New Civs in AoE1? (poll)

Yeah, that’s right. But just because the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was won does not mean that the Teutons were an advanced civilization at that time. The fact is that the Roman army at that time was far from being as well equipped as it was in its heyday and that serious tactical mistakes were made. Incidentally, the battle did not even take place in the Teutoburg Forest.
The situation is similar with the Indians. Please do not confuse them. Victories of great battles does not yet say anything about the level of cultural development.

Many greetings.

1 Like

“Cultural development” doesn’t mean anything from a historical and archeological point of view, because everyone can measure it according to their own arbitrary standards and biases. In India’s case especially, I don’t understand how you could say it wasn’t culturally developped. In terms of architecture, sculpture, litterature, philosophy or craftsmanship, I don’t think it had much to envy to the Greeks, their history is also full of invasion and warring states, they traded with every relevant civilization in Asia and the Mediterranean world and the Indus region is one of the areas were agriculture was first discovered. I’m not so sure we should have a unified Indian civ, though, I’d rather like to see it split in various factions such as Maghadans and Tamils (if we got three Mesopotamian civs, a lonely Indian civ is awkward…)

I never wrote that India was not a high culture. As far as I know, India first bursted with the introduction of Buddhism and then only a few centuries later. But the game ends with the fall of Rome, which is about 400 a. D. took place.

I’d rather have a mod for age of empires 2 substituting the middle ages ambience for an ancient one, thus giving the civs unique techs and units. I like AoE 1, but I miss this kind of uniqueness that only the AoE 2 has.
This way American civs wouldn’t feel so awkward.

1 Like

That may be, but as a proxy for other Native Americans a Mayan civ can use them.

Actually India Indus culture is one the first high cultures, so what you are saying doesn’t make any sense. One Indian civilization should be in aoe1 for sure. If I take your argument I would say that current Japanese Yamato is far more insignificant than Indus India.

3 Likes

Ok, everything I have written makes no sense at all. Yes, strictly speaking the Indian culture was one of the first advanced civilizations at all. But they belonged to the so-called copper cultures. The great time followed as soon as I described it senselessly.

But since you don’t seem to give my arguments any meaning anyway, I’m out.

Many greetings.

You clearly have no knowledge of these matters. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting further and exposing further deficiencies.

The Choson too. What on earth are they doing in the AOE1?? The Xiongnu make more sense to be in the game.

I guess it’s because of this, but all the names chosen for Eastern factions are rather confusing. Choson is more commonly associated with the Modern era dinasty rather than the Ancient one and there were other Korean kingdoms in this time period. The word Yamato has several meanings but most of them aren’t relevant before Late Antiquity when most factions in the game don’t even exist anymore and could easily be replaced with Wajin or Yayoi. Shang is just one chinese dynasty which didn’t even controlled all of China and isn’t even the most relevant in this time period. The Han or even the short-lived Qin would make more sense in my opinion.

1 Like

OMG, I have never claimed that other peoples are rightly in there. But hey, never mind. We’ll just put more inappropriate races into the game. Minus times minus equals plus!

At least the Kingdom of Silla was considered a thousand-year-old empire and had produced great cultural achievements (before the fall of Rome). Signs of this are palaces, temples, the observatory and burial mounds.
It was decisive for the origin of Korea

This discussion was about which new civs would be suitable for the game and I tried to argue comprehensibly. In contrast to you, who only discredits.
But I understand that, it is just so nice and simple.

That’s why I’m really out of this pointless round of discussion now. Ciau!

I would like to see a “Barbarian” DLC with Celts, Germans and Scythians as new playable factions, which share a new building skin set. Also new campaign(s) would be nice and don’t forget to adjust the civ settings in the old campaigns - like setting the gauls in the alesia mission to celts and so on. Huns should be scythians in the campaign as they are closest in terms of warfare. Might implement the Huns as faction instead of Scythians with such a DLC, but I guess the Scythians can be seen as a broader representative of nomadic tribes, especially for time period before the huns.

2 Likes

We could also have both Huns and Scythians and maybe even get separate building skins for North European sedentary barbarians and steppe nomads. Huns and Scythians are different enough to have different civs, in my opinion.

I guess the problem is, how to make Huns and Scythians distinct enough in this game, so that both have a reason to be there. Imo that is the bigger issue here with the concept and design of the game. Also two building skins are more work for a DLC for a game, which the devs don’t get that much money and time anymore. If you look at other civs in AoE no one got so much attention in terms of building skins, so I’m fine with one skin for these civs in this game. You always have to take into account, what fits the game and how much ressource spending is realistic.

Otherwise it would have been nice to have two civ packs with “nomads” and “barbarians”.

To begin with, Scythians have chariots together with regular cavalry. I think Scythians could be focused on ranged cavalry (chariot and horse archers), and Huns could have faster and cheaper cavalry.

I mean both are cavalry focused, especially on horse archers. Sorry for disagreeing, but in the game Age of Empires 1, I just don’t really see the benefit of having two nomadic civs, besides of having one with chariots and one without (Which is not historical by the way, because scythians never used chariots - scythed chariots have nothing to do with scythians). What else would be the big difference? Their unit roster would be quite similar. Same goes with potential civ bonuses. Using the same building skin, they wouldn’t even have different looks.

Don’t get me wrong, if we get both factions, I wouldn’t have a problem either. Imo a nomadic civ would be a nice addition, but I don’t really see the use of two for this kind of game.

Oh? I’ve heard several times about war charriots being found in Scythians tombs so I assumed they were actually used for war and not something your craftsmen would master only to put them inside tombs.

Sorry, I just checked and it’s true that they used chariots, but the use of scythed chariots is questionable. So my apologizes to you. But as I stated even if they have chariots in the game, they are not enough distinct from the huns in terms of gameplay and the general fitting in the game - talking about the game and gameplay, not talking about historical differences.

I would suggest Xiongnu and Scythians. That way, the East Asian side gets something too as well. They were the Huns.