AoE2 DLC CIV Idea - Romanians (Cavalry and Archers civ)

[Player870583437]

@TungstenBoar

Ah yes, Serbs and Croats areng Slavs then and Swisd arent Teutons but Bengalis and Tamils are Indians and Jurchen are Chinese. And all those civs were waayyy more powerful than these four civs and in the case of the Tamils and Bengalis they lasted way more.

And the second thing is falsr, Jurchen arent Chinese. Not to mention, Indians as aumbrella is more stupid than Slavs because the south isnt even related with the north language wise, and the north is still extremely varied too.

I thought you didn’t like adding multiple factions for the same civ, such as Burgundians when we already have Franks. So why are you supporting it here?

Jurchen are essentially Manchurian, their history is essentially the history of China, you could easily have a Jin Dynasty campaign as the Chinese, how would their culture be different from that of China?

Slavs are really the Rus, if anything the Slav civ should be renamed Rus. It’s very weird to have a civ like the Slavs then have parts of the slavs as different civs.

@MatCauthon3 I don’t understand what you mean with that question, you’re right, I don’t support breaking up European umbrella civs further, but how is that supposed to be contradictory to being against breaking up non-European umbrella civs further?

If anything, it makes more sense to be against breaking up non-European umbrella civs further, if you are already against breaking up European umbrella civs further, doesn’t it?

Personal preference, but it’s a lot better for the quality of the game to have as many civs as possible, rather than take 1 civ and split it into multiple factions. Would love to see more pre-colombian American civs for examples, but that doesn’t mean I want to see the Aztects split into 4 different clans as 'civs", that’s just a waste IMO.

[TungstenBoar]

@Player870583437

Jurchen are essentially Manchurian, their history is essentially the history of China, you could easily have a Jin Dynasty campaign as the Chinese, how would their culture be different from that of China?

The Manchu/Jurchwnculture was back in the day its own unique culture, its like arguing that if Yugoslavia still existed adding Croats separated would be dumb and we would just need Yugoslavs.

@Player870583437

Slavs are really the Rus, if anything the Slav civ should be renamed Rus

Indians are really Mughals, if anything Indians should be renamed Mughals.

@Player870583437

I thought you didn’t like adding multiple factions for the same civ, such as Burgundians when we already have Franks. So why are you supporting it here?

Okay, you are comparing cultures that separated thousants of years ago or that never shared the dame culture at all with the Burgundians whp were just French with some minor Dutch influence, were shortlived and have nothing to add from their own? And Im against more Euro civs because I feel theres little to add there and we have like 19 of them already.

[Player870583437]

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Jurchen are essentially Manchurian, their history is essentially the history of China, you could easily have a Jin Dynasty campaign as the Chinese, how would their culture be different from that of China?

The Manchu/Jurchwnculture was back in the day its own unique culture, its like arguing that if Yugoslavia still existed adding Croats separated would be dumb and we would just need Yugoslavs.

So, how would their culture be different from that of China?

Okay, you are comparing the Croats who had a kingdom of their own with the Manchu who lived in tribes when the Chinese found them and shortly after incorporated them into China, their history is essentially the history of China and they have nothing to add from their own. For Croatia, Yugoslavia wasn’t a thing until 1920.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Slavs are really the Rus, if anything the Slav civ should be renamed Rus

Indians are really Mughals, if anything Indians should be renamed Mughals.

Okay, but I doubt Indian players will like that. As opposed to changing the Slavs to Rus.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

I thought you didn’t like adding multiple factions for the same civ, such as Burgundians when we already have Franks. So why are you supporting it here?

Okay, you are comparing cultures that separated thousants of years ago or that never shared the dame culture at all with the Burgundians whp were just French with some minor Dutch influence, were shortlived and have nothing to add from their own? And Im against more Euro civs because I feel theres little to add there and we have like 19 of them already.

Yes, because at the end of the day they are still an umbrella civ.

