That’s not really what I meant, apologies if it wasn’t clear.
I meant the Greek way of having a very specific set of heroes, limited in number and trainable once. Which is what this proposed Chinese way (sort of) is. Of which I’m not against because there would be a twist. All I was saying is I wouldn’t want a repetition.
Of course there’s always going to be overlap. But each civ so far has a distinct flavour of heroes “making”. My point is that if this method of one specific Greek-like hero per minor god is used for the Chinese, I wouldn’t want to see it used for any future civs
Relic doesn’t work on this game.
I like many gods he picked. (love the Nuwa art) I also like many myth units he has chosen. But gun powder really shouldn’t be a thing.
Hero ideas are nice I think. But not sure if needed.
Lol Chilly’s concept was really well thought out, and had a number of very inventive ideas, but there were some things that would be difficult to balance, and while I personally am fine with the level of gunpowder that he introduced it does seem that it would be a very polarizing addition.
I think that the Devs should at least consider some of the ideas, but like someone above said they’ve probably already started a lot of work on this China civ and it would be unreasonable to expect them to throw away large quantities of what they already have, at best I think a couple of Chilly’s ideas could be added to augment what the devs already have, but realistically even that is probably wishful thinking.
Reminds me of how King Arthur, to this day, is very popularely depicted wearing 15th century full plate armor and a matching longsword, even tho his story is set during the 5th century. So realistically, he’d have worn an armor made of bronze rings, or a Roman lorica hamata, perhaps a segmentata or musculata, depending on his social status and position, and a short sword.
1 Like
The King Arthur from 2004 actually did portrait him as the Roman Lucius Artorius Castus that might have been the real person that inspired the legend.
But the movie moves him 2 centuries into the future and then moves the Saxon invasion into the past so it’s some wild stuff again.
Never watched the movie but he actually wears Roman armour in it.
Yes, in that movie that wanted to at least pretend to be historically accurate.
The King Arthur story references several of the very limited historical records and such that existed during an about 200 year period in the history of the island, to the point we pretty much don’t know what happened at all. While very likely made up from scratch in the 10th century, and then modified and changed in subsequent centuries to this day, it was designed to neatly fill a gap in historical records that’s mostly still there, despite the best efforts of modern historians and archeologists.
It features concepts, like courtly love and chivalry, that weren’t a thing back in the 5th century, but absolutely during the time the stories were (re)written.
And while yes, the armor in that one film was period appropriate, many other adaptations show 15th century armor and weapons. And even medieval and renaissance depictions show King Arthur with the weapons and armor of the time of the artist, rather than the time the story is set in.
What you said about the greeks depicting the Trojan War in the wrong period armor (their own) reminded me of that.