My bad, I meant datasets.
TP being graphically the same is fine because like you said its shared between all civs.
I think the sentry towers and wooden walls could be changed across all civs. Even if the change is subtle, its better than everything being the same. And it would just make the game less “monotonous” even though Retold has been interesting as heck so far.
I don’t know if you’re referring to AoE3 specifically or in general.
But if they had the same architecture, why is it that Japanese people complain about chinese architecture being featured prominently in Assassins Creed Shadows?
Not really on topic, and I assume it probably doesn’t mean much from a guy who can’t tell one from the other… I’m just curious.
They have good reasons for their concerns. For example, games that depict historical wars between Koreans and Japanese or Japanese and Chinese are likely to receive heavy backlash and face potential cancellation. Even mixing their cultures together by accident could cause serious concerns. From an outside perspective looking in may look like something that isn’t serious but to them it is very serious. It’s all politics and cultural differences stemming from a painful past.
I’m not an expert at differentiating between Norse and Celtic architecture, culture, units, etc… but I can confidently say they are distinct, as I trust the posters here who advocate for including the Celts in the game. The same applies to Japanese and Chinese.
AoM will likely be relatively easily be able to avoid that by not doing anything historic. But I assume they will not copy Asian architectures anyways since they never done that in AoM and they didn’t even do that in AoE3.
The most historic thing that happened in the campaign was the Trojan war.
Celts settled a very large area over a very long period of time (Bronze Age until today) so there is a massive variety they have to choose from.
I do hope that they don’t add Stonehenge or similar structures to the Celts since they were not build by the Celts at all.
Urgh, finally thank you.
Sick of pseudo-wiccans pilfering Stonehenge for their pseudo-Celtic beliefs.
Stonehenge was c.5000bc, Neolithic eta, way, way before the Celtic people’s entered the British Isles.
Sorry, very off topic, just like to affirm correct history when I see it!
Celtic architecture, while varied, could still be ported over to look very distinct from the Norse though
1 Like
Not to hijack the thread or anything but what would the 3 wonders be for the Japanese and the Celts?
While not built by them, there are indicators that places like stonehenge were used by them.
They make for good props, maybe even in random maps, but not for good buildings.
Japanese is easy. Just pick 3 nice shrines and you’re good.
Celts is more complicated because you gotta first decided what kinda Celts you want. Likely not medieval ones so all the Irish and Scottish Castles are not really an option.
The Norse already have 2 none buildings and 1 fantasy building as a wonder.
Celts weren’t really the ones to build big monuments.
True, true…it’s just the notion that’s peddled that they were built by them.
But I accept your point and perhaps I was too hasty with my leap in.
Nah please not. I can see the charm but not in a game like this.
But it could be interesting for a new game. An rts game with civs between 16. and 18. century and dinosaurs and maybe fantasy monsters which are tamable and fightable would interesting. - or just play total war warhammer instead
As mentioned already, Smite had Hindu gods as playable characters. They did have a bit of a controversy, but that was because they portrayed Kali as too revealing, which got some backlash from more conservative groups, so they had to change her depiction.
If you look up old paintings of Kali, she is depicted naked quite a lot, so it wasn’t like they were portraying her all that inaccurately.
For AOM:R, they would just need to avoid that with the god portraits. They could easily just hire someone who is Indian and Hindu to do the artwork so that the depictions are presented as accurately as possible.
2 Likes
What I mean is that I would never be against more optional content.
If there is the choice between adding the USA or nothing I would rather have the USA because I can still choose not to use them which is basically the same as them not existing.
I obviously don’t want them to add the USA instead of a civilisation that actually fits into the timeline.
I would like them to give us some AoE3DE units in the editor and vice versa. They already made them anyway so it would be cool to just have them for fun.
We already have an UFO!
Devs may want to make scenarios, where both Chinese and Japanese appear and make it available for players, who own both Chinese and Japanese DLCs, it makes sense. They did the same with AOE3 DE to unlock a historical battles for players who own both USA and Mexico. So, yeah I see about 75% chance that Japanese will be the next DLC civ after Chinese.
The Mexicans were not the next DLC after the US though.
I do really hope that if they do Japanese they heavily go into the mysterious early times of Japan.
The Yamatai and their Queen Himiko would be a really cool way to tie Chinese Romance of the 3 Kingdoms stories together with Japanese Mythology.
The Japanese should be called Yamato in AoMR in my opinion, going back to how they were named in AoE1 and it makes them sound more ancient and mysterious then just Japanese.
And I think it would fit in the current naming scheme with Norse not just being called Scandinavians or something like that.
Maybe I should make a Yamato Pantheon concept.
Strictly speaking, she and her country do not belong to mythology, but to history where evidence is scarce. They were somehow similar to the Xia dynasty of ancient China, described in written histories but with no firm archaeological evidence.
