Chilly empire is a Goat and is the best person to represent the community in civ design
The audacity…
Let it play out, ladies and gents. Let’s see how long it takes for the topic creator to find out on his own what’s wrong lol.
2 Likes
Yeah, lot of folks would hate his China due to gunpowder… It just doesn’t fit into AOM fantasy…
I believe that the incoming Chinese will have much better design, then what was presented by Chilly fan concept.
2 Likes
Seems like this concept if from Reddit.
The creator of this thread was to lazy to even link it, wow.
The Chinese will come out before the end of this year so making a concept now is kinda late.
I honestly don’t care if they have primitive rockets. The Atlanteans have flamethrowers.
These are representative of Greek fire which were being manufactured and utilised a good 500 years before the first use of a “firearm” (fire lance)
While his civ concept is a good effort, Chilly, by his own admission, is not an AOM player. He’s AOE4 and as such approaches this game from an AOE4 enthusiast. Not saying that’s a reason to invalidate what he says as he has knowledge of RTS, all I’m saying is to call him the GOAT of a game he’s just getting into now is a bit much
So? Both are over 1500 years after the Trojan War era.
Atlanteans are a fantasy faction with fantasy units.
China has multiple millennia of history, so why use technology that was invented over 1000 years after the time most of their mythology was written in?
Egyptians also don’t have Mamluks and Mosques either.
The entire Norse faction is based on the Viking age which was 2000 years after the Trojan War.
Yes but the Norse don’t have any written history before that.
The Edda was written down in the 12th century AD so it’s impossible to make a 1000 BC Norse faction.
It is very possible to make a 1000 BC or just 500 BC Chinese faction, so why make a 1000 AD one?
That’s the huge difference.
The Greek roster is based on Alexander the Great’s army from 1000 years after the Trojan War. Time is meaningless. The factions are meant to be emblematic of pop culture, not historically consistent.
I don’t like that either.
But wrong unit names and armour designs are less wrong than adding a entirely new type of technology that is multiple millennia newer.
Also ancient Greeks themselves thought that the heroes in the “Heroic Age” (so the time of Troy) used the same kind of armour and weapons then they did in the present day (the Classical Period Greeks).
So the heroes of Tory are depicted with “modern” weapons and armour on Greek pottery and statues.
But Chinese art doesn’t show Mythological people with Gunpowder weapons.
Speaking of the design, I do like that every major and minor god got a unique hero, China is indeed full of legends talking about generals who solo entire human armies or slay hordes of monsters.
The only thing that I dislike of this design is the presence of the gunpowder units.
Tbf I’ve seen that suggestion for unique heroes for every major and minor god on several pantheon threads.
I’ve suggested it on a Mesopotamian thread before and I’ve seen it elsewhere from other people, so Chilly might’ve been reading these forums.
Not detracting from his work though. Just pointing out that that is a hero system that could get implemented into various pantheons and appears to be one gaining traction.
Every mythology has a lot of unique heroes so many people wish more civilisations would have those.
I kinda agree.
Also, I like that he removed weird and nonsense myth units like the Giant Salamander (in the chinese folklore there’s no record of giant, goofy salamanders causing havoc on the battlefield), but he chooses to represent more iconic and recognizable myth units from famous chinese myths instead.
Another cool thing is that he removed the ugly and small Azure Dragon and replaced him with the godly dragon “Shenlong”, which is a godpower rather than being a myth unit.
Chinese dragons are indeed depicted as majestic and divine creatures, it wouldn’t make sense to make them trainable myth units.
That’s true, but one of the things I love (and I’m sure others) about AOM is just how different each civ plays. From the small to the grand, the differences are what gives it massive replayability and fun! This includes how heroes are portrayed in each.
While I think a named hero from mythology attached to each minor god would be cool for a civ, that feature should be limited to one civ. if every new civ has a Greek like hero system, it becomes uninspired and unoriginal, and dilutes the flavour. In my opinion, of course
That’s something the developers will likely do too.
I expect the new Chinese to have very little in common with the Extended Edition ones.
Technically it’s already not limited to the Greeks since Norse and Egyptian heroes have unique names already.
But I also think it the unique hero thing is done in a different way it can also work. There is only so many ways you can do heroes so there will be some overlap in the future.
Like Egyptians will not be the last one with a Religious unit hero and Norse, Atlanteans and Greeks all already share Infantry heroes.
I don’t want to be rude, so I’ll keep quiet.