You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.18 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » NEW CIV!!!!!
Bottom
Topic Subject:NEW CIV!!!!!
Local_Yokel
Clubman
posted 08-23-99 01:21 PM ET (US)         
There should be an Aztec civ with some sort of bonus to clubmen or something. It would also have a neat Central-American building set. Just a dumb, random thought.

-Local_Yokel

AuthorReplies:
Papias
Inactive
posted 08-23-99 02:42 PM ET (US)     1 / 18       
Actually, this is a good idea. Maybe a new X-Pac with Aztec, Maya, other Central and South American peoples. Maybe even a few North American Indian tribes. If my memory serves me, the Iroqouis conquered more territory than Rome ever did!(In sq miles). I don't know. Any others with an idea here?
EPS_Coleader
Clubman
posted 08-23-99 05:47 PM ET (US)     2 / 18       
I thought about that, but if it was historically accurate they would bronze VERY slow (Americans got out of the stone age 2000 years later than europe) They also wont have the wheel, and will be VERY primative.

[This message has been edited by EPS_Coleader (edited 08-23-99).]

Local_Yokel
Clubman
posted 08-23-99 06:47 PM ET (US)     3 / 18       
Primitive? Read anything about the Inca or Maya and get back to me. Just give them cool-ass priests or something. The only things they would not get would be cav, chariots, and eles. Some could get hoppers (we know how ES is at making civs historicly warped.) There were camels in Arizona during their time and I didn't belive it unitll i saw it on my encyclopedia.

One more thing, how historicaly accurate is AoE anyway? When was the last time the Yamato were at war with the Egyptians? Besides, if ES put any more thought into historical accuracy there wouldn't be a single person on the Zone not playing Rome.

-Local_Yokel

Duke_oWn
Clubman
posted 08-23-99 07:09 PM ET (US)     4 / 18       
Well it is kinda beliveable that the Yamato and The egyptians could have meet. It wouldn't have been armys buy mercianries or nomads wondering. But since they are really not half way around the world it could be possible.

I belive the reason why ES didn't put any american(all of north and south are considered "americans") tribes in was that there was no possible contact between them. I belive that is one of the few historical things that ES did.

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 08-23-99 10:44 PM ET (US)     5 / 18       
Yamato running into Egyptian is possible? OK. How about the poor Yamato Clubman who encounters the Sumerian Centurion. He would run away in pure terror. After all, the Sumerian culture died out over 2000 years earlier, and he would be looking at a phantasm of some sort.

Let's just have a fun game! IMO, if the game interests you enough to learn a little history, so much the better!

Keep your stick on the ice.

admstx7
Clubman
posted 08-24-99 03:28 AM ET (US)     6 / 18       
i thought of a few civs too, like Nubian with some kind of elephant bonus, Mongolian with no gov center but double hp cav, India tribe with faster moving priests and something else having to do with elephants, Germanic tribe with extra berry picking, barracks unit benifit of some sort, and crap for an iron age (extreme tool rushing civ), and the Vikings who have 1 extra range for fire galleys and +1 attack for stable units(kind of like a hittite but with cavalry)
ANNIHIL8
Inactive
posted 08-24-99 06:31 AM ET (US)     7 / 18       
What about the Zulu nation? give them a hunting and gathering bonus. They could have super slingers and a archery bonus. Mixed in with a better logistics upgrade. Allowing them to truly swarm their enemy. I know the time frame is off by a few hundred years but, it is not as if this game promotes historical accuracy in any way shape or form. Just a little more food for thought.
EPS_Coleader
Clubman
posted 08-26-99 05:22 PM ET (US)     8 / 18       
To Yokel:
Apparently you dont know much about the mayas and incas. You see they rose to power far after the fall of rome. Now "when you think about that get back to me."
Remember that? You should think before you say anything

And another thing, They would play Greece and Shang, well because they would have almost every tech and unit (The Shang would even have techs and units noone can have because they invented things far before europe.

[This message has been edited by EPS_Coleader (edited 08-26-99).]

Local_Yokel
Clubman
posted 08-26-99 09:17 PM ET (US)     9 / 18       

EPS_Coleander:

AoE and RoR are historically inaccurate in themselves. Take for example the Yamato and the Ancient Egyptian again. The could never possible have done battle or met because the Yamato culture came into existence well after the fall of Egyptian Antiquity with the death of Cleopatra (who was Greek by the way.) To be 100% historically accurate, only certain civilizations would be allowed to compete with one another.

The Shang culture, although inventing many things before the Europeans, is pre-dated significantly by many Mesopotamian cultures. Also, the Shang was a single dynasty
(continuing bloodline of rulers in many Oriental cultures) after the Xia but before the Zhou (Chao) dynasties. That is only a period of approximately seven hundred years. The wheel, writing, and many metalworking technologies were invented or discovered thousands of years earlier by such Mesopotamian cultures as the Sumerians.

Military records would severely hamper accuracy as well. The Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians and Palmyrans could never win against a Roman player
simply because of the circumstances in which they became Roman territory and never again greatly re-surfaced as a unique culture. The Assyrians could never win against
Babylon, Babylon could never win against Persians and they, in turn could never conquer the Greeks/ Macedonians due to similar rules.

The Inca and Maya, to put it mildly, had relatively slow development compared to that of other Old World cultures. Simple timeframes would make each civilization in the game
compatible with few others. The Yamato could not play against anybody. Some Mesopotamians could only play against a few other Mesopotamians and the Orientals
could only compete between the Shang and the Choson. Tossing that aside, Incan road systems, for example were versatile enough to allow runners to transport messages from
modern-day Columbia to central Chile in as little as two weeks (Iím not joking, this has been referenced.) Mayan agriculture was far superior to many others among the other
civilizations in Aoe and RoR, most likely due to the diverse terrain. Central America has desert, jungle and even temperate forest biomes, many suitable for farming. They also had an astronomical calendar that used 360 days and is inaccurate to the current date by only a few hours. They were also able to use simple geometry to calculate the circumference of the Earth using the length of the shadow of a stick, similar to the method that Eratosthenes
used in Ancient Greece.

Ensembleís warped transitions from historical accuracy to a limiting game are not helpful in teaching or learning history. Timeframes and geographic location would make this game impossible if they were to make it totally accurate. Many civilization, were also enhanced to make gameplay with them possible. The Hittites, although formidable warriors in their own time, were minor players in history. The Shang was the name for the ruling family of
the territories that would change names every two hundred years or so. If the word of history were to be followed, the Minoans would all die from natural disasters, the
Phoenician from failing economy and weak military (although there never was such a culture with that name) and the Romans villagers would simply get fed up with doing stuff
and start on their own thing.

Historical accuracy is impossible to accurately encompass in such a limiting game. Hypothetically adding a new civilization or two could not possibly make this game even
more horrifically discrediting to human history than it already is.

-Local_Yokel
P.S. Pancakes are good eatiní.

TheDarkLord
Inactive
posted 08-26-99 10:34 PM ET (US)     10 / 18       
The whole point of the game is to have your civilization reach the goals that the historical civs tried to do. You are only ahead of a historical civ not a historical player, you are aposed to be a leader and have your civ possibly do better then the historical leaders ever did! Plus, if the civs were'nt balanced everyone would want to be the best civ. All civs are balanced so if you want:

Archers-pick Assyia, Hittite, or Minoan
Infantry-pick Choson, Roman, Greek, Macedonian, or Carthage
Calvary-pick Yamato, Egypt, or Palmyrian

See, whatever you play there's a civ for you!!!

Wascally_Wabbit
Clubman
posted 08-27-99 02:12 PM ET (US)     11 / 18       
Now, it's not like me to be picky, but centurions weren't really a Sumerian thing. Pleease don't prove me wrong on this one , I'm only attempting to join in without any knowledge of the conversation - quite typical of me really
TheDarkLord
Inactive
posted 08-27-99 02:26 PM ET (US)     12 / 18       
The thing here is ES made every civ have units that they would (historically) be able to use! The primitive Sumerians had not many technolodgy so they used the only good weapon, infantry! If Sumeria climbed the ladder into Iron their primitive use of infantry could of grown into the best infantry in the world and that's why Sumeria get's Cents! Your job is to make them succeed more then their leaders as explained before!
AoErat
Clubman
posted 08-27-99 07:43 PM ET (US)     13 / 18       
Local_Yokel - I doubt that there were camels in Arizona during the time of the Incas and Mayas. I live in Arizona, and I've never heard about camels living here. Pehaps there were, but it was at the time of Giant Sloths, Mammoths, etc.

(Not anywhere close to the AoE time period.)

A couple thoughts on the 'new civs': The Mayas could have large bonuses on Stone/Tool units/techs because they were able to fight and do well against the Spanish Conquistadors. And, I've never heard of South American/North American tribes having heavily armored units, except for Leather armor.

But then again, I could be wrong.

AoErat

------------------
"A battle won is not a war won"
My AoE/RoR website: members.xoom.com/AoErat/AoEframes.htm .


[This message has been edited by AoErat (edited 08-27-99).]

Local_Yokel
Clubman
posted 08-27-99 10:14 PM ET (US)     14 / 18       
The American Camel went extinct about 10,000 years ago (according to Encarta '99) along with the giant sloth. That puts it roughly just before or just around the begining of AoE.

Back to the topic. They could get all units except, the Iron age ships, cavelry (including ha), camels, elephants and siege. Giving them legions or centurions could not be totally out of the question because of their "jaguar warriors." Composite bowmen would be viable because they had archers too, although primarily for hunting.

Either Aztec, Maya, or Inca would be a strong early civ with a sort of cheap archer/infantry swarm near the end. Good priests could fit in there as well. I'm not sure, however, how to make the Aztec, Maya and Inca very different apart from eachother other than a possible building bonus for the Inca (ie Machu Picchu.)

The step pyramid could be the Wonder.

-Loca_Yokel

ANNIHIL8
Inactive
posted 08-28-99 02:33 AM ET (US)     15 / 18       
first off I want to say this is a fun topic to read. I think that the idea of the South American tribes going to war with the Egytians is not that far fetched. There is a new (Hypothosis) floating around about a connection between the South American nations and the Egyptians. Incase you might not know this there have been tests on a few of the mummies found in Egypt. What they found were traces of coke and tobacco. Knowing that tobacco, and coke where only found in South America there is a strong belief that the Egyptians and the tribes of South America had a trade route set up. With this in mind the idea of a war between the egyptians and the Myans/Incas/Aztecs is not that far fetched, only in time frame, but the connection can somewhat be established.
As for thier attributes I think that the enemy of these South American's should have a decreased line of sight against them. Seeing how they were the masters of comouflage. This might make there archers a bit more deadly. They should also have the stongest archers in the game, maybe not in range, but in damage delt lets say a + 3 attack. After all they did use poison on the arrows. Giving them blow dart guys would be interesting as well, given the same line of sight advantage.


------------------
THE NEW BREED HAS ARRIVED

[This message has been edited by ANNIHIL8 (edited 08-28-99).]

That_Guy
Inactive
posted 08-28-99 04:02 AM ET (US)     16 / 18       
Hmm... well i was whatching t.v last night on abc, i forgot the program name, but anyway they where talking about mass extinctions, and how humans cuased them and stuff.. and htey mentioned that there were camels elephants, horses, and some other stuff in north america, but the natives of the time killed them off. kinda interesting i thought...
EPS_Coleader
Clubman
posted 08-28-99 01:46 PM ET (US)     17 / 18       
I never thought about Maccu Piccu, well that might give them a building bonus and that could be their wonder.
FanatiC KaBaN
Clubman
posted 08-28-99 02:41 PM ET (US)     18 / 18       
Aztec's would have a big slinger bonus like +2 range... mouhahhaa.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames