Hi guys and girls! This is going to be a long, long post, and its my first one here, so sorry about that in advance. If you find it thought provoking or in any way helpful, I'd love to hear your opinion. Hope you enjoy it! :) GENERAL CHANGES
Knight line: include reskins for non european knights, but without much effort... they are already in the game!: African civs: Sundjata hero unit.
Eastern asian civs: Le Lai hero unit.
Southern asian civs: Envoy hero unit.
Also, Cavaliers and Paladins shouldn't be a generic unit, capable of being available to any civ, but rather a regional unit for the christian nations of Europe and Western Asia. Still, Knights are too much of an iconic unit for our game and our meta, so I thought we should only remove them from those civs which gain a new unit, not necessarily replacing it, but more like "compensating" such civs for the loss of knights. This change would look like this: Knight civs
Cavalier civs
^(\ I know, Vikings were not christians, at least not in their famous pillaging and raiding days. I chose to leave it as is because, despite having the Jarl model in the scenario editor, the vikings already get 2 unique units, and renaming knights to Jarls would technically give them a third. Also, reskinning a unit for a single civ creates too much confusion and gameplay is more important than absolute historicity, i believe (our game is already complex as is, especially to newcomers).)* Paladin civs
Mounted archer line: Cheaper and faster but less attack and range versions of Cavalry Archers for the Eurasian Steppe civs (Cumans, Huns, Magyars, Mongols and Tatars), available from the Feudal Age onwards. These civs lose access to the Knight line. Mounted archer (Feudal Age) ▶ Horse Archer (Castle Age) ▶ Elite Horse Archer (Imperial Age) Mounted Archer Cost: 70F, 30G | Training time: 30 seconds | Attack: 3 | Rate of fire: 1.9 | Frame delay: 25 | Attack delay: 0.65 | Range: 3 | Accuracy: 60% | Projectile speed: 7 | Hit points: 35 | Armor: 0/0 | Speed: 1.45 | Line of sight: 6 | Attack bonuses: +2 vs Spearman | Already in-game model: Subotai hero unit. Horse Archer Cost: 70F, 30G | Training time: 30 seconds | Attack: 4 | Rate of fire: 1.8 | Frame delay: 22 | Attack delay: 0.6 | Range: 4 | Accuracy: 70% | Projectile speed: 7 | Hit points: 40 | Armor: 0/0 | Speed: 1.45 | Line of sight: 7 | Attack bonuses: +2 vs Spearman | Already in-game model: Girgen Khan hero unit. Elite Horse Archer Cost: 70F, 30G | Training time: 30 seconds | Attack: 5 | Rate of fire: 1.75 | Frame delay: 20 | Attack delay: 0.55 | Range: 4 | Accuracy: 80% | Projectile speed: 7 | Hit points: 50 | Armor: 0/1 | Speed: 1.45 | Line of sight: 8 | Attack bonuses: +2 vs Spearman | Already in-game model: Kotyan Khan hero unit. Reasoning: I have always thought that a single generic Cavalry Archer unit doesn't reflect the variety and scope of medieval horse archery across the old world. Introducing a "light" version of Cavalry Archers for the civs more famed for their horse archery (the peoples of the steppes would diversify the game, creating a divide between the more "heavy cav" cavalry archers to the "light cav" horse archers. Also, they would fulfill a new niche, being available since the Feudal Age, thus avoiding the awkward transition to Cavalry archers that's in the game now, and further encouraging the Huns, Mongols, Cumans and Tatars to go for cav archers as soon as agression begins.)
Processing img 590j04ctadj71... Ghulam Cost: 40F, 55G | Training time: 24 seconds | Attack: 8 | Rate of fire: 1.9 | Frame delay: - | Attack delay: - | Range: - | Accuracy: - | Projectile speed: - | Hit points: 90 | Armor: 0/2 | Speed: 1.5 | Line of sight: 6 | Attack bonuses: +5 vs Archer, +3 vs Cavalry Archer Elite Ghulam Cost: 40F, 55G | Training time: 20 seconds | Attack: 10 | Rate of fire: 1.85 | Frame delay: - | Attack delay: - | Range: - | Accuracy: - | Projectile speed: - | Hit points: 120 | Armor: 1/3 | Speed: 1.55 | Line of sight: 7 | Attack bonuses: +8 vs Archer, +5 vs Cavalry Archer
Processing img mc38safdadj71... Savaran Knight Cost: 50F, 80G | Training time: 30 seconds | Attack: 12 | Rate of fire: 2.0 | Frame delay: - | Attack delay: - | Range: - | Accuracy: - | Projectile speed: - | Hit points: 100 | Armor: 1/2 | Speed: 1.45 | Line of sight: 4 | Attack bonuses: - | Armor classes: Cavalry +6 Elite Savaran Knight Cost: 50F, 80G | Training time: 30 seconds | Attack: 16 | Rate of fire: 1.9 | Frame delay: - | Attack delay: - | Range: - | Accuracy: - | Projectile speed: - | Hit points: 140 | Armor: 2/3 | Speed: 1.45 | Line of sight: 5 | Attack bonuses: - | Armor classes: Cavalry +9 CIVILIZATION BALANCEBerbers
Reasoning: A move away from the overwhelmingly common all in knight rush, Ghilmen are weaker in melee, but even better at raiding, so Berbers would now need to mix camels and maybe some siege before destroying their enemies in early Castle Age. A buff to their Camels goes in the same direction. Burmese
Reasoning: Just some help against strong archer civs, their clear nemesis. If it proves too strong, maybe free Siege Engineers would fit better. Britons
Reasoning: I think Britons are a perfect civ in regards to gameplay balance... But come on, Longbowmen where the backbone of their army and the icon of medieval England. These changes would bring Longbows from a beloved unit that you only see in Arena or in some team games to a staple of every Briton army... just as in real life. And I think given their tremendous advantage in range, losing Ring Archer Armor makes them vulnerable to a little more than just rams (which is almost the case by now. In my opinion, these changes would strengthen the Briton identity even more, as well as slightly nerf them in the "archer civ" pecking order, as they would still be one of the best, but not by as wide a margin as now (don't forget... Yeomen is really expensive, especially for the Castle Age!).) Burgundians
Reasoning: Flemish revolution... I know, they're not gonna change it. Just wanted to include this for those of us who really dislike these elements of "instant" things in our game... And this is coming from someone who has won several games by this tech alone when I should've lost. But it feels wrong. Celts
Gallowglass
Reasoning: Has anybody ever researched Stronghold? Look, I know that there's nothing really wrong with Celts, a beloved and iconic civ for the game. This is why I don't see this change as a necessity, but more of a a luxury for those of us that appreciate a little more historic realism... In addition to the great siege, this would represent the real historic celtic warriors with an iconic weapon, the Claymore, and a caste of proud and armored warriors, the Gallowglasses.
Cumans
Reasoning: The civ icon says it all... Cumans shouldn't be a Paladin civ, in my opinion, but a Steppe Lancer one. Cheaper, faster attacking Steppe Lancers (along with the cheaper Stables should contribute to expand the Cuman identity beyond the "weird civ with the 2 feudal TCs which kills or gets killed. Hard". It's really hard to balance this civ while conserving that 2 TCs identity (I really like that identity, just hard to balance it).) Huns
Reasoning: Ok, quite some changes for the most played civ of all time. But I believe they add to their identity instead of changing it. Steppe Lancers will be a tough cavalry unit, not as pop efficient as their current Paladins but much, much cheaper, and more alternatives for their mounted archery lineup adds another layer of strategic depth to the civ, at least in my opinion. Incas
Reasoning: I love Incas, but lets face it... They are the "dull eagle civ". They used to have a distict identity, what with the vill rush and all, but now, nothing. They feel really, really generic. So one solution could be doubling down on their great achievements in real life: giant Fortresses, brilliant architecture, mountain warfare and a great road system that spanned almost half of the Andes (the Qhapaq Ñan.) Indians
Reasoning: Indians whitout Elephants... Crazy, right? Indians has long been the most broken AoE2 civs in terms of identity and coherence. Yes, its almost a civ rewrite, but I think it does them justice, especially when I believe in the future we're probably get an expansion centered around India itself. If and when it arrives, this version of India is meant to represent the Rajputs (with a lot of other indian civs as possibilities, as the Delhians, Tamils, Bengalis, etc.. This civ should be an Elephant Civ, and you could now actually pair up Battle Elephants and Elephant Archers, but lacking Plate Barding Armor.) Italians
Reasoning: A small buff for Italians on land maps. Koreans
Reasoning: I fail to see when that team bonus is useful... And especially considering that its a team bonus, and team games rarely present the situation for this extremely situational bonus to be effective (except in really closed maps, I guess. Anyway, Shinkichon is very rare as well, what with koreans being an archer civ now. The new bonus would be more unique, while also representing the great intellectual pursuits that korean kings patronaged during the Middle Ages.) Malians
Reasoning: Flavor change, and also Malians are more an Infantry than a Cavalry civ anyway. Magyars
Reasoning: Magyars are almost a great civ, in theory, only lacking a real eco bonus. I know that giving them a solid early eco bonus would probably make them overpowered, so instead maybe a buff to early scouting and overall Dark Age quality of life, as well as easier transition to or from ranged to melee units, rounds them up as a very unique civilization: a nomadic, raider people that invaded Europe, and their later face, that of the Kingdom of Hungary (thus, the unique tech giving you the option to remain tied to the steppes, this influenced by the awesome Honfoglalás scenario.) Mongols
Reasoning: Nobody ever took advantage of Nomads. Instead, the hordes used to utilize recruits from conquered regions as shock forces to protect their mobile cavalry and cavalry archers, and called them Kharash. Also, Fully upgraded Champions is something that Mongols don't need and shouldn't have (yes, Champions without Plate Mail steal handle Eagles well enough.) Persians
Reasoning: I think that the devs, when designing the Persian civ, were mostly focused on the Sassanian Empire of late antiquity (despite the bombard cannons and hand cannoneers. As future expansions could add new central asian, persianate civs like the Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Samanids, etc (yes, AI names include their leaders representing the persian civ, but anyway), I think our good old persians should more closely resemble that great empire. Thus, their iconic Savaran knights, a counterparts to their rival byzantine cataphracts. I think this change opens up the arrival of new civs in Central Asia, distinguishing the Sassanian persians from the later centuries Persianate cultures.) Saracens
Reasoning: Saracens are in practice a bit too much on the archer side, and if the Indians become an Elephant civ, they should take their place as the top camel civ. To further this point, Mamelukes are great, but just too much expensive, and Madrasah isn't really a useful tech unless un Arena smushes. Free Bloodlines reflects the universal fame and praise received by arabian horses, and incentivizes cavalry play, be it with Camel Riders or with Ghilmen. Finally, the center of science, culture and development during most of the middle ages should get a bonus toward technology, and a focus on gold discounts could make mamelukes even more viable. Sicilians
Reasoning: I don't undestand this recent change for Sicilians. Aren't they supposed to be an infantry civ? Now their cavaliers are the best in the game, being really hard to counter by almost anything cost effective. Anyway... Changing the armor bonus from knights to infantry makes Sicilian (or Norman, as they should've been named Champs and Halbs be an intermediate point between the melee toughness of Teutons and the heavy pierce armor Malians. Makes their infantry even more flexible and encourages Serjeant play even more, giving the civ more of a clear identity.) Slavs
Reasoning: I think Orthodoxy is borderline useless, as units with so few HP as Monks don't get as much a benefit from armor. This change would highten the armor, add the possibility of relic play and really faster monks would make the tech more attractive. Spanish
Reasoning: Currently Spanish are too geared towards the latest stages of their medieval history, what with the conquerors expansion theme and the spaniard exploits in the Americas being highlighted. But arguably the most important period for this civ, and the most representative, is that of the famous Reconquista. It could be represented by an iconic unit from the time, the famous Almogávars (anti-cavalry skirms, for instance, but the Spanish already have 2 unique units, so buffing their Castles both strengthens their Conquistador play and gives more flavor to the civ. Also, Spanish dominion in Europe in the 16th century is represented by Supremacy, but I think that a minor tweak could make a nod to the allpowerful spanish Tercios that would dominate (and thus gain Supremacy) european battlefields for the better part of a century.) Tatars
Reasoning: No point in having Cavaliers when Keshiks are available. Just... they're a cav archer and light cav civ. Turks
Reasoning: Similar to the Tatars, only that Turks have their great gunpowder going for them. Cavalier is not needed and not historical, but beefier Ghilmen would replace that just fine, especially since they would be even better at raiding (something that they're already very good at with their extra pierce armor Hussars.) Vietnamese
Reasoning: I think skirms are mostly a 1v1 thing, and that knowing enemy positions at the start just screams "team bonus". Also, making their crossbows and skirms more adept at hitting and running, avoiding unwanted battles, just suits thematically with the civs identity.
1 » The Mountain KingsAs expansions appear to be shifting from the westernmost regions of the Old World and heading towards the East, the next logical area to explore and expand after Nort-eastern Europe is the Causasus region, a brucible between 4 worlds: eastern slavic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, the northern steppes and the Persian (and later Arabic) south. Thus, "The Mountain Kings", centered around the Caucasus region, adding 2 new civs, 3 new campaigns (one for each new civ, and one for the Byzantines*) and a new architecture set. \) By the way, I can't even begin to comprehend how arguably the most storied civ in the game has a fictional campaign set in another land, and in which the protagonists don't even identify themselves as byzantines... If you ask me, make this campaign about Belisarius, who has a really heroic story and interacted with innumerable civs across the Middle East and the Mediterranean, almost restoring the full glory of ancient Rome by himself.