There’s plenty to add in Euro: Serbia, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Albania, Switzerland (umbrella for Teutons, but you seem okay with that), Finns, Georgia, Armenia, Austria (another umbrella).

Here’s a topic with their histories summarized:

Histories of Serbia, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Albania and Switzerland

They are not 100% accurate, but are still fairly accurate. Serbia: [The History of Serbia - Part 1: From Tribe to Empire] Romania: [The History of Romania] Croatia: [The Animated History of Croatia] Estonia: [A Super Quick History of Estonia] Albania: [A Super Quick History of Albania] Switzerland: [The Animated History of Switzerland]

[MatCauthon3]

@Player870583437

If anything, it makes more sense to be against breaking up non-European umbrella civs further, if you are already against breaking up European umbrella civs further, doesn’t it?

Big difference. We’ve already broken up European umbrellas , and haven’t touched the non European ones.

Furthermore there is a vast difference in breaking up INDIANS (there was no unified India back then) and breaking up teutons who represent the HRE, or Franks as an example.

[MatCauthon3]

@Player870583437

Personal preference, but it’s a lot better for the quality of the game to have as many civs as possible, rather than take 1 civ and split it into multiple factions

Then you should be all for breaking up Indians.

[TungstenBoar]

@Player870583437

So, how would their culture be different from that of China?

They are basically the middle ground beetwen the Chinese and Mongols and had their own culture. Also they have a diferent language family from every other major kingdom of the far east, as they were from Siberian origin.

Also you ask that while proposing a civ that doesnt even have its own language. Ironic.

@Player870583437

Okay, you are comparing the Croats who had a kingdom of their own

They had an empire of their own.

@Player870583437

history is essentially the history of China and they have nothing to add from their own.

Lol, ok. In that case the Croats have less tham nothing.

@Player870583437

Okay, but I doubt Indian players will like that. As opposed to changing the Slavs to Rus.

Indians are constantly asking for more of their own civs because the umbrella doesnt make any sense.

@Player870583437

Yes, because at the end of the day they are still an umbrella civ

No. Its not the same to compare India with France. India has like a thousant times the variety France has.

@Player870583437

There’s plenty to add in Euro: Serbia, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Albania, Switzerland (umbrella for Teutons, but you seem okay with that), Finns, Georgia, Armenia, Austria (another umbrella

Most of them are shortlived and small compared to a ton of Asian and African civs missing. Austria had success mostly because of the Habsburgs so I think it is fair to represent them with other existing civs so the only really big civ missing is Georgia, which as I said should be added.

Europe wasnt the center of the qorld back then, 19 is already more than enough.

@Player870583437

Personal preference, but it’s a lot better for the quality of the game to have as many civs as possible, rather than take 1 civ and split it into multiple factions

You are asking for that 11. Be at least consistent.

[Player870583437]

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

So, how would their culture be different from that of China?

They are basically the middle ground beetwen the Chinese and Mongols and had their own culture. Also they have a diferent language family from every other major kingdom of the far east, as they were from Siberian origin.

Also you ask that while proposing a civ that doesnt even have its own language. Ironic.

And that’s where their differences with the Chinese end.

Better to not have its own langauge than not have its own kingdom. You might as well add the Gypsies to your list, they have an unique culture, never had their own kingdom but doesn’t seem like that is relevant to you.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Okay, you are comparing the Croats who had a kingdom of their own

They had an empire of their own.

11

Yes, the Chinese Empire. Should we also consider Matthias Corvinus’s Hungary as Romania because he was of Romanian origin? or USSR as Georgia because Stalin was Georgian?

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

History is essentially the history of China and they have nothing to add from their own.

Lol, ok. In that case the Croats have less tham nothing.

Ah yes, the Manchurians have something to offer because they were a bunch of tribes before being conquered by the Chinese, but Croats have less than nothing because they became part of Yugoslavia in 1920.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Okay, but I doubt Indian players will like that. As opposed to changing the Slavs to Rus.

