Aztecs work better. We know more about the Aztec gods than Olmecs if I recalled correctly.
Besides, the Norse fits the medieval bill anyway. And “Aztec” is just basically a name given to them through the culmination and absorption of other previous Mexica civilizations that were eventually conquered. Technically, Aztec’s history can be traced back to the Toltecs which their history in itself is ancient enough.
Toltecs eventually became the Aztecs but essentially they are the “same”.
I think Maya are a better choice then Aztecs.
The Aztecs moved into what is now Mexico only a century or two before the arrival of the Spanish.
The Maya lived in the same place for millennia and and they still do to this day. We know a lot about their mythology and we have a lot older archaeological evidence.
3 Likes
Personally, I think the Aztecs are a better choice because their mythology, in my opinion, is richer and more violent. It would be nice to see how other mythological civs will deal with this kind of violence.
For example: Huitzilopotchli knew that his siblings bullied his mother before he was born. As soon as he sprung from his mother’s womb, he decapitated his siblings heads off and flung them into the night sky. These heads then become stars.
I have already created a list of Aztec bestiary in the past (more than 15+) and their monsters are extremely terrifying.
I don’t mean this as a disrespect to anyone but I always find it odd when people suggest a insert a mythology here but not add any information regarding its creatures.
If you are not capable of listing at least 10 creatures from that mythology then it would be extremely difficult for your choice to be added in considering the other civs have 10+ units already.
Celts and Aztecs/Mayans.
- Greek
- Norse
- Egyptian
- Sumerian
- Semitic
- Canaanite
- Celtic
- Slavic
- Japaneese
- Chinesse
- Hindu
- Turkic
- Roman
- Nubian
- Germanic
- Babylonian
- Mayan
- Yoruba
- Aztec
- Inca
- Abrahamic
2 Likes
It’s impressive how a billion people get bracketed as Hindus? Get out and mingle a little fools.
Of course, the Atlanteans are like a mixture between Romans, Aztecs and Mayans…
The Sea Peoples are a hypothesized seafaring confederation that attacked ancient Egypt and other regions in the East Mediterranean prior to and during the Late Bronze Age collapse (1200–900 BCE).[1][2] Following the creation of the concept in the 19th century, the Sea Peoples’ incursions became one of the most famous chapters of Egyptian history, given its connection with, in the words of Wilhelm Max Müller, “the most important questions of ethnography and the primitive history of classic nations”.[3][4]
The origins of the Sea Peoples are undocumented. It has been proposed that the Sea Peoples originated from a number of different locations, such as western Asia Minor, the Aegean, the Mediterranean islands, and Southern Europe.[5] Although the archaeological inscriptions do not include reference to a migration,[2] the Sea Peoples are conjectured to have sailed around the eastern Mediterranean and invaded Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Canaan, Cyprus, and Egypt toward the end of the Bronze Age (they would be somewhat similar to the barbarian invasions of the fourth and fifth centuries AD)…they appear in AoE online for example
Sea People | Age of Empires Online Wiki | Fandom
- They are based on the Greek civilization with some variations in the units.
Exclusive Units
|
|
|File:ChieftainSeaPeople.png|
|File:CatapultShip.png|
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|Swordsman|Bowman
(Sea
People)|Chieftain
(Sea
People)|Flagship|Catapult
Ship|
|
|
|
| — | — | — |
|Merchant
Transport
(Sea
People)|Fishing
Boat
(Sea
People)|
Abrahamic religions cannot appear as they are monotheistic, so the Hebrews goodbye… and about the age because it can be from bronze to iron …
1 Like
As I said. It’s not exactly know who they were and they were likely a group of different people with different cultures, languages and religions.
AoM focuses on mythology and we know exactly nothing about their mythology besides the what we know from the cultures they likely recruited people from.
Therefor they make no sense in AoM as a playable faction.
Even in an ancient setting AoE they would make little sense. They only existed for a few years and were absolutely not an empire.
Unless they have a unique Age up system.
Not every civilisation has to Age up the same way so it could work.
Also the Norse are way past the Iron Age. They are basically early Medieval.
2 Likes
The Minoans were the Cretans and the Mycenaeans were the Proto-Greeks before the Doric invasions…
Exactly, maybe anyone comes in handy…
Of course, I understand… yes it can be as you say…
Not every civilisation has to Age up the same way so it could work.
Also the Norse are way past the Iron Age. They are basically early Medieval.
basically this. some take this franchise way too serious. and thats so strange cause AoM didn’t take itself too serious and historical correct aswell.
as long as the culture doesn’t have too advanced armor and weapons till Age 4 you can put every culture with some decent mythology into the game
1 Like
I think the real issue is sensitivity. Hindus are much more likely to raise a fuss about someone depicting their deities in the wrong way than say a Japanese would have of Shinto, for whom I am pretty sure that the latter have been known to create… content in regards to.
No.
The Minoans were completely different people.
The Mycenaeans were Greeks. You could maybe call them Proto-Greeks but I think we can just call them Greeks.
And there was no Doric invasion just migration.
AoE4 is taking itself more serious then AoE2 did. AoE4 only has civilisations that existed at the same time and no wild mix like AoE2 had from the beginning by having Celts and Goths.
AoM2 could also be more serious and only limit itself to one time period.
It doesn’t have to though.
We should still argue about what feels right and what feels wrong to us.
It shouldn’t be too hard to depict them in the right was, should it?
I mean there are enough people they can ask during the development of the game before they make anything public.
But at the end of the day does it really matter that much if some fundamentalist are triggered by some detail when the majority is happy that they were depicted in a game at all.
AoE was never about taking herself very seriously…i.e. you have Hittite archers fighting Against Roman centurions in aoe 1…or scorpions and siege machines for the mesocivs in aoe 2,Aztec skull knights fighting American gatlings in aoe 3,human log throwers as siege units for the Celts in aoe online etc etc etc…
Ok ok, I only rely on what it says on wikipedia, if you want to consider it migration it’s okay anyway…and yes the more focused is the game the more realistic with the civs it will be…
i would add Continental Celts, Indus (Hindu), Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, Hittites, Tenochtitlan, Olmecs, Andean civ, Cahokia civ, Several african civs. Maybe an Iberian civ.
Yes, but I would have to separate them by mythology rather than by civilizations:or be it would be Celtic mythology, Indian, Middle East, Aztec, Inca, Yoruba, etc etc etc …