There’s no issue at all. Poles and the landlocked Bohemians will also use Fire ships too. That’s how the game always worked.
Yeah. But I think Winged Hussar shouldn’t be in AoE II. It would be better to focus Poles around medieval Kingdom than Commonwealth. Poles and Lithuanians should be different civs in AoE II, they were too distinctive, no connected by roots, language, were common enemies before Commonwealth. Instead Polish-Lithuania could be civ in AoE III.
I think this bonus is to offset Polish Eagle Nests during reign of Casimir the Great. He builded many castles and turned many wooden walls into stone fortifactions.
Eagle Nests were Polish Castles.
7 Likes
No offense meant, but I knew exactly that they were going to base Poles on the Commonwealth. That’s what they are most known for.
I know, that’s why they should focus Poland around medieval ages. Show history before Commonwealth. Many current civilizations are known more for their history during later period than medieval ages.
1 Like
The latest expansion packs were anyway about the High to Late Middle Ages. Burgundians the way they work are a High to Late Middle Age civ with very few early Middle Age aspects. We also have just very few Dark Age civs like Goths.
Anyway, what do you think of my civ design guesses?
I think, you have given too much Light Cav bonuses to Poles. If Lithuanians lost Blast Furnace for Winged Hussar, I personally see fully upgraded Imperial Hussar with trample damage is enough. IMO Szlachta Privileges will be for knight line or entire Stable units, since Knights are nobles ( but yeah, druzhina effects infantry instead of cavalry so we can expects everything ).
I know, it has nothing to your idea, but I highly dislike name of UT: “Lechitic Legacy”. It is made up word. Poland has so much history, so much possibilities to give at least historical name for UTs.
3 Likes
“max 1 tile away” only would render Folwarks useless, you would be prone to constant raids if the effective radius is that tiny.
This bonus sounds useless. I bet they will receive free stone mining upgrades.
This would be a poor version of the Turks’ bonus, which would make little sense given that Poles should be all about their Hussars.
Not sure about how balanced that would be but I’d still love to melt infantry in Castle Age with them.
Your civ design guessed looks really seriously.
Btw bonus for gold is cause mines in Bohemia, and it will help cause i except that WarWagon will cost more than 100 gold.
The Folwark is probably going to be a high risk/high reward thing. You don’t usually build farms around your Mills if avoidable. The radius shouldn’t be that big either, else you could simply build them around your TC too.
Free stone mining upgrades sounds like a worse version of the Korean bonus which wasn’t that great to begin with but it’s a possibility
I’ve already mentioned it times and times again but the Hussar boni are getting scarce. I don’t know what else you could possibly do. Maybe free Cav armour upgrades? Might be too strong though.
I think considering how HC fare in the current Meta, Bohemians might be an excellent pick against civs with an infantry focus. You would not always want to build them though considering how they’re soft-countered by the Archer line and cost a lot of food.
It’s probably one of those balance-based decisions by the devs, which plenty of our forum guys here love to support albeit historical inaccuracies.
1 Like
Thanks. We’ll see this Tuesday how they’ll actually look like.
I don’t mind them focusing on the commonwealth , giving the Winged Hussaria.
What I do mind is having the two civs that were both allies and enemies at differing stages both be cav focussed.
I know that Lithuania was created from the get go to represent Poland as well as Lithuania hense they are a cav focued civ.
My probelm is that in reality , Poland was a cav civ (Frst knights and later Hussaria) whilst Lithuania was more an infantry / fortification based civ. When I visited Lithuaina , I stood atop the steap hills surrounding Vilnius and read abouth the strong hill fortifications built all around the city to guard it against the Teutons and Tartars. These steap hill fortifications are the reason why Lithuania has the ‘‘Hill Forts’’ unique tech. Now these defencible positions were effectifely guarded by infarnty and crossbowmen.
Where lithuaina has hilly counrty , Poland is much more flat and open thus why they had such effective cavalry.
Now in game, to have two civs so close to one another , if you play historically based skirmish games, play as Poland with Lithuanian Allies against the Russ and Tartars for instance, it is fun to have one cav civ (Poland) and one infantry civ (Lithuania currently also cav civ). To complement one another.
Same goes for Georgia (cav civ) and Armenia (Infanry+defencive civ).
So Lithuania no longer needs to represent Poland as well.
Hence why I would love for the devs to alter the Lithuanians, they can keep their brillaint Litis cav but I would enjoy having them lose Paladins (and perhaps other cav bonuses) and giving them a small infantry buff.
What do you guys think?
7 Likes
It’s a game, not a history simulator. They’re not going to completely change a civ when it works fine. If Lithuanians would be heavily UP, which they’re clearly not, massive changes can happen as you can see what they made with Khmer , Portuguese and Koreans. You have to live with how the Liths were designed.
I would even say that the changes they’ll be making in the next update are quite big already (adding a new regional unit, buffing Leitis attack, removing Blast Furnace).
3 Likes
Don’t you think having these buffs with relic attack bonus + Paladin with relic attack bonus would make the Lithuanians OP? (I mostly play SP so I don’t really care what civs are so called ‘‘OP’’ or what not) I just see a lot of people complaining (as they always do) that the Lithuanians at this time is already ‘‘OP’’. Them training Paladin + the new bufs might just exagerate that?
But it is a good idea to use history as a source of ideas for civs. Each civ was higly interesting in reality and these defining aspects can also be used as insperation to make the in game civs as interesting as fun to play as possible.
3 Likes
While I’m happy that game got Lithuanian civilization, it was kind of weird addition. They seems out of place in Last Khans expansion. Why adding civilization that appeared in the game only as a Poles.
I personally would like to leave Lithuanians as they are. I think giving them Winged Hussar was a bad decision ( not from historical perspective, but from balance reasons ) and their relic bonus is kind of killed after patch. It feels like with new patch devs want to say to us: “Guys, we made Lithuanians Pals comperable to Franks and Teutons and they are more fun to use, we regret our decision. Play only Franks or Teutons for good Pals.”
Completely disagree. This game is all about medieval history, perhaps not accurately but still in its very context.
The applied designs and changes for more historical sense-making where possible prove this.
What’s sad is people on this forum use history to argue for game changes towards their liking (as complaining about architecture sets or the lack of Indian civs and their Battle Elephants) but then criticize others for doing so.
4 Likes
They did ? what did they alter?
Correction: NM, I see that the Blastfurnace tech is nog gone for them.
I like this. To have the civs with the strongest chivalric factions have the best knight line sparks joy.
Removing Blast Furnace forces Lithuanians to have at least 2 Relics to be on par with other civs. Relic 2 and 3 are the ones who give them extra attack. This is quite the nerf.
I’m not denying that but the obsession with historical accuracy just ruins game IMO. Factions should be fun to play and balanced. History is just the “Lore” of the civ.
2 Likes
I agree, and by altering the Lithuanians would in my personal opinion make them a lot more fun.
1 Like
Right. It would be more fun not having “2 Polish civs” in the game but instead a Lithuanian civ that actually represents medieval Lithuanians.
6 Likes