Yeah they should have priority but then after we do more.
Probs people who want to know what thought process is required to find that Mayan boom is bottom tier and that Spanish boom is better than the one of civs with actual eco bonuses like Huns and Malians.
This would not really make an interesting scenario to play tho.Anyways seems all the historical figures came up after the turks came so do we really need to have a rumanian civi ingame?
Mayans boom is nerfed as their Farmers works slower. Also as I only looked on boom every bonus affecting loom has no effect at all in this evalueation yet meaning in this test the mayan extra vill is almost useless. Explanation enough? (And yes the calc regards the extra food on the mayan farms. Still the slighlty reduced farming speed males mayan farms the worst in the game)
Spanish actually safe a lot with their building speed. Itâs an underrated bonus. Spanish eg should build their TCs with 4 vills instead of the commonly recommended 5, this saves them around 40 wood worth of villager time. And these small savings add up quite nicely for the civ, especially as in the early game and booming there are so many buildings to build. All this together makes Spanish an about average booming civ in the same ballpark as Saracens, Malians, Bohemians or Huns.
If you calc this (Malians vs Spanish) you will figure out that the saved wood of the malian bonus is very similar to the saved construction time of the spanish vills for Houses and TCs. The spanish boom is actually minimally better because of the few seconds they safe by the farm construction (yes, spanish farms ftw).
The thing with this kind of tools is that they just provide us with information. Sometimes we only look on specific aspects of the game and neglect others that have similar effect. If you like it or not, Spanish have thanks to their building speed bonus a solid boom. Itâs not better than average, but itâs good enough for that.
I donât make this kind of calc to endorse our perception but to provide additional information. And I am acutally glad I can still look inside and figure out what inputs cause which effects. Spanish and Mayans are very good examples how this tool works.
(In case of mayans we all actually also know that they tend to not boom as much as other civs cause they need less eco to supply their military. But this tool only calcs how long it takes to get to a certain amount of eco. I canât just say: Mayans make 10 % less eco to be fully boomed. That would be a random choice. But the result for Nayans can easily be taken as a good additional information why this civ doesnât âlikesâ to boom as much. Itâs just not as good as a booming civ but way better in producing military.)
Tbh I think his reasoning behind that is faster town centers allowing you to gwet a vill advantage
Putting a castle will always make an UT not be cheap. Bulgarians hardly go for Stirrups in early castle age despite it being fairly affordable and them saving stone on town centers.
The only option you mean. Tbh Gaspodars seem fine if not a bit too strong but going for UUs is always hard to do, and you usually have to get to at least have an strong military control before that.
I dont get why you removed cavalry armour or blast furnace honestly since the civ really could at least have FU hussars. As it stands your only viable cav unit late game is the Gaspodar and the rest of your units suck outside meh halbs, glass cannon cav archers, siege engineer-less and meh archers.
I am exagerating a bit but since skirms are only crearted ~30% faster and you need a big numbers advantage to even hope to get to use these skirms you will still need a ton of extra production. Your skirms may be cost efficient by a bit against non-Byzantine and non-Sicilian civs but they will be painful to use and will take way more damage than what they deal.
Also this civ would suck badly on trash wars unless they exploit their military building bonus. Enemy FU Elite skirms or even without the last armour will take 3 damage for every 8 they do. Burmese would took 4 damage and baracerless civs would deal 7 but still, beetwen that and a massive production advantage from the enemy your quantity over quality approach just wont work and you will die.
Persians have two bonuses. They will only have +100 resources and +1 villager by the end of feudal while Vlachs have two decent bonuses of their own in +150 gold in archer play and tanky villagers.
Thats a +1 or at best +2 villager advantage and maybe you get 20 seconds faster to imperial age.
Better. Maybe a bit too strong but seems more reasonable
If Burmese had arbs or obsidian arrows they still wouldnt go archers I reckon.
Plenty of civs without arbs go for crossbows.
Sure? I though I removed only the last 2 archer armors, blast furnace and plate mail (infantry) armor.
They donât have FU Hussars (Lacking blast furnace), but they are 5 F cheaper in the exchange.
(I actually considered to make the civ better in terms of standard cavalry but decided that it would probably be better to finally have a civ that really encourages the player to make more use of the cavalry UU.)
I think itâs 4 damage vs 7. Then you could field almost twice as much of these super cheap skirms meaning you would have 2*4=8 damage vs 7 and almost double HP. Ofc I neglect the pop efficiency factor here, but it doesnât look that bad anymore in terms of res efficiency, does it?
Yeah for burmese it just doesnât makes sense to play archers in general. I also agree that the archers might not be the âbest choiceâ for that vlach civ. But with the UT they would have the option to make 45 g arbs with full dps. In games against cavalry or infantry civs this can totally make sense. Maybe not as much against other archer civs, but it would make it way easier to mass archers and get to that important critical mass.
I donât want to overbuff the civ. I want to give it a lot of different options that are situationally strong. Thatâs what âactive defendingâ is about. If you make the right choices in the right situations you get rewarded but if you âchose poorlyâ you can be punished aswell.
Do you understand that reasoning?
I agree with casusincorrabilâs view that itâs more like opponents than bad guys.
To summarize:
Foundation of Wallachia and Moldavia - Hungarian bad guys.
Transylvania POV of the peasants - Hungarian bad guys, even during Austrian Empire times.
Wallachia and Moldavia short after independence until 1877 - Turks bad guys.
World War I and the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 â Austro-Hungarian bad guys, especially the Hungarian part.
World War II â The Germans & the Russians in equal measure.
The Cold War â The Russians
Today â The Russians
So, the short answer would be: yes, we also have stories about Hungarians and Russians as the bad guys. But I think the Turks take the crown in longevity.
EDIT: For the Stephen the Greatâs campaign narration, I think a personal Stephen the Great POV would be great, where he himself describes his battles and struggles.
But for the Basarab and Bogdanâs campaign narration, it would be cool to have Grigore Ureche (in 1600s) narrate the âorigin of his peopleâ to WĆadysĆaw IV in the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth.
The intro-outro narrations could begin in 1633 at the start of the Polish-Ottoman War of 1633-1634. Knowing he will have to face the Wallachian and Moldavain troops who are loyal to the Ottomans, one of his advisors, Grigore Ureche, who is of Moldavian origin, starts telling him about the story of his people, how they became a free people.
In the final outro of the last mission, Grigore Ureche telling the King of Poland: âwe would enjoy roughly a century of independence until the Ottomans came from the south, we werenât incorporated into the Ottoman Empire without a fight, and due to our stubbornness remained vassal states who would have to pay yearly tribute to the Sultan, and although we had certain rulers that rose above and successfully resisted the Ottomans, we could not compete with the might of the Ottomans, and we soon found ourselves under the claw of the Ottomans again. David does not always beat Goliath. But times will change my lord, in time, it will.â
The stubbornness part is historically accurate. The main reason the Ottomans didnât annex Wallachia or Moldavia like the rest of the balkan states is because ruling them has proven more hassle than itâs worth, due to constant revotls. So they settled for vassalage where Wallachia and Moldavia would essentially be autonomous regions within the Ottoman Empire. They would try once again in 1601 to fully annex Wallachia into the Ottoman Empire this again proved more hassle than itâs worth. Eventually, due to constant revolts and the distrust the Ottomans and in their Wallachian and Moldavian vassals, in 1661 the Ottomans introduced Phanariot rulers, where they would give the thrones of Wallachia and Moldavia to the highest Greek bidder, this proved a good compromise as the new rulers were not Ottoman and Orthodox which would earn them the acceptance of the nobility and population, the rule of the Phanariots ended in 1821 with another revolt.
1 Like
This a a very subjective and broad opinion in seriousness. How is it substantiated?
he misspelled. He wanted to say âbecause I am that ignorant.â
I think this stuff is a bit too late for a medieval game, isnât it?
But I like the story of Stephen the Great.
1 Like
They arent that important to be the first civ to have a second campaign.
Even if I wasnt only talking about the civ not deservong two campaigns is thnking that Vlachs arent as important as other civs is being ignorant? They are shortlived and while super cool they just werent that powerful
Also you could be a bit less rude, ya know?
Yeah you just repeated what I replied toâŠ
Yes and I dont think I need to elaborate further why Vlachs shouldnt have two campaigns before Turks, Chinese, Franks, Persians, Byzantines, Spqnish, Vikings, Slavs, Teutons or even Celts who have a lame campaign have two campaigns each.
I do think it will be interesting to know why though
I always advocated the opinion âWho likes to be rude must stand it.â
Shots fired. Leave it as it is.
Because these peoples I mentioned have a ton more stories and were way more influential than Vlachs and they wouldnt actually need two campaigns from the same period (athough some of them maybe would still have two campaigns of the same period). I just think it will be silly to have two kings from a similar period from a fairly small country before having a campaign about Charlrmangne, a Byzantine campaign that isnt created around a made up family or two campaigns from the greatest empire of the time period (China ofc) or of the most influential civs of the period (Saracens and Mpngols)
But Im not being rude. Im saying the truth, the civ doesnt hold very well when compared to the great powers of the time. You just got annoyed and decided to be mean lol
Also âshots firedâ, lol pathetic (and yes I decided to be mean myself if thats how you want to act like)
I just donât think we have any agency to evalueate this.
And no matter how it is intended to be perceived the perception of the involved will always be a personal one. Thatâs why we should generally avoid evalueations like this, even if itâs not mentioned to be rude.
1 Like
Eh I think at some point it is fair to say this. Maybe Spain, Vikings and France are an stretch but I dont think that theres much argument to be had that an small and shortlived country is as important as China, the Arabs or Byzantium. Yeah you can say that they are cooler if you want (and I can accept that they are cool even though I think China, Franks, the Ottomans, Persia, the Arabs and Byzantium are cooler) but being fair they arent at the same level.
Qnd theres a diference beetwen disagreeing and being educated as your last commebt and calling me ignorant because I think China and Byzantium are more important
Well you can stay with that opinion. But then you canât complain if people get offended by this.
Iâm pretty sure most of the people of your country would also get offended if somebody would talk like this over it.
I am pretty sure the devs will chose the best campaigns for us even without our intervening.
1 Like
Nah I will still complain if I get called as an ignorant about something I have looked into. Vlachs are cool. But I just think more longlasting and powrrful civilizations who have more stories to tell before telling two stories of a shortlasting and not too big kingdom (and yes I know that not too big may annoy some people, but it is just factual to say that they dont compare in terms of territory or people to the big boys)
I dont think the people of my country woulld complain if they got told that they needed to add Great Britain before us. We would be a solid AoE3 civ but we just arent a great empire.
Also seems weird to see you react this way since you dont seem to be Romanian.