Indians are constantly asking for more of their own civs because the umbrella doesnt make any sense.

If Indian players are saying that they don’t want a single unified “Indian” civ, okay.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Yes, because at the end of the day they are still an umbrella civ

No. Its not the same to compare India with France. India has like a thousant times the variety France has.

And what great things would this variety bring to the game? We already have elephants and such.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

There’s plenty to add in Euro: Serbia, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Albania, Switzerland (umbrella for Teutons, but you seem okay with that), Finns, Georgia, Armenia, Austria (another umbrella

Most of them are shortlived and small compared to a ton of Asian and African civs missing. Austria had success mostly because of the Habsburgs so I think it is fair to represent them with other existing civs so the only really big civ missing is Georgia, which as I said should be added.

Europe wasnt the center of the qorld back then, 19 is already more than enough.

All nations in Africa are larger than all of their European counterparts, clearly that’s not an indicator. Yes, but the Habsburgs were Austria, it seems unfair to exclude them because of that. You might as well say “Georgia was only big because of Tamar the Great so I think it is fair to represent them with other existing civ”.

We don’t need to group them into “10 civs per continent” or other artificial construct.

@TungstenBoar

@Player870583437

Personal preference, but it’s a lot better for the quality of the game to have as many civs as possible, rather than take 1 civ and split it into multiple factions

You are asking for that 11. Be at least consistent.

The guy who is against umbrella civs for European nations but in favor of umbrella civs for non-European nations asks me to be consistent. Here, take that 11.

When it comes to that part of the world, I would rather have Tibetans than Manchurians, they had an actual history, you can make more than 1 campaign out of them. But realistically, I don’t think anything like that is going to happen because Age of Empires 2 needs to sell in China too.

@MatCauthon3 Two wrongs doesn’t make a right. I would have rather had the Estonians than the Burgundians, but that doesn’t mean we should split all other civs because we split the French.

There was no unified Romania back then either, but I don’t think having 3 civs: Wallachians, Moldavians and Transylvanians is a good idea either. But an overkill when other corners of the earth could be explored as well. Same for various Italian states.

[MatCauthon3]

@Player870583437

@MatCauthon3 Two wrongs doesn’t make a right. I would have rather had the Estonians than the Burgundians, but that doesn’t mean we should split all other civs because we split the French.

Huge difference. India wasn’t unified. They deserve to be split. As is India only really reps ne India

[Player870583437]

@MatCauthon3

@Player870583437

@MatCauthon3 Two wrongs doesn’t make a right. I would have rather had the Estonians than the Burgundians, but that doesn’t mean we should split all other civs because we split the French.

Huge difference. India wasn’t unified. They deserve to be split. As is India only really reps ne India

Burgundians and French weren’t unified at the time of the conflict in the campaign either. The Teutonic Order wasn’t part of the Holy Roman Empire either. And Wallachians, Moldavians and Transylvanians weren’t part of the same state either.

[MatCauthon3]

@Player870583437

The Teutonic Order wasn’t part of the Holy Roman Empire either.

Teutons dont represent the teutonic order alone.

@Player870583437

Burgundians and French weren’t unified at the time of the conflict in the campaign either

But for much of their history theh were.

[TungstenBoar]

@Player870583437

And that’s where their differences with the Chinese end.

Haha no. Just because they are very similar to Chinese now it doesnt mean they were like that back in the 12th century.

@Player870583437

The guy who is against umbrella civs for European nations but in favor of umbrella civs for non-European nations asks me to be consistent

I havw standards, you are just pickimg what you like over what you dont like without any logic behind it.

@Player870583437

11

Yes, the Chinese Empire. Should we also consider Matthias Corvinus’s Hungary as Romania because he was of Romanian origin? or USSR as Georgia because Stalin was Georgian?

