Mythology DLC ?

[ArcaniteM]

Any news on a mythology dlc or merge with troy ?

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by Codian:

You want to give these fraudsters more money??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes, I want a Troy mythology DLC for this game.

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by ik vind geschiedenis leuk:

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

Pretty sure you can make similar systems but adapted to each mythology.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

did you bother reading my previous post??????

every work of fiction (and a debatable amount of non-fiction), including total war games, is dominated by the overarching narrative/narrator/point of view. total war troy (mythos) was based on the narrative and perspective of greek mythology, 3k is based on the romance of the three kingdoms, the other total war games are based on historical records and their perspective. to incorporate mythological elements you have to base the game on the myths, like troy did, but the thing is THERE ARE NO MYTHS WITH GREEK AND MESOPOTAMIAN AND HITTITE AND EGYPTIAN AND ELAMITE AND CANAANITE GODS AND MONSTERS AND CREATURES ALL COMBINED, so you can't take on a point of view that doesn't exist, and that means you would have to reconscile hystory and multiple separate mythologies in a way that leaves distinct features from each one

But please explain to me how you would make a system for that.

The way they made it in troy.
You have none-greek factions and they still adapted the systems for them.
Greek and Egyptian mythos are already pretty similar due to their proximity geographically.

[valky]

No one demanded such silly stuff in Atilla, like Germanic or Norse gods!
It's a historical game - give or take -

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

You have none-greek factions and they still adapted the systems for them.
Greek and Egyptian mythos are already pretty similar due to their proximity geographically.

Yeah; I forgot about Anubis' undead warriors and such, that were present in a ancient Egypt.
Maybe add Napolonic warfare as well, like guys with guns.

Would fit the stage.....maybe give them atomic bombs as well or add Skaven. just add Skaven! then it's a good game :)

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by valky:

No one demanded such silly stuff in Atilla, like Germanic or Norse gods!
It's a historical game - give or take -

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

You have none-greek factions and they still adapted the systems for them.
Greek and Egyptian mythos are already pretty similar due to their proximity geographically.

Yeah; I forgot about Anubis' undead warriors and such, that were present in a ancient Egypt.
Maybe add Napolonic warfare as well, like guys with guns.

Would fit the stage.....maybe give them atomic bombs as well or add Skaven. just add Skaven! then it's a good game :)

This game isnt Atila, its made by the same people who made Troy mythology.
Your argument is intellectually dishonest and a attempt to use absurdity to push your views.

[ik vind geschiedenis leuk]

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

Originally posted by ik vind geschiedenis leuk:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

did you bother reading my previous post??????

every work of fiction (and a debatable amount of non-fiction), including total war games, is dominated by the overarching narrative/narrator/point of view. total war troy (mythos) was based on the narrative and perspective of greek mythology, 3k is based on the romance of the three kingdoms, the other total war games are based on historical records and their perspective. to incorporate mythological elements you have to base the game on the myths, like troy did, but the thing is THERE ARE NO MYTHS WITH GREEK AND MESOPOTAMIAN AND HITTITE AND EGYPTIAN AND ELAMITE AND CANAANITE GODS AND MONSTERS AND CREATURES ALL COMBINED, so you can't take on a point of view that doesn't exist, and that means you would have to reconscile hystory and multiple separate mythologies in a way that leaves distinct features from each one

But please explain to me how you would make a system for that.

The way they made it in troy.
You have none-greek factions and they still adapted the systems for them.
Greek and Egyptian mythos are already pretty similar due to their proximity geographically.

NOOO.
troy, the faction, is pelasgian, which means that while not part of mainland greece it still is culturally greek. thracian mythology is not implemented in mythos the same way as greek, in mythos mode greek mythology is presented as real, while thracian mythology is a religion. aethiopian mythology does not exist in troy.
also it is very important to notice this: total war troy is based on the iliad, not on the bronze age, and as such there aren't actual non-greek factions, but greek portrayals of non-greek factions in the game.
do you know more about mythology than that it tends to be polytheistic, and have you played troy?
seriously, I keep saying it: it just is impossible to fit it with larger effect than the current system.
Also, egyptian and greek mythology are in no way "already pretty similar".

[ik vind geschiedenis leuk]

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

Originally posted by valky:

No one demanded such silly stuff in Atilla, like Germanic or Norse gods!
It's a historical game - give or take -



Yeah; I forgot about Anubis' undead warriors and such, that were present in a ancient Egypt.
Maybe add Napolonic warfare as well, like guys with guns.

Would fit the stage.....maybe give them atomic bombs as well or add Skaven. just add Skaven! then it's a good game :)

This game isnt Atila, its made by the same people who made Troy mythology.
Your argument is intellectually dishonest and a attempt to use absurdity to push your views.

honestly his suggestions are in line with your claims, I personally think that adding napoleontic warfare and skaven would be more doable than integrating multiple different MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE pantheons, and just as historically accurate. and less absurd than saying greek mythology is similar to egyptian mythology.
you do know that there probably also is a good portion of the people from attila working on this, and that the people who worked on attila and stayed on all either worked on troy or warhammer, so you don't really have a good argument

[Seti]

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:

Originally posted by Lotor13:

1/ Egypt mythology itself is great, but it does not have "monsters", If You have seen Egypt in Age of Mythology, plaese take into consideration, that Egyptian monsters are not actually mythological creatures (based on Egypt mythology), but invented by Microsoft.

wrong.
other developers didn't research Egyptian Myth doesn't mean it "does not have monsters".

i can give you a list:
Ba-bird (like Greek shades),
Set Animal,
Serpopard,
Sphinx (whether an upgrade to pharaohs or seperated unit),
Griffin (similar to Hieracosphinx),
Criosphinx,
Uraeus (Egyptian believed Uraeus are protective, could be either Talos-like statue [but smaller] come to life, or snakes.)
Bennu phoenix,
Scarab,
Medjed (ghost-like creature with laser-beam eyes),
Oxyrhynchus fish (if there were naval battles...),

Unique monsters (like Cerberus in Troy):
Apep (sea serpent),
Ammit

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/3881599865340586108/?ctp=3#c3881599865343350102
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4130430293461509831/#c6087244701375510101
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4411921426159110151/?ctp=3#c4411921622540849029

corrected other historical purists numerous times, can't be bothered to paste all links.

i'm happy to debate with valid points though.

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:

Originally posted by Lotor13:

1/ Egypt mythology itself is great, but it does not have "monsters", If You have seen Egypt in Age of Mythology, plaese take into consideration, that Egyptian monsters are not actually mythological creatures (based on Egypt mythology), but invented by Microsoft.

wrong.
other developers didn't research Egyptian Myth doesn't mean it "does not have monsters".

i can give you a list:
Ba-bird (like Greek shades),
Set Animal,
Serpopard,
Sphinx (whether an upgrade to pharaohs or seperated unit),
Griffin (similar to Hieracosphinx),
Criosphinx,
Uraeus (Egyptian believed Uraeus are protective, could be either Talos-like statue [but smaller] come to life, or snakes.)
Bennu phoenix,
Scarab,
Medjed (ghost-like creature with laser-beam eyes),
Oxyrhynchus fish (if there were naval battles...),

Unique monsters (like Cerberus in Troy):
Apep (sea serpent),
Ammit

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/3881599865340586108/?ctp=3#c3881599865343350102
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4130430293461509831/#c6087244701375510101
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4411921426159110151/?ctp=3#c4411921622540849029

corrected other historical purists numerous times, can't be bothered to paste all links.

i'm happy to debate with valid points though.

Historical purists have PTSD about TW3.
The tremble at the very mention that people would like to see mythological stuff in historical games. Like Troy like Pharaoh.
Not replace their historical game, that they dont really like or play, just add a mythology version (that will be far more popular).

[ik vind geschiedenis leuk]

Originally posted by ArcaniteM:

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:


wrong.
other developers didn't research Egyptian Myth doesn't mean it "does not have monsters".

i can give you a list:
Ba-bird (like Greek shades),
Set Animal,
Serpopard,
Sphinx (whether an upgrade to pharaohs or seperated unit),
Griffin (similar to Hieracosphinx),
Criosphinx,
Uraeus (Egyptian believed Uraeus are protective, could be either Talos-like statue [but smaller] come to life, or snakes.)
Bennu phoenix,
Scarab,
Medjed (ghost-like creature with laser-beam eyes),
Oxyrhynchus fish (if there were naval battles...),

Unique monsters (like Cerberus in Troy):
Apep (sea serpent),
Ammit

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/3881599865340586108/?ctp=3#c3881599865343350102
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4130430293461509831/#c6087244701375510101
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4411921426159110151/?ctp=3#c4411921622540849029

corrected other historical purists numerous times, can't be bothered to paste all links.

i'm happy to debate with valid points though.

