That wouldn’t work because modern day USA has modern weapons. Of course not.
The Babylonians and the Assyrians are ancient civilizations with more historical records the devs can pull from than the Sumerians. We know more about their military technology, ranks, day to day life, art, less architectural pieces of history that aren’t lost to time.
So doesn’t your rule kinda only apply to the Sumerian?
We almost always know more about more modern cultures then about the ones that came before.
We know more about current day Shintoism, Buddhism or Hinduism then about ancient practices, but I don’t think people would want to see modern Japan or India in the game.
So I think we should go for the oldest possible version of each culture.
We can’t add the Olmecs or probably even Scythians to the game because we don’t know enough about them.
Also AoMR is about pantheons not “civilisations” in a classical way.
Some different cultures share the same pantheon. Like Sumerians, Babylonian and Assyrians or all the people that practised/are practising Tengrism.
Turks and Mongols are very different cultures but they used to share the same religious believes.
I don’t think there should be a Mesopotamian civilisation without Gilgamesh. Someone who was clearly Sumerian.
Babylonians saw themselves as direct successors to the Sumerians so I don’t think they have to be 2 different pantheons in the game.
For me it was Mayan (but in general any mesoamerican first m) then babylonian (but I also think this should be merged with others to Mesopotamian) and then either Celt or Japanese (that’s what I left third one open) (even I would wish for Slav but maybe they can put Slav into Norse?)
That depends on how modern we are talking about.
I would prefer to NOT see the Qing dynasty jiangshi in the game.
We can choose the best era that fits AoM best. And in my opinion, I personally think choosing the appropriate civ or era based on more information/their civilization power / among other things are usually better than solely on “well it’s the oldest so therefore we should go for that one automatically”.
Gilgamesh and Sumerians being the oldest shouldn’t be the gatekeeping reasons why the Sumerians should be picked over the other ones in my opinion.
The Gilgamesh legend story and myth were adopted and used in Assyrian and Babylonian mythologies too. The importance of Gilgamesh was important to the Assyrian and Babylonian cultures as well except Gilgamesh was of Sumerian origin.
Even the Sumerian language isnt as fleshed out compared to the Akkadian language.
Maybe you can combine the Sumerians with the Assyrians and the Babylonians. But with a more Assyrian and Babylonian focused civ plus Akkadian spoken units.
Just adding the Sumerians only just sounds a bit awkward.
AoM is a mythological game so we don’t have to think too much about the historical aspect.
The Mythological stories of the Babylonian and Assyrian people are stories of Sumerians.
The Greek myths are about Mycenaean people.
It doesn’t mean I want the “Sumerians” more then the Babylonians. I want a mythical civilisation that is what the Babylonians thought the Sumerians were like more then what they actually were like.
The same way the Greeks don’t look like a Bronze Age civilisation despite the characters being from the Bronze Age.
The “Aztecs” would also not be the Aztecs of the time of Cortés but what the Aztecs believed their ancestors were like.
Yes and no. Mesopotamian cultures are incredibly ancient and much of their cultural history has been lost over time. The developers should also incorporate historical elements to supplement to an already myth focused game. There are more surviving Babylonian and Assyrian buildings that remain intact as examples. The Mesopotamian pantheon could benefit from these structures, especially considering the game’s emphasis on base-building.
We can only base it on the things we know. Pretty obvious.
So would you agree that including the Babylonians and or the Assyrians would be a suitable idea?
Because, you know, just having the Sumerians with its almost dead/unheard language and well the lack of “complete” buildings / (insert whatever lack of information) would be a bit unrealistic.
Mesopotamians = Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Elam. They all share a Pantheon. only the Assyrians divert into their own specific pantheon within the Mesopotamians. The others shared gods because they took over eachother in waves many times.
And sometimes the Medes did and the Hurrians and Hattians also.
Also i’m currently making a scenario with Mesopotamians, Hittites and Persians. As a showcase for the devs and the community that it is possible to make more pantheons.
Voted for Aztecs and Mayans. We need a mesoamerican pantheon in this game.
It’s either going to be them, Incas or Mesopotamia, if I had to guess. You could also add completely new flora and fauna with a Native American expansion focusing on one of them.
At least in this game we can add pantheons from anywhere around the world and euro cry-babies wont be able to say “sniff, sniff, all civs must be connected, therefore we can only have new euro civs, sniff, sniff”
Its not a secret Aztecs will be next. Its more popular than Maya and also theres already a Mod of the Aztecs, so following microsofts strategy with Forgotten Empires, they will revamp it and make it a DLC most will like
Have they said anything about that?
Just because theyre the most requested by a landslide doesn’t mean they’re 100% gonna happen.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy about that too. I just don’t take it fro granted.
In the past, I believed that Aztecs not having cavalry is a good reason not to add them. But then someone made the point that the Norse don’t have archers, and still work well.
Could always use an Aztec mythical unit to sub as a cavalry unit.
Why is everyone so obsessed with giving Aztecs cavalry?
We have Aztecs in AoE2 and AoE3 without cavalry and they work perfectly fine.
We also got Mayans and Incans without cavalry in both games (Mayans as revolution).
It’s not about giving Aztecs cavalry. It’s about compensating their lack of cavalry. Like the axe thrower compensates the lack of Norse archers. It is special ranged infantry. Aztecs would need an anti-archer unit that’s either fast, ranged, or both. That doesn’t mean it needs to ride on a horse, or ride at all.
It was you who made me realize I was wrong about Atzecs needing cavalry in order to be added to AoM.
Originally, I thought that because of the rock-paper-scissors system with infantry, cavalry and archers. Infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats archers, archers beat infantry.
They can simply create a unit like the jaguar warrior from AOE2, and give it anti-arch stats and the speed of a galloping horse.
Yes, for example. (20 characters)
You probably mean Eagle Warriors?
They are significantly slower then cavalry in AoE2, they aren’t even the fastest infantry but they are far from the slowest.
In AoE3 the Eagle Warrior is a ranged unit, but still fast.
The Coyote Warrior has the melee role and is also slower then cavalry but other then that behaves pretty much exactly like cavalry, even having the same counters.