Reasoning: Nerf walling actively this time, but without making it prohibitive: instead, becoming a heavier strategic decision. Needing Town Watch to strengthen palisades (especially against ranged units to a level slightly above the strength that they have now, you lose TC time and 75 food. And Arabia can get back to being a reasonable map :))
2 » Shields of the FaithContinuing the journey East (sort of) I think the game should shine a little more light on one of the most iconic medieval conflicts there is: the Crusades. The idea would be to introduce and present civs to expand the roster of islamic civs, kind of lessening the umbrella character which Saracens now have (yes, Franks and Burgundians, all right, but clump all arabian kingdoms and dynasties in a single civ in the same game? I think this shouldn't be). And this time, instead of focusing on a particular area of the map, I thought the expansion could be centered upon a concept: the peoples who defended their lands against the crusaders in the East (thus, the Seljuks*) and in the uttermost West (enter the Moors). \) Also, Seljuks could differenciate Turks (who are also a huge umbrella civ a little more: Seljuks for the early turkic peoples who were persianized and adopted Islam, and Turks for the Sultanate of Rum and the later Ottoman Empire (the gunpowder aspect makes it clear).)
3 » Sultans of the EastBridging the iranian plateau and north-western India, this expansion could focus on the late Persianate cultures and the muslim conquests in India, beginning to differenciate umbrella civs like Persians and, of course, the current Indians. So, in addition to adding Ghurids and Delhians to the game, you could also include a proper campaign for Sassanid Persia, unexplored until now.
Processing img nhpeyhwdvcj71... Cost: 35F, 75G | Training time: 10 seconds | Attack: 14 ▶ 18 | Rate of fire: 3.2 | Frame delay: 13 | Attack delay: 42 | Range: 6 | Accuracy: 70% ▶ 80% | Projectile speed: 7 | Hit points: 50 ▶ 65 | Armor: 1/1 ▶ 2/1 | Speed: 1.35 | Line of sight: 7 | Attack bonuses: +8 vs War Elephant, +6 vs Cavalry, +4 vs Camel ▶ +12 vs War Elephant, +9 vs Cavalry, +6 vs Camel
4 » The Indian PrincesContinuing on east, two more civs could round up the Indian subcontinent: Tamils (representing mainly the Chola Empire) and Bengalis (Pala Empire). Thus the game would have the original Indian civ (renamed Rajputs) representing Rajasthan, the Ghurids and Delhians representing the muslim conquerors that reshapred northern India in the Middle ages, and then the Tamils for South India and the Bengalis for the eastern gangetic plain, establishing a territorial link with the westernmost of the Southeast asian civs, the Burmese.
5 » Ascent of the EmperorsRounding up the Aoe2 lineup, we arrive at the far east of Asia introducing two empires on the borders of China: the Tibetan Empire and the Jurchens (the ancestors of the Manchu people, founders of the Jin empire). In addition to completing the roster of eastern asian empires, this expansion could include campaigns for the most neglected area of the world in terms of AoE2 campaigns: the Chinese (especially), Koreans and Japanese.
\) Cost: 30 wood (Tibetans only |) Training time: 20 seconds | Maximum food: 100 | Rate of fire: 2.0 | Line of sight: 3
One last civ to round up our game...At this point, we would be at 49 civs, and you know we can't stop at 49 :D There's one more area of the World that is quite unexplored (even though a campaign is set there, but it is a very, VERY monotonous campaign in terms of civs): Andean South America. It stands to reason that a new andean civ should be added, by several reasons. First, we need to reach 50 civs, and not 49. Second, most architecture sets apply to at least 4 civs, and the native american one applies to 3 at the moment. And third, there are 2 mesoamerican civs, and 1 andean civ, lonely and isolated. Just get their rivals in the game: the Chimú. (Oh, and fourth, another eagle civ would be great for the competitive scene, especially with civ drafts being so crucial nowadays). I don't know how to include this civ in any kind of themed expansions, I'm eager to know if you have any ideas about it! :)
Processing img tt2q7jg6uqj71... The Chimú are an infantry and monk civilization.
Cost: 60F, 50G | Training time: 18 seconds | Attack: 10 ▶ 14 | Rate of fire: 2.0 | Frame delay: - | Attack delay: - | Range: - | Accuracy: - | Projectile speed: - | Hit points: 75 ▶ 90 | Armor: 1/1 ▶ 2/1 | Speed: 1.1 | Line of sight: 6 | Attack bonuses: -
After all this many, many changes (hey, dreaming is free, right?) I believe we would have a game even more diverse and awesome than we already have, with a little touch of cultural diversity and a little bit less generic feel (xbows/knights most of the time). This was made with a lot of love for this wonderful game, which i've been playing on an off for 23 years now. I'm really looking forward to your feedback on this, as a big part of why I post this is to share with you so we can imagine together in what direction this wonderful game will go in the future. If you came this far, thanks for your commitment, age fans are the best! :) [link] [comments] |
from newest submissions : aoe2 https://ift.tt/2UWnk8v
No comments :
Post a Comment