Historical purists have PTSD about TW3.
The tremble at the very mention that people would like to see mythological stuff in historical games. Like Troy like Pharaoh.
Not replace their historical game, that they dont really like or play, just add a mythology version (that will be far more popular).

and will also cost resources, I myself never said that there are no monsters, but I did say that it simply is impossible to do this right and it would divert resources. thereotically an egyptian version of mythos mode is possible, but not mythos with multiple mythologies.

[ik vind geschiedenis leuk]

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:

Originally posted by Lotor13:

1/ Egypt mythology itself is great, but it does not have "monsters", If You have seen Egypt in Age of Mythology, plaese take into consideration, that Egyptian monsters are not actually mythological creatures (based on Egypt mythology), but invented by Microsoft.

wrong.
other developers didn't research Egyptian Myth doesn't mean it "does not have monsters".

i can give you a list:
Ba-bird (like Greek shades),
Set Animal,
Serpopard,
Sphinx (whether an upgrade to pharaohs or seperated unit),
Griffin (similar to Hieracosphinx),
Criosphinx,
Uraeus (Egyptian believed Uraeus are protective, could be either Talos-like statue [but smaller] come to life, or snakes.)
Bennu phoenix,
Scarab,
Medjed (ghost-like creature with laser-beam eyes),
Oxyrhynchus fish (if there were naval battles...),

Unique monsters (like Cerberus in Troy):
Apep (sea serpent),
Ammit

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/3881599865340586108/?ctp=3#c3881599865343350102
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4130430293461509831/#c6087244701375510101
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1937780/discussions/0/4411921426159110151/?ctp=3#c4411921622540849029

corrected other historical purists numerous times, can't be bothered to paste all links.

i'm happy to debate with valid points though.

OK, I am not going to repeat myself in the same thread three times or more, so just scroll through my other points on here, basically the majority of my posts on this forum is arguing that it wouldn't work.

Also ..... I do agree that there are egyptian monsters, but can you get me thracian, kushite, cimmerian, urartrian, mesopotamian, hittite, canaanite or elamite or even the religion of the sea peoples. mythos can be done for egypt, greece and egypt mythology can maybe even be combined (I doubt it), but that is just moving the problem east and into more obscure territory.

I am not neccesarily against a mythos dlc, but there is a limited number of resources for dlc, so I would prefer first getting proper elam, kush and urartru (all border factions that aren't fully in the game territory wise) and/or an iron age expansion, and then if it is doable mythos, but I highly doubt it being possible and profitable

[Kendji]

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:
...

I've come to the brutal realization that only few people who say their into fantasy, history or myth actually are that. I wonder how many people know the ends of the lore of WH, read Tolkien etc that inspired it etc. Or actually read the Illiad and Odyssey, watched the Chinese tv war drama on the Three Kingdoms period or the novel it's based on. Or know much of bronze age history.

We now live in a world of gigested information or as I've leared of it as Data processed into informtion[www.clrn.org]. For every level the data is processed into information, then further processed into new information etc. you get further from reality and the data.

Hence causing the common sympthom one sees. People having an 'idea' in their head of what the bronze age was, say an yt video, Brad Pitt, Exodus portrayal of Kadesh as an cav battle etc. and they think this is what happened and never dig critically any further. Think about it, the 'data' might be the Mernepath Stele itself (or the like), then the first processing happened when the Egyptologist interperts this and writes and paper or bok on it. Different scholars might process this differently and lead to different interpertations. Then maybe an online lecurer reads this work and makes and lecure on it, another level of information processing. Then an casual yt'ber finds it and makes an oversimplified video on it, another level. Until the viewer finds it, adding the final layer.

This is very gigested information is very common these days, especially with social media and the shortened attention spans of ♥♥♥♥ sapients.

It is what it is.

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by Kendji:

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:
...

I've come to the brutal realization that only few people who say their into fantasy, history or myth actually are that. I wonder how many people know the ends of the lore of WH, read Tolkien etc that inspired it etc. Or actually read the Illiad and Odyssey, watched the Chinese tv war drama on the Three Kingdoms period or the novel it's based on. Or know much of bronze age history.

We now live in a world of gigested information or as I've leared of it as Data processed into informtion[www.clrn.org]. For every level the data is processed into information, then further processed into new information etc. you get further from reality and the data.

Hence causing the common sympthom one sees. People having an 'idea' in their head of what the bronze age was, say an yt video, Brad Pitt, Exodus portrayal of Kadesh as an cav battle etc. and they think this is what happened and never dig critically any further. Think about it, the 'data' might be the Mernepath Stele itself (or the like), then the first processing happened when the Egyptologist interperts this and writes and paper or bok on it. Different scholars might process this differently and lead to different interpertations. Then maybe an online lecurer reads this work and makes and lecure on it, another level of information processing. Then an casual yt'ber finds it and makes an oversimplified video on it, another level. Until the viewer finds it, adding the final layer.

This is very gigested information is very common these days, especially with social media and the shortened attention spans of ♥♥♥♥ sapients.

It is what it is.

Why you being a fan of X means you need to spend countless hours reading everything on the subject or have intimate knowledge on the topic.

Being a fan is not the same as being a scholar in a subject.

[Kendji]

I'm talking Data and Information, not being an fan or not. You can know little but that knowledge be based on better quality information or know a lot, but actually know very little due to the heavy gigestation of the information.

Some don't even bother with Wikipedia, which articles are very short in comparison to scholarship. In this sense, Exodus: Gods and Kings, vs Wikipedia's article on Battle of Kadesh, Wikipedia wins 10 to 0.

[ArcaniteM]

Originally posted by Kendji:

I'm talking Data and Information, not being an fan or not. You can know little but that knowledge be based on better quality information or know a lot, but actually know very little due to the heavy gigestation of the information.

Some don't even bother with Wikipedia, which articles are very short in comparison to scholarship. In this sense, Exodus: Gods and Kings, vs Wikipedia's article on Battle of Kadesh, Wikipedia wins 10 to 0.

Whats that have to do with anything ?

[Kelly Too Sweet]

Originally posted by Kendji:

Originally posted by Seti:

why do Historical Purists keep spreading this misinformation:
...

I've come to the brutal realization that only few people who say their into fantasy, history or myth actually are that. I wonder how many people know the ends of the lore of WH, read Tolkien etc that inspired it etc. Or actually read the Illiad and Odyssey, watched the Chinese tv war drama on the Three Kingdoms period or the novel it's based on. Or know much of bronze age history.

We now live in a world of gigested information or as I've leared of it as Data processed into informtion[www.clrn.org]. For every level the data is processed into information, then further processed into new information etc. you get further from reality and the data.

Hence causing the common sympthom one sees. People having an 'idea' in their head of what the bronze age was, say an yt video, Brad Pitt, Exodus portrayal of Kadesh as an cav battle etc. and they think this is what happened and never dig critically any further. Think about it, the 'data' might be the Mernepath Stele itself (or the like), then the first processing happened when the Egyptologist interperts this and writes and paper or bok on it. Different scholars might process this differently and lead to different interpertations. Then maybe an online lecurer reads this work and makes and lecure on it, another level of information processing. Then an casual yt'ber finds it and makes an oversimplified video on it, another level. Until the viewer finds it, adding the final layer.

This is very gigested information is very common these days, especially with social media and the shortened attention spans of ♥♥♥♥ sapients.

It is what it is.

The level of gate-keeping here is truly remarkable.

I've studied the Bronze Age as a hobby for over 10 years and now academically. I make an effort to clear up long-standing misconceptions and caution others regarding their use of terms like "historically accurate" in comments and often misunderstood due to that. But never have I felt that people who don't know the history or the lore well enough aren't actually into it.

Having a misguided idea of the history does not disqualify someone from being into history. I'm sure you'll insist that was not your intention but your wording leaves very little room for misunderstanding. You'd think someone who once said they're from a place that people speak direct and to the point would be more careful with choosing his words.