if not millions of artefacts and historical accounts.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 06:59 AM ET (US)     15 / 44       
The Western Empire consisted initially of Greek settlements that had been there as early as 900BC all the way to Spain.
On the coastlines of europe Greek colonies existed yes. But inland the greeks had no power there. And the western empire did not exist in that time
Greek was the common language of the Romans in the West.
Certainly wrong. Only the elite knew greek, and that only really started around the punic wars. cato the elder wrote a speech in which he accused his fellow nobles of loving greek culture too much. But that surely doesn't mean that there main language wasn't latin. In fact, during the revolt of Ambiorix, Caesar mentions that Quintus Cicero wrote a message to Caesar in greek, because he thought the belgae wouldn't know greek language. If they always used greek, why mention it as if it were an exception of the normal?
Needless to say the Greek cities in Africa including Carthage and Alexandria and all the way to Persia retain a common Greek language.
Carthage is well known to be a Phoenician colony, not a greek one. In fact, Carthaginians and Greeks didn't like each other much. (see all the wars on Sicily with Syracuse)
After the rise of the Latins in Rome Latin was forced onto the populace of the West.
Though Rome's founding is a quite unknown, the most likely story is that it was founded by Latins. Later the Etruscans came to dominate the region.
Some records of Genocide against Greeks by Latins exist.
In that time it was common to rape, murder or enslave people that resisted, or simply to break the opposition of an enemy. If you call that genocide, then all the ancient nations were guilty of genocide.
But in the East not a single Roman soldier used Latin.
Good luck trying to prove that. Seems very unlikely.
Infact the only two emperors of Rome that DIDN'T speak Greek were Nero and Julius Caesar.
First of all, Julius Caesar wasn't an emperor. He was only a dictator, like Sulla before him. And all emperors would at least have been able to speak both greek and latin. Later emperors tended to come from Spain and the norther balkans. In the case of spain, there main language apart from their native tongue would be latin.
Latin never penetrated into the East. But in the West Greek was already being used prior to Latin. This is further ratified by the fact that the clergy and all religious documents entering Western Europe were still written in Greek up until 700AD. The Irish Monks adopted Latin very late in 800AD. This was entirely due to the Germanic control of the city Rome or as you call it the fall of Western Rome.
Latin did penetrate into the east. Greek was used in some small areas of the west. But prior to Latin? The Latins might have existed before the founding of those colonies. Probably the first languages in the west would have been celtic and osco-umbrian. But I guess Suppy might know more on the origins and timelines of the early cultures in europe.
The Macedonians were as Greek as were the Spartans or Athenians or Pontians. They were exactly the same in all matters and used the same language and dialect. Stating they were any different is being blind to thousands if not millions of artefacts and historical accounts.
In fact, as you well know, the greeks had different backgrounds as well. Ionian, Dorian, Minoan. Truth is, early history of nations is still very much unknown. Pontus however certainly has different backgrounds than greeks. They were an eastern culture, that got influenced by greek culture after Alexander's conquest.

I'm happy to go into discussion, but try to stay with facts. Clearly false arguments make your point weak, and easy to disprove. One thing we all have to accept is that early history is hard to understand. There are little or no written accounts, and if there were, they might have been biased. The best thing is when multiple sources write about the same period. Such as Caesar's period, which is very well documented. Some say, Caesar's Bello Gallico can't be trusted, because it's propaganda. Though Caesar would have written his story in a way that was positive for him, he could not lie about really big things. Cicero's brother, Quintus, was one of Caesar's officers. Had Caesar openly lied about many things, Cicero would have told.
I'm not going to discuss the age italy/greek thing. That discussion went wrong quite a few times I noticed.
I should have listened to myself. This is probably why the history forum was shut down. Too bad. Rational historical discussions would be a nice addition to heavengames. However, it seems that nationalistic arguments tend to evolve from those discussion. Just to be clear, I have no ties to Italy, in fact I've never been there yet.

You've already built up quite a rap sheet on heavengames by being overzealous on things involving greeks or turks. Untill I read you're posts in the library I thought you were a nice forumer. My advice, leave the greek discussions at home and be a nice forumer.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-06-2012 @ 07:14 AM).]

ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 08:22 AM ET (US)     16 / 44       
Can I really be bothered to educate you?

Re-read what I said as fact this time.


The Celts and the Germanic tribes had minted Greek coins well before the rise of Rome. Hardly a sign of coastal influence.
Certainly wrong. Only the elite knew greek, and that only really started around the punic wars. cato the elder wrote a speech in which he accused his fellow nobles of loving greek culture too much. But that surely doesn't mean that there main language wasn't latin. In fact, during the revolt of Ambiorix, Caesar mentions that Quintus Cicero wrote a message to Caesar in greek, because he thought the belgae wouldn't know greek language. If they always used greek, why mention it as if it were an exception of the normal?
Obviously you have no knowledge of the Christian faith and the spread of the Septuagint into Western Europe. Look up Orthodox Christian sources to get the real deal. Also why would Irish Monks be using Greek texts as opposed to Latin texts before 800AD?
Carthage is well known to be a Phoenician colony, not a greek one. In fact, Carthaginians and Greeks didn't like each other much. (see all the wars on Sicily with Syracuse)
In your neighbourhood maybe it is known like that. Archaeology has a different story. Greek coins outnumber any other type in that region during the Golden era and post Alexander. There is also a Greek source for the settlement of Carthage, one often overlooked, but equally valid.
Latin did penetrate into the east. Greek was used in some small areas of the west. But prior to Latin? The Latins might have existed before the founding of those colonies. Probably the first languages in the west would have been celtic and osco-umbrian. But I guess Suppy might know more on the origins and timelines of the early cultures in europe.
No it didn't! Greek was the common language of the West prior to Alexander and after Alexander the East used Greek as the common language.
I'm happy to go into discussion, but try to stay with facts. Clearly false arguments make your point weak, and easy to disprove. One thing we all have to accept is that early history is hard to understand. There are little or no written accounts, and if there were, they might have been biased. The best thing is when multiple sources write about the same period. Such as Caesar's period, which is very well documented. Some say, Caesar's Bello Gallico can't be trusted, because it's propaganda. Though Caesar would have written his story in a way that was positive for him, he could not lie about really big things. Cicero's brother, Quintus, was one of Caesar's officers. Had Caesar openly lied about many things, Cicero would have told.
The whole Roman collection of ancient scripts is propaganda. None are valid in my eyes and are borderline sticking to any truth. Caesar was proven to be a liar by the artifacts, Greek writers and numerous finds that essentially disclose the fact that Latin was never a common language in the West until 700AD. Even in Italy the coins minted by the seperate cities continued to be Greek Inscribed and only Rome the city used Latin for it's imperial coinage.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 10:48 AM ET (US)     17 / 44       
Gonna take Thpmpy's side on this one.
In your neighbourhood maybe it is known like that. Archaeology has a different story. Greek coins outnumber any other type in that region during the Golden era and post Alexander. There is also a Greek source for the settlement of Carthage, one often overlooked, but equally valid.
Carthage was a phoenician colony.
No it didn't! Greek was the common language of the West prior to Alexander and after Alexander the East used Greek as the common language.
How come French, Italian and Spanish are called Romanic Languages (aka Latin Languages) if they spoke greek rather than latin?
PhatFish
Mr. Beta
posted 03-06-12 10:51 AM ET (US)     18 / 44       
Feel free to post your perspective on history, but keep it civilized.



Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 11:15 AM ET (US)     19 / 44       
I hope we can keep it civilized, but I'm afraid this will end like topics like these: 1 and 2. I'm even starting to consider he is the tim greenhill that posted a similar post on my makedonia page. Based on these threads and the comments so far in this thread I'm withdrawing from this discussion, else I fear I will lose rationality and patience. And this whole discussion is hugely off-topic anyway.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-06-12 07:24 PM ET (US)     20 / 44       
How come French, Italian and Spanish are called Romanic Languages (aka Latin Languages) if they spoke greek rather than latin?
Because the Latin language entered these regions systematically through the rise of Papal control over the established churches. The spread of Latin did occur between 100-285BC through forcible re-colonisation of small towns and regions in Western Europe. But the impact and spread of the language was not felt until much later. It took considerable time for the dotted colonies to grow and usually only 5,000-10,000 people filled most towns during colonisation. So the language was not spread during the Rise of Rome but the seeds were laid. After 700AD the Papal power which was used to ordain Germanic and other kings was great. The Papacy slowly but surely changed the liturgy of the Church to Latin and re-spread Latin through the Bible in the West. By 1000AD the majority of the West used Latin or some derived language and then came the schism in the church. The Eastern Church was separated from the Western Church around 1020AD. Keep in mind that all the Christians of Western Europe had only the original New Testament (written in Greek) initially. It was only after 700AD that an acceptable Latin translation was made. This indicates the demographics had changed and Latin was needed in the West.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 04:56 AM ET (US)     21 / 44       
Because the Latin language entered these regions systematically through the rise of Papal control over the established churches. The spread of Latin did occur between 100-285BC through forcible re-colonisation of small towns and regions in Western Europe. But the impact and spread of the language was not felt until much later. It took considerable time for the dotted colonies to grow and usually only 5,000-10,000 people filled most towns during colonisation. So the language was not spread during the Rise of Rome but the seeds were laid. After 700AD the Papal power which was used to ordain Germanic and other kings was great. The Papacy slowly but surely changed the liturgy of the Church to Latin and re-spread Latin through the Bible in the West. By 1000AD the majority of the West used Latin or some derived language and then came the schism in the church. The Eastern Church was separated from the Western Church around 1020AD. Keep in mind that all the Christians of Western Europe had only the original New Testament (written in Greek) initially. It was only after 700AD that an acceptable Latin translation was made. This indicates the demographics had changed and Latin was needed in the West.
This is actually very interesting

So only the roman colonies used latin in the western parts? I thought they infiltrated the native languages as well, but I can't remember if they managed to "conquer" all of western Europe though. Been a few years since I read about Roman history

How come Greek was the language spoken before latin? IIRC, Phoenicians colonized parts of Spain, and they didn't speak Greek, right? And Latin was spoken by most romans. Even the roman elite spoke Latin in first hand, even if most of them also spoke Greek.
hittite_man
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 05:25 AM ET (US)     22 / 44       
Carthage was founded by Phoenicians,after that I don't know who occcupied it, heck the phoenicians even had a very small outpost in cape town
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 05:27 AM ET (US)     23 / 44       
Yeah, the phoenicians had a lot of small colonies in both Africa and Europe
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 08:05 AM ET (US)     24 / 44       
http://www.classicalcoins.com/greek-coins.html
To the West, the prosperous cities of Magna Graecia were soon caught up in struggles involving the competing power of two great city-states, Rome and Carthage. Carthage issued a voluminous coinage for its wars against Hellenistic Sicily, and later Rome, which ultimately ended in her total destruction (146 bc). Though Greek coinage continued into the first century ad, after the fall of Carthage the rest of the Mediterranean world was then rapidly absorbed into the Roman Empire.
Ancient Greek silver tetradrachm of Carthage (mid 4th century BC)
http://www.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-000-509-356-C


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 08:09 AM ET (US)     25 / 44       
since I left this discussion, I'll only say: Be carefull what you believe. Use your own reasoning and read some books by actual historians and you'll come to the conclusion that most of what he says can't be true. And even if some things he says are true, the large number of false facts he mentions makes me doubt everything he says about history.

One thought-starter: Why was it practical that the church in the west (and also the Franks and other invaders) started to use Latin? I think you can answer it for yourself.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames