Jump to content

New tribe


Vlad123
 Share

Recommended Posts

i dont agree mayans exist same time with Roman empire, im from a Mayan Country. Aztec exist Later as a great Empire but in Middle Ages.

The Classic Mayan period (c. AD 250–900)

Are you saying you don't agree that the Mayans existed at the same time as the Roman Empire, or that you don't agree (that they didn't) and that they in fact did exist at the same time? If you mean the later of the two, a period (or even a comma) after "I don't agree" would help a lot as what you are saying can mean two opposite things depending on whether there is a period/comma or not.

Either way, 0 A.D. part one will feature the years 500 B.C.-1 B.C. so they should if anything be in part two which will cover 1 A.D.-500 A.D. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Mayans are the most famous, though; there should only be the one representative from the Americas while the rest is Old World civs. there's plenty of other, more distinct Old World civs that could be included instead of (perceived) similar/nearly identical Mesoamerican civs. some Olmec or Mixtec units and buildings could be included for design purposes, but i say that only the Mayans should be included as a playable civ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is there was no interaction between Mayans or any other American civ, and classical European/African/Asian civs that I'm aware of until the Vikings in Vinland around 1000 AD, but nothing on a significant scale or well-documented until the 1490s, which is long after even Part 2's time frame. So they would be like an isolated civ if we followed historical accuracy (which 0 A.D. aims to do). Sure we could add some placeholder American minifactions, and people could even play Celts vs Mayans for fun, but my least favorite part of AoK The Conquerors expansion pack was allowing those unrealistic and even ridiculous match-ups (and it completely ruined the civ balancing IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES, bro

It's like (the WC and especialy) TAD in AoE III. Their units unbalance everything.

Already splitting same language speaking tribes is a step toward AoE 2's exagerated diversity of civs IMO.

I think 0AD should stick to geographicly coexisting civs, and keep it simple: few civs, but make sure they are really different, balanced etc

As of the Greek civs, I suggest the special buildings and units (which you can do anyway only after aging) should be a result of a decision taken while aging.

I suggest you start age 1 as "greec" and then age as spartans or macedonians or athenians (so it stays the same civ, but you can still play the 300 Sparta (literally 300 (pop) haha)).

If you ask me, well... no one asks me anyway, so I'll end it here :D

Edited by alkazar-ipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES, bro

It's like (the WC and especialy) TAD in AoE III. Their units unbalance everything.

Already splitting same language speaking tribes is a step toward AoE 2's exagerated diversity of civs IMO.

I think 0AD should stick to geographicly coexisting civs, and keep it simple: few civs, but make sure they are really different, balanced etc

As of the Greek civs, I suggest the special buildings and units (which you can do anyway only after aging) should be a result of a decision taken while aging.

I suggest you start age 1 as "greec" and then age as spartans or macedonians or athenians (so it stays the same civ, but you can still play the 300 Sparta (literally 300 (pop) haha)).

If you ask me, well... no one asks me anyway, so I'll end it here :D

What you described was how the Hellenes and the Celts were originally intended to be, but that idea was abandon in favor of more civilizations. The Hellenes were split into the Athenians, the Spartans, and the Macedonians for Alpha 10, and the Celts are being split (already split in the SVN) into the Britons and the Gauls for Alpha 11. The split civilizations are so diverse that I wouldn't have it any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.... that bit about interaction. The Basque language of Spain is very similar to the Aztec language. They were supposedly connected via Plato's Atlantis which would happen to be around Gibraltar or Cadiz. But that stuff hasn't been proven or rather accepted into mainstream history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vikings! My favorite subject! Some history experts like to think that the Viking Age began in 793 Lindisfarne till 1066 in the Battle of Stamford bridge. Although the Norse did build a colony in so called North America today, they were only temporary for a year or less. Not much conflict between different people, and this wasn't two great empires with large armies fighting for land and power; like the Romans or Persians. A little debate between Europeans and Canadians in a date later than 0 A.D. doesn't mean that this is a reason to include a South American or Central Amercian tribe into the game. Even if you decide to allow that civilization into the game, good luck delving into that history. I expect the Spanish had done a great job into destroying most evidence of South and Central American civilizations, and you can not get a great picture of that history without having to look at the Spanish Conquistador's and priest's point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the Mayans would be a good choice, included only for fun. i wasn't interested at the time to have experienced it myself, but i bet that alot of oldschool AOE fans were ecstatic when they learned that the AOK expansion would include the Mayans and Aztecs, because they're so exotic compared to "mundane" civilizations like Celts or Germans, and even compared to the fascinating Far Eastern civilizations like China and Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inaccuracies aside, it kinda broke preconceived notions that the Aztecs and Mayans were stone age savages and cemented them as much more interesting cultures that used obsidian like how the Europeans and Asians used metal. again, the point of inclusion for the the Mayans would simply be that they be included for fun rather than the fact that they encountered the other civilizations. after all, the Iberians never fought the Indians or the Persians, but no one's complaining about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Yes, but there are plenty of civs in the game that the iberians fought with (romans, celts, cartaginians, greeks). The same with persinas: Romans, mauryans, greeks, macedonians, espartans, etc.

While the mayans would be COMPLETELY isolated. If you put mayans, and olmecs, and zapotec, and caribe, then it would be great, you could fight mayans vs olmecs like you can fight iberians vs romans.

But how the game is now, you never would be able to play historically with the mayans.

The point of the game is the possibility of doing historical and unhistorical (both) matches for every civ.

The mayans would only have the unhistorical part, lacking the other half of the point of the game.

So no mayans unless you are going to put other mayan neighbours in the game.

Besides mayans didn't have cavarly, or siege weapons, that would be extremely unbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that any south american civilization included with the mayans still wouldn't make sense with the other factions in-game. Iberians may have never fought indians or persians, but they have more ties to them than any ancient americans to anybody else in the world. Regardless of the unconfirmed theory that the Olmecs have traveled to asia, because of the artwork they created of foreign animal species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the idea of DLC packs of civs (by culture). This may be the way we include the Seleucids and Ptolemies if we don't include them in the 1.0 release.

im Thinking Post 0AD era. when Project is finish.

Wallpapers.

Special Modes.

Fan Art

I Like systm that Unlock Special content from DLC.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not dimminish both aspects of the game:

Fun

History

If a civ does not meet BOTH of the aspects, it can't be included.

Mayans do not pass the history aspect.

not in relation to the other civs, but as a civilization they do. the Mayans were at (or approaching; i forget which) the height of their power during 0ad's timeframe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...