Yayoi sounds a age rather than a civ (Yayoi is named from a city where a yayoi earthenware was discovered in 1884). If you wanna cover japanese in yayoi age before 0AD (not only Yamato), I can suggest “Wajin (倭人)” as a civ name. Ancient Chinese called ancient Japanese as Wajin. Someone says that is derogatory, but I don’t think so. There are many interpretations for “倭”.
I don’t mind whether the civ is called Yamato or Wajin. I feel Yamato is cool, Wajin is calm.
Yayoi is also the name of the people and culture. I guess Wajin could work too, but I think Yamato puts the civ outside of AoE1’s relevant timeframe. The Yayoi also kind of open the gate to the Jōmon, which some people might think is a good thing or a bad thing I guess.
On another note, I wonder if the Shang shouldn’t be called Huaxia instead. I know the name is relatively obscure, but it’s not like Shang speaks to so many people either anyway, and I think Shang is a little bit more needlessly reductive in what it encompasses.
Technically Palmyrans too are after 0 ad but they can still fit depending where you draw the line.
Technically it is still an Iron Age civilization…it was contemporary with Rome…
If you rename it as Yayoi it wouldn’t fit well with the campaign and the civ icon…and yes, if they later add Celts to RoR, they will be able to change the civs that face Caesar…it’s weird to see Caesar face Assyrians lol…
Exactly, Rome, Palmyra and Yamato are the latest civilizations and all from the Iron Age… Celts and Goths would be missing to represent the tribes of northern Europe in the early and late Iron Age…
Nah iron age in Mediterranean Europe ended around the time Rome became a republic, that’s why initially Romans weren’t a civ in aoe1. What goes from 500 BC circa on is called classical age and later Hellenistic age going roughly until the 3rd century AD at the latest, when polytheism, polis, republican values etc were already declining since some time and monotheism, orientalism, centralisation and early forms of feudalism were taking their place. That’s what it’s called late antiquity or dark ages.
Vikings and many Germanic/Nordic people were in the iron age in the early middle ages but I don’t think you would argue vikings belong to aoe1 right? To not speak of native Americans etc.
No lol in 3rd century AD the iron age was long gone in Mediterranean Europe and the middle East. Japan is considered to be prehistorical until when Buddhism came and they started writing which I think it’s in the early 500s but again see the Vikings argument.
Maybe a Germanic and a Celtic civ in aoe1 would be enough for the moment but at least Celts could be split further. It makes no sense imo to add again goths, Franks or Huns because they were there and relevant already in the 3rd/4th century because Ror in the current state is mostly a poor version of aoe2 and it wouldn’t add anything gameplay wise to have them two times, specially now you have Romans in aoe2. It’s not like having Aztecs in aoe2 and 3, those games have a significantly different gameplay that can justify having two versions of the same civ.
My frame is that, since when Romans were added, aoe2 covers entirely (or almost) late antiquity so aoe1 ends in early late antiquity (iron age is not classical antiquity, it’s before, Rome and Palmyra, who was a Roman breakaway kingdom, was not in the iron age in 300 or 400 AD of course, not even in 300 BC for that matter), basically before the migration era and Christianity, hence the 4th century AD is entirely in aoe2 realm.
I also want that, Ave Caesar in AOE1DE looks like a basic campaign created through Scenario Editor and IMO with not enough quality in terms of design and visual details. Yesterday I was trying to take a screenshot of the most beautiful scenery in ANY of the scenarios from that campaign but couldn’t find one. Very unattractive and disengaging visual wise.
What’d you mean by change? Its name or simply move the civilization to AOE2DE? I would not dislike the idea of that, although I want the civ to still be accessible through Return of Rome under a different nomenclature.
Yes, it could be… anyway, I was referring to what Wikipedia considers the Iron Age in general, which goes from 1200 BC to 400 AD (800 AD if you want to consider the pre-Viking era, Aksum and Yamato)… and yes, AoE 1 ends and AoE 2 starts between 284 and 376 AD… I play European War 7: Medieval and the game starts at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD…
In my country Iron Age ends in 1227AD. Which means starting or ending of the era is kind of dependent of region or county and Japanese Middle age starts far later than western or asian Middle age.
Of course, in the Mediterranean the Iron Age technically ended in 400 AD, whereas in the rest of the world (not counting southern Africa and America, which never used iron until the colonial era) it ended in 800 AD…
I don’t know why you keep saying that iron age ended in 400 AD in the Mediterranean and the near east, that’s simply not true. Try to say to your primary school teacher of history that Rome was in the iron age at the time of Constantine and see what grade they give you lol.
Iron age started and ended at different times in the world but in the Mediterranean world it was already gone in 500 BC when both ancient Greece and ancient Rome were developing the culture that we refer to as Classical today and Wikipedia doesn’t state what you said.
Iron age =/= classical antiquity
Historians would reject any strict definition of Iron age. We could be still living in it, with how important steel still is, or it could be considered unrelevant once a society use written records, as the “material age” don’t really fit in this archeological partition. Of course, it raises question about all the proto historic cultures.
Then, it’s not uncommon to define iron age Germanic cultures before Vikings (800 AD).
It’s precisely where the Yamato campaign (210 BC - 740 AD) fits: during proto historic times, at the shoulder between prehistory and history, encompassing the Yamato period (250-710 AD), which see the transition from late Iron age (Kofun culture) to the beginning of bouddhist influenced culture of Classical Japon (Asuka).
The feudal Japan doesn’t start before the 12th century…
Back to the subject, I would also like all the OG campaigns in ROR, especially if they are remade.
Yes name change is all that is required to change a civilization in that game. Perhaps make the civ Altaic?
Because that’s what Wikipedia or any encyclopedia you pick up says… furthermore, classical antiquity is within the late Iron Age (500 BC-500 AD)… the early Iron Age is the Greek Dark Age and the Assyrian and then Babylonian conquest of the Near East (1200-500 BC)…
Of course, I would say that Heian Japan (794-1185) would be classical Japan, then comes Feudal Japan (1185-1615), then pre-modern Japan (1615-1868) and then modern Japan (1868-act.)…
Having every campaign from the original AOE1 would be awesome, but some are specially memorable, visually stunning, have a better design, or simply are more fun. I’m curious to find out which campaigns the AOE community loves the most among those still missing in Return of Rome. By choosing up to three campaigns from the poll below, we can see which ones you enjoyed the most and are most excited to see added to Return of Rome: