AFAIK they are the same species. If you think they are completely different and unrelated then please provide the relevant biological studies I’d like to know.
Not only the Burmese but the Malays and the Khmers should have it as well; both were heavily influenced by India.
I think this is the third time now. They are the same species. But ones found in South East Asia are smaller than ones in India.
Peer-reviewed academic source, data or measurements please
I bet that’s the type of elephant that AoE1 units ride. It’s consistent with their proportions.
First, it’s not pointless, there is a point in the part of the comment you ommited when citing:
Second,
With “reality” you mean “historical reality”? Like, “historical accuracy”? In that case, yes, of course. I’m a history fan, so historical accuracy in armony with fun gameplay is always a plus.
Oh, I understand your point now. Still, as I see it, those civs I mentioned (except perhaps for goths) are on the same tier of usefulness to the ones you listed.
Not at all, I’d actually wish auras and recharging shields had never existed in this game. But they do now, and people like them, so they’re never going away. And so there are now “standard” and “flashy” civs, and, somehow, these differences transmit there exist an underlaying reality to this disparity. This is particularly and specially accentuated when this underlying reality, due to the nature of DLCs, seem to be that some regiones are different than others because of (given the historical inspiration of the game) they were in real life. But then, again, Spanish and Japanese are way more similar to each other than Byzantines and Armenians are.
I’m precisely complaining about that. The game should not feel like that.
I can understand the game lagging to catch up to the last 2 or 3 patches, or the last DLC in terms of keeping consistent with the new additions, but it’s been many DLCs and this issue is getting way more marked every DLC. This is the quintessential strategy game along Starcraft, it should aim as energy as it’s possible to keep it as a polished masterpiece of all time, not a legacy product being kept alive for nostalgia only.
This is an exaggeration for most of the civs I took CA from. But it doesn’t matter, poeple, please take the disclamers seriously:
Historical accuracy is not the point at all. Are you sure you understand the point about “the consistency” I talk about in the thread?
The problem with this is that if you create an alternative unit line for the rest of the civ that represent heavy cavalry, then there must be an underlying historical or logical reason for why Europe is the exception to that rule and why european heavy cavalry is worth enough to recieve a distinction (that’s what “the consistency” is in part about).
If the argument is “Cavalry was the prevalent unit of the european armies”… That’s not convicing enough. The same reality can be said for many historical civilizations of the world.
To make it work, every region should recieve their own heavy cavalry line, so then the logic is “every historical region has its own heavy cav regional unit.”
For example:
Since Persians recieved the Savar, this is the new logic, and so the Savar is now a unique upgrade like the Imperial Camel or the Imperial Skirmisher. It’s not an upgrade replacement because Persians should not recieve the european unique upgrade Paladin is in the first place.
It’s necessary if you believe historical accuracy and real-life logical consistency is important enough to justify these changes.
I think it’s not.
I see EAs and BEs as two separate units in terms of game language that has nothing to do with each other. They are as different regional units as Steppe Lancers and Eagle Warriors, again, in terms of game abstraction of concepts.
I don’t like to go off-topic but cmon. You have two dogs, one of a little race and one of a big race, both canis lupus familiaris. Same species can present differences, it’s not something unbelievable and to be skeptic about.
I respect your opinion, but I think for a game that has advertised itself to be based on history a certain degree of historical accuracy is required.
I’m not skeptical I just hope that people could argue with real evidence instead of using imagination or stereotype.
AFAIK both are Asiatic elephants so even though there may be differences those should be minimal. It’s not like one is Mammoth and the other is Pygmy.
Real talk. I’m ~1000 and sometimes I get absolutely stomped and sometimes it feels like I’m playing against a potato.
Don’t feed the Gargarensis.
If you consider “cavalier” to be a fancy word for “knight” I think they can be given to non-european civs as long as they have a regional skin.
I’ve fed worse in this place.
The Huns, the Mongols and the Cumans were nomads, my friend, haven’t you investigated a little history, that’s why in AOE II the Mongols have yurts or tents because they are nomads and Viking architecture logically should be unique only to Vikings, the Slavic civilizations along with the Armenian and Georgian can share a new architecture of buildings for all of them, you see, AOE IV has civilizations with unique buildings, unique units and unique mechanics which make one civilization totally different from another and why do you think it is? Thus, precisely because history is not wrong and we cannot add imaginary elements in a game that aims to teach history of the real world, AOE II suffers from having too many imaginary elements just because of the laziness of not wanting to do things right from the beginning, A clear example of this is having Chinese with European knights or Aztecs with crossbowmen and the list goes on and on, so what is being stated here is to suggest to developers in the most formal and polite way that they reconsider updating the models of units and buildings. thus creating a set of regional units so that the work done is not too much and updating the architectures of missing buildings for the civilizations that require it.
The Turks too. Why aren’t you proposing nomadic architecture for them?
@Tyranno13, @KarstHillFort77, apologies, I did not mean to start an argument! I’m not really knowledgeable about South or South-East Asian warfare or on the specifics of different cultures’ war elephants. I was just commenting on how things seemed from my point of view when elephant units were added – I’m very happy to be informed and corrected by people who know more about it than me.
Ok, I think I understand, but now I find your position even weirder. You don’t like the flashy new mechanics, but you want them to be used more widely because you value consistency over actually liking the game. That seems very odd to me.
Yes, this is not ideal, and I would like a solution to this, just not one that involves aura effects, charge attacks, damage shields, etc. I think Chinese and Japanese in particular feel bland and not very Chinese/Japanese – the other East Asian civs are better.
Ok. In that case I don’t really agree – see my response above about finding your position weird.
As I understand it, the StarCraft approach is to keep things as close to the original as possible, not even adding simple quality of life improvements. I wouldn’t want that.
I think this is an unfair description of AoE2’s current state – the strongest evidence against it being that old content (e.g. older civs and campaigns) have received updates over the years, including some recent major ones (like the Saracens’ and Celts’ unique techs).
They have yurts?
Why should armenians and georgians share a building set with ingame slavs?
The Turks as an empire have more importance, it was not until after they began their expansionism that they began to be relevant to the other nations of Europe. Before that, the Turks were not very relevant.
Historically, the Mongols, Huns and Cumans used tents or yurts and in the campaign all this is reflected, although when using them in skirmishes things become different and problems begin by not having them present to build, if they were to divide the Slavic civilization in various factions such as Romania, Wallachia or Ruthenia I think they could share the architecture with the Armenians and Georgians since in real life the buildings are somewhat similar, quite the opposite with the Mediterranean architecture that the Georgians and Armenians currently use which by the way has half the community upset because of the historical inaccuracy they have
Yes but imo there is no consistency issues if we keep history aside. ROTR civs getting Elephants is fine but introducing Steppe Lancers for a few civs broke the consistency, doesn’t make any sense. Same argument for 3 American civs with eagles and no knights being unique and fine but 4 Indian civs somehow breaking consistency. Even though I hate the Indian DLC civs and you could say there’s a balance issue but nothing inconsistent with the design specifically for the Indian civs if we forget about historical accuracy.
Second, the unique things you mentioned about Burgundians, Sicilians, Poles, Gurjaras etc, is just a basic to all the DLCs. Conquerors expansion introduced eagles, villagers getting military level stats, halberdier upgrade and a few monk techs like Heresy. Forgotten empires introduced the first anti-gunpowder infantry and also a unit that can be shared across the team. African Kingdoms introduced the first and only automatic resource generating building, mounted skirmishers. So practically every DLC introduced concepts that broke symmetry and added certain units/buildings/mechanics specific to one or few civs, not just the ones that came after DE.
So if this make you feel “inconsistent”, I still believe it probably has something to do with historical accuracy bothering you. This is why I said, removing CA from dozens of civs and bringing in several other compensatory bonuses just to keep historical accuracy or some other personally felt reasons is quite unnecessary and could be bad for the game.
Anyways I was only interested in the final changes you propose to “fix this inconsistency” as you put it, rather than whether it should be considered inconsistent or not. So if you feel the game is inconsistent, and want to bring the first 2 changes you’ve proposed might be good for the game imo but not the rest.
Some of these civs are perceived as very weak for open maps but solid for closed or water. If its possible to remove CA, buff them other way specific to open maps it could be interesting.
Sorry my bad, I mentioned the wrong player. It was actually Viper playing CA vs Sebastian’s Teutons. Hera played CA as Malay against Vinchester.
Touché.
20 characters.
My perception is that heavy cavalry was uniquely european. We had the best, heaviest armour.
I’m no expert. But from what I’ve seen and heard we had more heavily armoured knights than the arabs, mongols, japanese, koreans…
(I’m not saying Europe was superior. The arabs and mongols and turks trounced us often enough. But our heavy cavalry was genuinely good.)
