stirrups is one of them. Even the famous movie Gladiator got it wrong, Romans didnt have stirrups and the cavalry of some Asian civilizations was superior compared to Rome because of that.
I agree with the inventions thing, but still, AoE1 vs AoE2 civs should play similarly. A battle between a Centurion and a Man-at-Arms or a Champion could be a very interesting one.
Aoe2 has two tutorial campaigns, William Wallace and Art of War
they even talk about a game, with more than 200 tribes and lots of different units
You forget the difference between iron and steel.
High quality bronze is better then just simple iron.
The main advantage of iron is that it’s just one very common material instead of a combination of two rare materials (tin and copper),
But that’s why Greeks often still used bronze armour and weapons alongside iron ones.
Only in the Middle Ages was it when people found a way to reliably produce high quality steel.
So it’s not that simple.
One teach you the basics of the game just like AoE1’s Egyptian campaign, the other give you advices on how to be competitive in multi. That’s kind of a false equivalent.
this is the evolution of AoE2 DE I expect over the years, adding loads of tribes rather than “civilizations”, from antiquity to the medieval days. They already have the music from AoE1, which I love and always will-, so adding AoE 1 civs is just the logic evolution now that Return of Rome is going to be released.
Perhaps the future evolution of this game is to become some kind of historic hub, true to history in that respect, without forgetting its historic roots.
I don’t know where you got this nonsensical assumption that the Harappan civilization and Indian civilization are unrelated. They are a continuum with climate change seeing cities move ###### east. The Mauryans are a specific dynasty so not appropriate as civilization for AOE1 per se. Shang is another dynasty name which I feel they should not have used and used Chinese instead. The Persians in AOE1 represent Elamites, Medes, Achaemenid Persians and Parthians. The same would be true for the Indians. The Celts if added would represent the Britons, Celtiberians, Gauls and Galatians. The Phoenicians should also have represented the Carthaginians and a Canaanite/Aramaean civilization should have been added to represent the other Levantine civilizations.
You know the original AoE1 had Sumerians, right? I think Minoans also predate Greeks by a lot.
Sandy Peterson said they didn’t have any native speakers, only linguists. He did mention Nahuatl though, so I have no idea why the Aztecs in the series speak a made up language.
Are there any mods that make the Aztecs speak Nahuatl from AoE3?
Or you can make dozens of different kingdoms from Vedic Period ( between 1500 BC and 600 BC)
AoE3 Aztecs speak the same made up language
i doubt its universally accepted that its the same people due to the aryan invasion.North of india has always been intermixed with outside forces.
That is still up for debate.
It is still unknown what language they spoke and if they are related to any modern people.
The same is true for Minoans. We know a little more about them though.
Most of the AoE players hate umbrella civilisations. They just made a DLC for AoE2 that split up the Indians so it would be very stupid to add the “Indians” to AoE1 now.
I rather have less civilisations being “covered” then using a giant umbrella to catch them all.
Ancient Indians has less in common with each other then most of ancient Europeans. You wouldn’t want Romans, Celts, Germanic people and Slavs be one civilisation, would you?
The fact that India is one country today doesn’t matter. I mean you could see the EU as a country too but no one would suggest just having one “European” civilisation in AoE1/2/3/4, right?
Since AoE2/3DE make themed DLCs I don’t think that’s really an issue anyway.
If they make DLCs they wont put Nubians, Scythians and Celts in one DLC anyway.
Maybe Celts, Iberians and Germanic people in an Western/Northern European DLC.
Nubians, Numidians and Ethiopians in an African DLC.
something like that.
Achaemenid Persians and Parthians are still the same Iranian people. The Medes are related to them too.
But the Elamites are completely unrelated. The Sumerians would represent them just as well, if not better.
That is all still up for debate.
One issue with that topic is that a lot of nationalists want to push for certain views on the topic.
Many Indians want Aryan people to originate in India.
And the fact that most of the Indus Valley civilisation is in modern Pakistan is obviously also something that Indians don’t like.
But it’s not like Western historians aren’t biased either.
Sure there are indians who think alexander never defeated indian armies.They have a nationalistic thing about thinking they were never subjugated by others but linguistics and actual history has debuffed these.
