I appreciate their addition but I still prefer the Byzantines as they're more fitting for that time range.

well, at least now we got Western Roman Empire... In Age of Empires 2 (and it is my favorite civ from all Age of empires).

What

what he meant to say is "sorry mighty, i hath been wrekt"

Besides all that, my concern is that the aoe series actually skip a few centuries so that the Christian WRE is not even playable in any game. The Byzantine in aoe2 are closer to the Romans of aoe, but they have a strong eastern vibe even if they wrongfully are made to speak Latin, resembling the western part in that respect.
Since the other civs are pagan and so big gay, I wanted the Romans here to impersonate something of my taste.
Late Phoenicians and Persians were Christianised too, but around the same time as the Romans really. So, same problem of timeline.

Yeah haha I know. Most troops look just ridiculous. With AoE 2 they did overall a much better job. Unrealistic units are actually just a handful and are generally so for a few elements like the berserker's horned helmet or the bare footed and chested woad raider

A:TW I know of and played it quite a bit but most TW games either make me cringe and drop them or make me bored instead. I only finished in my whole life Empire Total War. And I am not even a fan of that period; late antiquity and the middle ages are my main thing.

Like I said. Regardless of the Queen Zenobia campaign which took place in 3rd century AD, the setting of the game ends in "Iron Age" which is known as the Early to Mid Antiquity. This is the era of Caesar and Pompey, not Constantine.

If you want to tug at the hairs of historical accuracy, you might want to play Attila Total War. Age of Empires is more of a tactical game set in what is vaguely perceived in popular imagination to be "Greeky times", not a realistic portrayal of ancient warfare. I mean heck, the legions in this game look nothing like the historical legions. In fact they don't even look like any historical troop formations at all, since greek soldiers wearing Corinthian helmets almost never fought with swords, except as a sidearm in some rare situations, and certainly not in "Iron Age".

I'd like to correct myself after some studying: it seems cavalry affirmed itself as the leading force in the roman army only quite late, and actually did so only in the East, as the western army disintegrated during the 5th century before that could really happen.
It appears some special, new cavalry units were formed in the 3rd and 4th centuries, like the famous Cataphractii, but they did not enjoy a dominant role over infantry in the west.
Still, the representation of roman forces in the game is reminiscent of early romen, when the romans still had to form their various missile and cavalry forces. The game gives them just very good standard infantry, and really bad archers, horse archers and cavalry. This is further expressed by romans having scythe chariots, actually used only for a fraction of the Roman empire's lifespan wothin the game's range of time.

yes and no. The main focus of the game is indeed a much earlier period than Constantine's; however I digged into the game's scenarios and AI player names and I found some 3rd century reference. Even early fourth. I forgot.
It was possibly the campaign with Palmyra or a late imperor as one of the AI names.
Anyway, it was veeeeery close to Constantine's reign.

As much as I agree, the game's setting precedes the Constantinian reforms by several centuries, so you can't expect it to reflect late Antiquity fashion styles.