I just wanted to remind everyone that “the Aztecs didn’t use metal weapons or armor”. Hardly any.
Weapons - Most of their weapons were made of bone, flint, hardwood, and the famous obsidian.
Armor - Their armor was made of cotton soaked in salt water so the salt would accumulate inside and act as a cushion. It worked well; they were practically like brigandine.
Shields - Here’s something interesting… most shields from almost every culture were made of wood, never metal. Even the Romans used wooden shields. They only covered the edges with metal. However, the Aztecs also covered their shields with leather, feathers, jade, and gold.
The interesting thing is that most of the Age of Mythology Armory technologies include these:
As thematic at this is, its prob Just better gameplay wise to keep it the same imo so it stays streamlined and easier to understand. Aom itself is not the most accurate with its upgrades, like towers and boling oil or the armor materials the different civs used. We are not jumping time periods when you age up either way like you would in other age games.
Most of the civs already present dont share the same type of weapons by design or materials.
This is more of a nitpick than anything but Hardness is not what matters most in weapons and specially armor, you would see a lot more glass weapons if that was the case. Due to how brittle some of this materials can be which is why we saw obsidian weapons using the stone imbedded into wood or other materials that provided the structure for the weapons so the whole thing didnt shatter after impact
appreciate the idea but the other civs didn’t get any unique upgrades here aswell so why just for aztec? in the end it would be “just” a couple of different words and icons and i think there are much more important things - and AoM isn’t that accurate civ wise anyway. i think they should stick with the original base design here.
i personally understand where you are coming from but gameplay wise i simply don’t see it as important. otherwise many other things should get changed and adjusted too. like why does Argus still look like an alien from space as a random not tech related example which you would actually see graphic wise.
and regarding specfically about armor/weapon techs egypt did use iron but barely as far as i know.
what i want to say: you have a point but its lower in the line of changes to make AoM more “lore accurate or realistic”.
and even i like to play chinese from time to time i don’t like they feel more “detailed” than the other civs. i don’t know about you but i like consistency in games.
Aom civs time periods are very far away from each other. Samurai (the ones depicted in game) and most of the chinese army are closer to our current time than they were ancient egypt.
We have medium, heavy, champion X unit which is very meaningless as to the time period the untis where in or the civs they belong to.
Other upgrades like the economical ones make no sense on civs that didnt have irrigation systems, dedícated minning systems and other technologies like the boiling oil or Advanced siege weapons to compete among themselves.
At the end of the Day its a game first and if something can become confusing its usually better not to do over a Tiny bit of flavor.
I think it would be a nice touch, it’s just an icon and name change, this seems like a low effort change to add additional flavor to the civ.
The risk of confusing players I think is small, as civs are already not identical with the techs they have.
And ultimately I don’t believe games need to shield players from confusion. It’s okay for games to have extremely complex mechanics that may confuse the players, and a change like this is not extremely complex but straight forward, they just need to read the tooltip once to see the effect.
I don’t think it’s necessary to go that way. There should be baseline upgrades that allows one to get the civ rolling fast. Even aoe3 which is far nore assymetric then aom has baseline upgrades and units to make it easier to transfer knowledge.
I thought that aztecs should have no cavalary like their AoE 2 counterparts. I would assume that is the theme and that their infantry and archer focused.
That is right. Aztecs didn’t have cavalry. In fact, they thought a man on horseback was a magical being, half human, half horse, like a centaur, but with two heads.
They panicked when one guy fell off his horse, because to them, it looked like this magical being being magically split in two.
this wasn’t my intension. i am sorry i sounded that way but you should also try to not act like a snowflake in simple discussion. cause if you read my hole comment you should have understood i try to explain that i understand his opinion would a “pompous whatever” do this too? cause i don’t think so.
anyway i didn’t know this is more “popular” cause i didn’t read this request anywhere else.
i personally would be totally fine to see this change/tweak but then other stuff should be changed/tweaked aswell.
i think Cajocu01 most of the time writes what i think but in a more…diplomatic and smarter way. maybe you understand his opinion better.
I don’t know about you but i only apologize fully as you seem to mean it when:
they don’t judge/attack me in the first place.
the word snowflake wasn’t meant to be rude but still worded purposfully with the lack of better words. if you have better alternatives who get to the point i wanted to make feel free to suggest them to me.
not that it matters i know but i am a VERY polite person irl but i don’t see it always necessary to be here since the internet seems unfortunately to be a harsh place and normally i am the person who gets attacked and much much ruder online and i don’t even get a soft apoligy most of the time. so i don’t know what you what to pick on here - in my opinion unnecessarily.
But you seem to have many regular human interactions, so feel free to apologize for me in the way you think is correct.
i didn’t know this is more “popular” cause i didn’t read this request anywhere else.