For that period I’d go with Aryavartans or something like that. Indians would be a massive term like Europeans. The Tamils aren’t in any way related to the Mahajanapada groups. Any other ideas? Aryavartans sounds good to me.
It didn’t work well, because it didn’t have pvp and it had two starting civs and by the time they wanted to fix it, they couldn’t fix it… now in its second life it’s an excellent game with 7 civs (8 when the Indians come out), with a lot of single player content… I also distrusted it in its day, but it knew how to shut my mouth and I even consider it a more complete game than AoM…
It’s not like Caesar did so much… the basics of his life are in that campaign…
It served as an expansion in what was coming AoE 2…
Well, African civs put in: Egypt and Phoenicia in the original game and Carthage in the expansion…
But maybe this dlc opens the possibilities for more civs to reach AoE 1…
Most likely they will add Celts and that’s it… it’s easier and more comprehensive…
Sure, but it’s more difficult to use…
Of course, I think that if they don’t add more dlcs for AoE 2 DE (only the Caucasus, the Balkans, South Africa, Oceania and North America remain untouched) they will finally start with the dlcs for AoE 1 DE (obviously within 2 DE ), thus short, Western and Northern Europe, India, Southeast Asia and America…
Sure, AoE 1 focuses on the Bronze Age and Mycenaean and Classical Greece, whereas Rise of Rome focuses on the Iron Age, Late Antiquity, and the rise and fall of the Roman Empire… Rise of Rome with the “The Huns Are Coming” mission ends 21 years before Alaric’s campaign starts in 2DE…with AoE 1DE doesn’t require doing much with the chronology (except maybe inserting historical battles) but filling in the geographic gaps between Persia and Shang and everything north of the Mediterranean and south of Egypt like Kush and Aksum…
Of course, maybe the Mauryas will enter and not so much the civs of the Hindu Valley
Of course…
Only if they have oil or WMDs…xd
Yes, even the Mauryas fought against Alexander the Great and the Diadochi…
1998…in 1997 the original game came out…
The thing is that the game is set in all of antiquity, both early and late… you have prehistory and the bronze civs on one side and Rome and the iron civs on the other…
And well maybe they will make a Indian dlc but for AoE 1 DE…
In fact, they use the same dialogues as the Aztecs of 2 DE…in 3 DE they redid the audio for the Lakotas and Hauds but they sound terrible…
Sure…that could work…
I think we need more scenarios taking place during the Gallic Wars and the the Civil War. The game makes it look like the Gallic Wars started with the invasion of Britania and then the battle of Alesia happened directly afterward and everything was over, while the Civil War is dealt with in only one battle.
Hopefully yes, in Africa alone we can have the Nubians, Numidians and Axumites, and possibly a few others.
Hopefully we can get content for both games in parallel, but we may need a second dev team.
I (obviously) knows that, I was specifically saying that it was a problem in the post you’re quoting. Imo Antiquity would be better served with two different games, with one going from the late Paleolithic to Classical Greece and the rise and fall of the Achaemenid Empire and the other starting with the Hellenistic Period, the Third Samnite Wars (with Rome trully turning into a regional power) and the rise of the Mauryan Empire. The original game was already kind of limited to the first period I described (aside from Yamato and Choson) with even the Greek campaign stopping at Alexander the Great and not showing anything from the Hellenistic period, while the Rise of Rome clearly focused on the second part but would have almost needed a new age (or game) entirely to represent it correctly).
Random question.
Do you think the AoE1 elephant units should be changed so they visually match AoE2 elephants?
The AoE1 ones are kinda shorter.
Also true for the wild elephants of course.
Will the elephants from aoe1 and aoe2 be able to fight each other?
It will be funny seeing the War Elephants from the two games fighting.
My dream would be if there were 2 modes for the DLC:
In the crossover mode you can play AoE1 vs. AoE2 but the AoE1 unit stats are changed to be closer to AoE2, because AoE1 Iron Age units are nearly twice as strong as AoE2 Imperial Age ones.
The crossover mode would not really be balanced but a fun thing you can enable in a private lobby or in single player if you want to.
