Imperator I think it is
2 Likes
iām up for a new AoE1 DE DLC !
5 Likes
Unlike Age 2, thereās a ton of room for new civilizations in the game. Also, fatal problems such as the abysmal pathfinding and the 50 population limit in every campaign mission should be fixed. I think far more people would play Age 1 if the most painfully outdated aspects were ironed out besides just queuing, reseeding, and farm space.
The game very much needs to add the following civilizations:
Indian subcontinent DLC:
- Indus (Indian architecture set)
- Mauryan (Indian architecture set)
- Kushan (Indian architecture set)
- Hephthalite (Indian architecture set)
European DLC:
- Celtic (Northern European architecture set)
- Etruscan (Roman architecture set)
- Scythian (Northern European architecture set)
- Vandal (Northern European architecture set)
Miscellaneous DLC:
- Armenian (Middle Eastern architecture set, retroactively given to Phoenicians and Palmyrans)
- Olmec (American architecture set)
- Norte Chico (American architecture set)
- Xiongnu (Asian architecture set)
11 Likes
I would happily replace Norte Chico (it is a spanish name, not even their actual cultural name) and Etruscan (pre-Romans are already in the Romans civ, from the Stone to the Bronze Age, because Rome itself was only ever an Iron Age civ), with Israelites and Nubians.
1 Like
Norte Chico can be called Caral instead, but if the Olmecs are in the game, I feel there should be a second civilization from the Americas as well, and the Caral being a prominent civilization very early on is pretty noteworthy imo.
Iāve seen Etruscans requested quite a bit for the game, but alternatively there could be a Dacians civ instead, as they were a notable power that fought Rome in modern-day Romania.
Israelites/Hebrews would be a good choice for a civ with the same architecture set as the Phoenicians, Armenians, and Palmyrans, and Nubians would also be great to have more representation from Africa, considering their significant amount of contact with the ancient Egyptians. I also think the Carthaginians are better suited to the Egyptian architecture set instead of the Roman set. Both would lend themselves better to the Egyptian architecture set than the Assyrians or Sumerians, the latter of whom are absurdly denied their literal Zyggurat Wonder and should be retroactively changed to have the Babylonian/Hittite/Persian architecture instead. To clarify, the Middle Eastern set I proposed for the Armenians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and Palmyrans (possibly the Assyrians, too) would be brand new and separate from the Babylonian/Hittite/Persian set.
3 Likes
I could forsee the argument, but Israelites and Nubians are just too important for the Bronze and Iron Ages.
The Nubians ruled Egypt, and Rome had to be brutal to stop them from raiding Roman Egypt later on. It is also one of the only cultures they did not romanize or made a client kingdom of.
The Israelites were a small kingdom, but their cultural legacy in Asia and Europe is far greater than they were.
They would also provide an excuse to include a Heavy Slinger unit, not only because of the prevalence of Slings in ancient Mideast warfare, but also as a nod to teh David and Goliath story.
Romans, Celts and Phoenicians should also have the Heavy Slinger, as all of them made use of Balearic Slingers, which were held in high esteem during Antiquity, and seen as better than any Archer in the world.
Celts would get them because of the Celtiberians, which they should also cover as an umbrella, since we do not really need an Iberians civ.
Celts would also allow for another unit: the Heavy Axeman, which Greeks and Egyptians should also get access to, specially the Greeks, due to the Myceneans having Axemen as a signature unit, before they became the Greeks proper.
I disagree. If you look at illustrations of Carthage, and its people, they were highly hellenized, and the architectural style was similar to Greece and Rome.
Dacians would be a better civ, by far.
1 Like
The Carthaginian architecture from 0 A.D. reminds me a lot of the Egyptian Iron Age architecture.
0 A,D,
Reality
Yes, it had some Levantine touches, because that is where the Phoenicians came from, before they founded Carthage.
However, both their army, governing system, citizenship and architecture, had already been heavily hellenized, when they founded the city.
4 Likes
Stop discussing what the new DLC could be about if we get one we get one itās no use if you just pick what the new civ should be.
1 Like
Iāve said it before, Iāll say it again, I want a set of ābarbarianā civs with a new architecture style. Can be Celts (Gauls), Hibernians (Gaels), Picts, Germans, and Thracians.
6 Likes
Germani, not Germans
1 Like
It seems that you did not understand what I said about americans. It doesnāt matter if they have or no hoplite, because they would have 8 discarded units (mounted units).
They would only have swordsman, hoplite, and foot archers. : /
2 Likes
Neither of us can do anything for a new DLC, and weāll probably never get an official one.
But let others dream and imagine.
1 Like
And Heavy Slingers, and Heavy Axemen, and probably at least one more Academy unit because a lot of bonii reference āAcademy unitsā like it was supposed to be more than one option, and bonii to compensate for lacking Cavalryā¦
2 Likes
Maybe they release a revamped scenario editor as ell
2 Likes
Maybe for the Latin version of the game. Joke aside, we donāt use the term Germani in modern times, we call them the Germanic Peoples, no reason to go back to the ancient Latin word there.
2 Likes
For a game about antiquity, yes, Germani is more appropriate than Germans
1 Like
Then we might as well call every civ by its ancient name: Itās a moot point.
2 Likes
You donāt see us calling the Japanese Japan? They are Yamato. Chosen, Carthage, ect.
1 Like
I am not planing to buy AOE 1, because I think about the game as ādeadā. What would convince me, and would make the game valuable forever is if it would be historically accurate and we could use it as a ānon-obligatory homeworkā in schools.