As the earliest history that continues from the mythical age, although there is a lack of archaeological evidence, divine power and magic were almost no longer included in written records. Just like Queen Himiko, in the Chinese description, she was similar to a priestess rather than a goddess.
Also, if Himiko and her country belong to Japanese mythology, they should be directly mentioned in Japan’s own mythological sources, but instead they were explicitly recorded only in contemporary Chinese historical sources and later a Korean source.
I would say that the Japanese civilization in AoM should be based on the kami like Amaterasu, Tsukuyomi and Susanowo, not a human Himiko. Himiko was not a kami, and she belongs to AoE1 and RoR.
1 Like
Japan has the mythological Empress JIngu who may or many not be identical with Himeko.
Ok my sentence might be interpreted wrong, what I wanted to say is that the story of Himeko can be used to make a connection between China and Japan, but not that the Japanese should be based on the Yamatai.
So Himeko could be a character that appears in the campaign not be a part of the civilisation that you can play in Skirmish, like Amanra not being trainable by the Egyptians.
She should obviously not be a god.
I still think that calling them Yamato would be cooler and more fitting name then Japanese.
Respectful portrayals without all the Temple of Doom rubbish could be done up for Hindu pantheon deities with some proper artists and consultants from the Hindu community. Not a tall order at all and a rich dividend for the franchise/AOM.
1 Like
What are you trying to connect to with Himiko?
Himiko is in the earliest known history of Japan on the timeline, while China at the same time was already in the Three Kingdoms period, more than 2,000 years ago from China’s mythological period. The Three Kingdoms period of China should not be part of AoM at all.
Empress JIngu, on the other hand, is another problem. I will classfy her as a legendary figure, but still not a mythical figure because her era was not in the Age of the Gods and she was not a kami. In addition, she was caught in the contradiction between Japanese and Korean nationalism.
AoM connects Middle Age Norse with Bronze Age Egyptians.
Why not use some hints to the Himiko story to connect China with Japan even if it’s from a relatively late period of Chinese history.
But on the other hand why shouldn’t China have 3 Kingdom elements? Romance of the 3 Kingdoms is basically mythology, isn’t it?
The Greeks, Egyptians and Norse all have pretty modern units and buildings too.
Greek units are Macedonian, Egyptians can build a Ptolemaic lighthouse and Norse have medieval kite shields.
The 3 Kingdoms period is very popular in Chinese media and beyond so it could help AoMR to become more popular in Asia.
Would be cool to see an official 3 Kingdoms scenario where you can choose to play as each of the 3 Kingdoms against 2 other human players.
Absolutely NO. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a historical novel mixed with fictional plots. Fictional creation does not mean mythology. The history book Records of the Three Kingdoms on which this novel is based is official history and is obviously not a myth too.
This statement of yours really surprised me. Seems that your definition of mythology is extremely loose, or maybe you know not much about ancient East Asia.
They used the images of warriors from that era in history to depict warriors from mythological times earlier than that era likely because the developers considered these to be the earliest distinctive features of those cultures. Just like when you look at paintings based on Norse mythology, the warriors in the paintings may also be equipped with some of the equipment commonly used by the Norsemen in the early Middle Ages.
Therefore, even though the developers used those objects to present the civs, it does not definitely mean that the civs are based on the era in which those objects existed in reality. Even if a potential Germanic civ could summon heavily armored knights in full plate armor, it obviously shouldn’t mean that the AoM included 15th-century Western Europe. Not to mention if there was a Gatling gun (exaggerate example) one day.
If possible, Retold should still try to avoid an overly modern presentation and to base on appropriate references. You won’t want to see gunpowder weapons, right? If warriors of the potential Japanese civilization were dressed just like AoE3 samurai, that’s a loss of immersion for me.
The community from Chinese-speaking world may be looking forward to the Chinese civ in AoM would be the mythological era of China, that is, the era of Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. It is expected to include gods and demigods from ancient Chinese myths such as Nuwa, Shennong, Zhurong, The Yellow Emperor, Chiyou, etc., as well as mythological beasts and monsters recorded in the Classic of Mountains and Seas.
Strictly speaking, the era of Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors ended with the second emperor of the Xia Dynasty, so that is the ideal end of the timeline that this civ refers to. Similarly, I think the timeline that the potential Japanese civ refers to should ideally end with Emperor Jimmu.
In fact, when China entered the Spring and Autumn Period, the color of mythology became pretty thin. At latest, the end of timeline can be the establishment of the Qin Dynasty, that is, the civ can at most cover the entire pre-Qin period. The history after the establishment of the Qin Dynasty is generally not regarded as mythological at all.
The Three Kingdoms period is too late. This is like making the AoM Greeks present the wars of the early Byzantine Empire. Do you think the Greeks would want a game based on their mythology to tell something like that?
1 Like