@Player870583437

Ah yes, the Manchurians have something to offer because they were a bunch of tribes before being conquered by the Chinese, but Croats have less than nothing because they became part of Yugoslavia in 1920

The Jurchen controlling an state with Jurchen nobility and warfare style is having their own state from any logical point of view. And the land the Jurchen controlled were controlled by non Chinese people for 200 years already.
And you totally missed my point about Yugoslavia.

Either way Croats have less to offer than the Jurchen because they are a very very small kingdom with a very short independence.

@Player870583437

And what great things would this variety bring to the game? We already have elephants and such.

If thats your logic behind what civs should be added we dont need any civ since niches are already covered

Theres a lot of cultural and military diferences as well as a lot of recorded history to work with in India. In fact, the current Indian civ doesnt represent any major Insian civ properly beyond the economic part.

@Player870583437

When it comes to that part of the world, I would rather have Tibetans than Manchurians, they had an actual history, you can make more than 1 campaign out of them. But realistically, I don’t think anything like that is going to happen because Age of Empires 2 needs to sell in China too.

The Manchu has much campaign potential as Romanians. Yes I also want Tibet but that isnt going to happen.

@Player870583437

All nations in Africa are larger than all of their European counterparts, clearly that’s not an indicator

Thats not what I meant really. A lot of civs in Africa are more worth adding than the missing European ones because they were (a mix of those next things) more populous, more long lasting and/or richer.

@Player870583437

Yes, but the Habsburgs were Austria, it seems unfair to exclude them because of that. You might as well say “Georgia was only big because of Tamar the Great so I think it is fair to represent them with other existing civ”.

You didnt get my point. Only reason the Austrians were relevant was because of the personal unions of the Habsburgs. At least Jurchen conquered China, the Habsburgs just inherited their empire.

[IronKaiser5]

I always appreciate people exercising their creativity and coming up with civ ideas. It’s cool to see the historical work that went into the proposal, and that earns a like from me.

Focusing on the gameplay for a moment, if we can just talk big picture, what do you see as the desired strengths, weaknesses, and gameplan of the Romanians?

[Player870583437]

I would see the Romanias as a Cavalry Halberdier/Arbaletist civ focused on hit&run tactics.

Historically, the Romanians would buy really expensive and professional cavalry which allowed them to have much maneuverability on the battlefield, while the peasants would be trained for war since they needed men for the army but were countries with low manpower. Romanian military was strict, every peasant was trained to defend himself and those that refused were put to death

As for their weak points, I would say Monks & Siege. Being Orthodox the church never had the same influence as it did in Catholic countries or even in Russia. The Church had a lot of lands and enjoyed the protection of the government & people, but never had much political power, the separation of church & state was kind of a given for Romanians. As for siege, the Romanians never had many famous sieges, since most of their battles revolved around being attacked, fighting in your own land and using maneuverability to harrass and slowly drain a numerically superior enemy, you can see how this doesn’t work well with sieges.

Given the feedback from other players, I agree that the civ design I proposed is kind of taking bonuses already existing in other civs so therefore adding nothing new.

There are some other Romanian civ designs I saw on the internet:

1. Usac’ suggestion:

A Cavalry civ

• Knights cost less in Castle Age, even less in Imperial

• The Order of the Dragon was created with the pupose of defeating the Ottoman menace. Many Romanians, including Vlad Tepes (Dracul) were members. Sure, this bonus feels like it gets overshadowed by Berbers, but Berbers don’t get Paladins and the discount before then might even be less.*

• Villagers get boosted armor

• The fact of the matter is, when you need to fear constant impalement, you get defensive or die by getting impaled, or pierced. It’s a nice bonus alongside Loom for a great early defense against DRUSH and FLUSH strategies. Moldovan military strategies were strict. Every peasant not armed to defend themselves was put to death.*

• Skirmishers fire faster

• There is no super historical reason for this, the Romanians did use Hit and run along with Scorched Earth policies, however.* → Me: I would argue something like Halberdier/Arbaletist deal +1 damage, that would have a historical reason being it.

Team Bonus: Villagers carry slightly more food.

• There was serfdom in Romania, effecting Gypsies and foreign slaves, such as Steppes peoples and Ottomans. The extra food may not amount to much, but farming will go that much faster.*

Impaler – Think Shotel Warrior but slower in every way and more focused on slaying living units. Living units is a ‘armor type’ given to all priests, infantry, cavalry and archery unit, as well as trade carts, villagers and Petards.

If that’s too insane, then it’s an infantry unit with a fairly reasonable attack but the ability to impale to nearby units or the units behind it.

• The Impalers of Vlad Tepes were feared by those who knew of him. Anyone who angered him, anyone too sickly to work, and anyone too lavish to care about his country would feel the wrath of a spike going from brain to groin… or the other way around. Technically, these weren’t a military class, but the idea of impaling through the body was highly prevalent and darkly badass if not a bit too “edgy.” Still, fun for a UU.*

UT1 Scorched Earth – Melee units get extra damage vs. Buildings. Siege get even more.

The style of many Moldavian and Wallachian fights was Scorched Earth with Hit and Run tactics.

UT2 Ispán – Castle Arrows impale like Scorpion bolts. Scorpions can garrison into castles to add extra arrows and heal up.

Castles such as Bran Castle, were amongst the most insanely engineered to fire bolts from Ballistae. Vlad Tepes had to escape a Turkish assault by escaping through a massive labyrinth and tunnel system. He was still captured and imprisoned even still. Ispán were those commanded castle areas in Transylvania, which at the time was a voivode of Hungary.

2. Azot’s suggestion:

Romanians: Cavalry and archer civilization

• Town Center technologies (except Age advancing) cost -50%

• Archer-line gets +1/+2/+3 melee armor in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age (not Skirmishers nor Cavalry Archers nor Hand Cannoneers)

• Villagers get +3 vs cavalry, archers and monks → Me: Kind of useless TBH, better have +1 armor.

• Cavalry Archers get +1 attack

Team bonus: Siege Workshops cost -50 wood

Unique techs:

• Night attack (200 food 200 wood): Cavalry Archers and Voivodes get +2 vs standard buildings

• Artillery positioning (400 wood 400 gold): Bombard cannons move 30% faster and get -2 minimum range.

Unique unit:

Voivode: Light Cavalry with high pierce armor. Bonus attack vs archers

Cost: 65 food 40 gold

Upgrade cost: 800 food 500 gold

Creation time 19s. Speed 1.45 Reload time 2.

HP: 50 (60)

Attack: 6 (7) melee

Armor: 0/3 (0/4)

Armor class: Cavalry

Upgrades: Blacksmith, Stable

Attack bonus: Archers 3 (5)

Barracks: Two-Handed Swordsman – Halberdier – All techs

Archery range: Arbalester – Elite Skirmisher – Heavy Cav Archer – Hand Cannoneer – All techs

Stable: Hussar – Cavalier – All techs → Me: No Paladin for a cav civ seems really weak unless they have a big bonus like the Berbers, Bulgarians and Lithuanians.

Siege workshop: Siege Ram –Siege Onager – Heavy Scorpion – Bombard Cannon – Siege Tower

Blacksmith: Lack the last infantry armor upgrade

Dock: Galleon – Fast Fire Ship –Demolition Ship –Cannon Galleon – Lack Shipwright

University: Lack Architecture – Bombard Tower – Fortified Wall – Guard Tower – Keep – Arrowslits

Castle: Lack Hoardings

Monastery: Lack Redemption – Atonement – Sanctity – Faith – Block Printing

Economy: Lack Crop Rotation

The first thing to be noticed is that Loom costs only 25 gold, so a drush is possible without collecting 10 gold. You can also collect just 5 gold and do a 4 Militia drush. Romanians will be a little bit less vulnerable to rushes with their villager bonus attack against scouts, archers and skirmishers. That’s their main defense, since they lack many University techs. Cost reduction also applies to Wheelbarrow and Hand Cart.

Romanians have many options, but their first military bonus is the +1 melee armor for archers, who will fare better against scouts. This bonus will increase with Age advancing, and results in enhanced resistance to heavy cavalry (and infantry). The unique unit can be used for sniping ranged units and raiding with 8 pierce armor in late game. Cavalry archers are also an option, since they are fully upgraded and the Castle Age Unique Tech will help crossing house walls. For late game, a complete Siege Workshop is one of the features. Particularly good will be Bombard Cannons, who get an extra from the Imperial Age Unique Tech, which will help firing against close groups of melee units and running from them.

3. Micriab123’s idea:

Cav Civilization

-Knights cost -15% castle / 20 % imperial
( The Crusading Order of the Dragon was mostly made up by Vlach, Moldavian, Transilvanyan and Hungarian nobles which could afford heavy armour and hourses)

• Militia-line +1 attack
  (Their ancestours, the Dacians used shock infantry with Falxeswhich were very effective at piercing roman helmets cousing the roman empire to lose many men)
• Husbandry and Squires free, moved to feudal age
  (The Vlachs were very fast and arrived unexpectedly fast somewhere catching their enemies and sueprising them before they could organise an defense)

UU:
Wallachian Swordsmen (Infantry unit, 60 food and 30 gold, 65 hp, 8 attack, 1/1 armour, speed 1.0, LOS 5, has a small chance of doing +4 extra damage when attacking) → Me: I hate the RNG of +4 extra damage, better make it +1 or +2 but always happens. Also, “Wallachian Swordmen” is kind of a generic name, how about Portar from the OP?

UT

Foreign Aid Hungary / Ottoman Empire ( 300 food and 400 gold, Upon researching you can choose to recieve either 10 elite magyar huszars or 10 elite jannisary) → Me, kind of weak, instead the Hussar line can be upgraed to one of the Romanian unique cavalry I mentioned in the OP.

Voivods (300 food and 300 gold, Cavalery + 6 against gunpowder units)

Team bonus:
Farms, fish traps, mills, mining camps and lumber camps can be rebuild for free if destroyed ( if u destroy one, than the next one u will build is free and the next one is back to the normal cost)

My final thoughts.

I find it interesting that every Romanian suggestion makes them a cavalry civ.

[FenomenoAOC]

@Player870583437

The Order of the Dragon was created with the pupose of defeating the Ottoman menace.

Maybe Romamanian/Wallachian team bonus could be cavalry deal +2 damage vs gunpowder units.

[Mahazona]

@Player870583437

Historically, the Romanians would buy really expensive and professional cavalry which allowed them to have much maneuverability on the battlefield,

These cavalry mercs would make a good UU right? downside is it will again be a cavalry uu just like all the neighboring factions.

[Player870583437]

@FenomenoAOC

@Player870583437

The Order of the Dragon was created with the pupose of defeating the Ottoman menace.

Maybe Romamanian/Wallachian team bonus could be cavalry deal +2 damage vs gunpowder units.

Historically accurate yes, but given that cavalry is already a counter to gunpowder when in melee, it is an useless bonus.

@Mahazona

@Player870583437

Historically, the Romanians would buy really expensive and professional cavalry which allowed them to have much maneuverability on the battlefield,

These cavalry mercs would make a good UU right? downside is it will again be a cavalry uu just like all the neighboring factions.

Viteji would be a unique take on that. Heavy cavalry with bows. They were a versatile unit. Able to harass from range heavy cavalry and take on melee light cavalry. The downside would be being more expensive than light cavalry. I can think of them as a stronger and more expensive version of the Cavalry Archer.