# Asian Civs Overhaul **URL:** \ **Category:** III - Discussion\ **Created:** [August 7, 2026, 1:43pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634 "2026-08-07T13:43:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m1kazuki6861/32/213717_2.png) [@M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M1kazuki6861)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/143 "2026-09-08T15:31:32Z")
**1. Quantity vs. Composition** You shifted from composition to quantity. A fixed batch size of a **single unit type** still lets a player build the exact counter they need. China’s problem isn’t batch size—it’s being forced to spend resources on unit types that actively get counter-picked by the enemy. **2. Balance passes are expected, not a design barrier** Claiming a rework requires “too much rebalancing” ignores _Definitive Edition’s_ entire update model. Major civ reworks always require follow-up balance passes. Fear of stat adjustments is never a valid reason to retain bad UI design. **3. Artificial UI friction is terrible game design** Balancing a civ’s 220 pop space or price efficiency with artificial UI friction is terrible game design. Stat and cost tweaks balance raw power, while local production buildings should always offer direct, responsive tactical control. ---
**Author:** ![HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/hoopthrower/32/56873_2.png) [@HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/HoopThrower)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 3:39pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/144 "2026-09-08T15:39:47Z")
For someone who complains about appeals to emotion and shifting the goalpost you really just don’t get the point that if you remove the banner armies you’re basically left with a generic civ. ---
**Author:** ![M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m1kazuki6861/32/213717_2.png) [@M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M1kazuki6861)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 3:57pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/145 "2026-09-08T15:57:57Z")
By that logic, almost every civ in the game is “generic” simply because they have standard local production. China’s identity should be defined by its unique roster, age-up mechanics (Wonders), and historically themed Home City shipments—not its queue menu. ---
**Author:** ![M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m00z1lla/32/104042_2.png) [@M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M00Z1LLA)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:05pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/146 "2026-09-08T16:05:39Z")
> [@UpmostRook9474](#): > > I didn’t realize you meant a handheld version. In that case, that makes sense for it. > > I still feel like a range of 10 is a bit too short for it, though. It’s hard for me to imagine a rocket pod having less range than a musket, unless the fire arrows it fires are loaded with very little gunpowder. Yes, a few of the stats would need to be adjusted including increasing the range. The biggest difference would be that a Rocket Pod would absurd if it continuously fired without reloading like Flamethrowers do. It would have to have a reload animation which is a substantial drawback that would compensate for extending the range. I think something like 16 range would be reasonable. The area of effect and artillery multiplier might need a bit of adjustment too. > [@UpmostRook9474](#): > > the inclusion of the “flamethrower” in that book is more likely meant as a record of weapons that had been used throughout Korean history, rather than evidence that it was actually still in use in the 19th century. The article I linked to the museum says it’s from the late Joseon period. Even if it fell out of use later it was definitely in use during the game’s timeframe. ---
**Author:** ![Tetsuryu](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/tetsuryu/32/164336_2.png) [@Tetsuryu](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/Tetsuryu)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:24pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/147 "2026-09-08T16:24:28Z")
> [@M1kazuki6861](#): > > Selon cette logique, presque toutes les civilisations du jeu sont « génériques » simplement parce qu’elles ont une production locale standard. c’est déjà presque le cas avec les civs européennes, vous êtes le seul à défendre l’idée de supprimer les formations en armée pour soit se caler sur la formation individuel, soit formation comme l’infanterie russes Vous me rappellez un ami qui jouait à world of warcraft, il voulait jouer un druide se tranformant en félin spécialisé dans les dégats sur la durée et il voulait le jouer que sur les dommages directs, mais en faisant cela, il avait pas assez de dommage infliger et il voulait à tout prix que le félin abandonne entièrement les dégàts sur la durée, à la fin il a joué autre chose car c’était plus possible de continuer ainsi ---
**Author:** ![M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m1kazuki6861/32/213717_2.png) [@M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M1kazuki6861)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:35pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/148 "2026-09-08T16:35:28Z")
European civs aren’t generic—Dutch Banks, British Manor Houses, and Portuguese TC wagons prove that civ identity comes from unique eco and macro mechanics, not queue UI restrictions. That WoW comparison fails completely. Wanting a Cat Druid to ignore DoTs is like asking to turn Chu Ko Nu into heavy cavalry—it fundamentally alters what the unit does. Single-unit queueing doesn’t change unit roles or mechanics at all; it just removes an artificial UI restriction on _ **how** _ they are produced. Tactical flexibility isn’t “changing the class”, it’s basic RTS mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m00z1lla/32/104042_2.png) [@M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M00Z1LLA)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:45pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/149 "2026-09-08T16:45:55Z")
> [@M1kazuki6861](#): > > The WoW analogy misses the mark It’s spot on. Trying to brute force a specialized build to play in a standard way without utilizing any of its advantages and then declaring that it is badly designed is exactly what you’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Tetsuryu](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/tetsuryu/32/164336_2.png) [@Tetsuryu](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/Tetsuryu)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:46pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/150 "2026-09-08T16:46:44Z")
au contraire vous voulez jouer autrement une civs à tout prix au lieu de choisir une qui conviendrait mieux à vos attentes et votre style de jeu ---
**Author:** ![M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m1kazuki6861/32/213717_2.png) [@M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M1kazuki6861)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 5:03pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/151 "2026-09-08T17:03:29Z")
> [@M00Z1LLA](#): > > It’s spot on. Trying to brute force a specialized build to play in a standard way without utilizing any of its advantages and then declaring that it is badly designed is exactly what you’re doing. You’re arguing against a ghost, because you didn’t actually read the proposal. No one is “brute-forcing” anything onto the current rigid system. The entire point of the rework is a structural overhaul: moving Banner Armies to Home City shipments, giving infantry Russian-style fixed batches, and giving cavalry standard individual training. You’re accusing me of playing a specialized build wrong while completely missing what’s even being discussed. > [@Tetsuryu](#): > > On the contrary, you want to play a CIVS differently at all costs instead of choosing one that would better suit your expectations and your style of play That’s a lazy deflection. Wanting to fix an outdated, restrictive production layout isn’t “playing a civ differently at all costs” - it’s asking for proper game design. By that logic, no civilization should ever be reworked, patched, or modernized. Suggesting someone to “just play a different civ” whenever a structural flaw is pointed out is just a way to shut down conversation instead of engaging with the actual mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/hoopthrower/32/56873_2.png) [@HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/HoopThrower)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 5:10pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/152 "2026-09-08T17:10:25Z")
Here’s the thing… If I wanted to play Russia I’d play Russia. ---
**Author:** ![RatcicleFan](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/ratciclefan/32/115119_2.png) [@RatcicleFan](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/RatcicleFan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 5:17pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/153 "2026-09-08T17:17:46Z")
> [@Ekdal1378](#): > > YOU CAN ADD THINGS AND AESTHETICS BUT NOT REMOVE THEM, Why not? TAD Aesthetics suck. If people are allowed to be emotional in favor of keeping those features, why should people who don’t like them just suck it up? ---
**Author:** ![M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m1kazuki6861/32/213717_2.png) [@M1kazuki6861](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M1kazuki6861)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 5:18pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/154 "2026-09-08T17:18:50Z")
By that logic, every single civ besides Russia is identical just because they produce units individually. If you want to keep reducing structural design to “if I wanted to play Russia” while completely ignoring the actual mechanics written right in front of you, go right ahead. You’re just arguing in circles against ghosts of arguments nobody made. If basic reading comprehension is optional here, I’m checking out of this circus. I’ll drop the full redesign with numbers later down the line. Until then, have fun debating yourselves ---
**Author:** ![HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/hoopthrower/32/56873_2.png) [@HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/HoopThrower)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 6:11pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/155 "2026-09-08T18:11:37Z")
The other civs have different things going for them. Which has been brought up already. Like I know it’s getting over your head but if you remove the Banner Armies you remove China’s gimmick. ---
**Author:** ![Ekdal1378](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/ekdal1378/32/34504_2.png) [@Ekdal1378](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/Ekdal1378)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/156 "2026-09-08T18:28:18Z")
> [@M1kazuki6861](#): > > China’s identity should be defined by its unique roster, age-up mechanics (Wonders), and historically themed Home City shipments—not its queue menu. Every civ have HC shipments: no unique to chinese Wonders and Unique unit roster is a feature of asian civs, not just chinese. Ottomans have auto villager training, russians have batch infantry and chinese have banner armies, which defines its macro. Not every civ bonus have to be super complicated to make the civ feel unique. ---
**Author:** ![HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/hoopthrower/32/56873_2.png) [@HoopThrower](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/HoopThrower)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 9:09pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/157 "2026-09-08T21:09:08Z")
Not to mention that if you remove the banner armies you’re just left with a bunch of redundant units. ---
**Author:** ![YolkyPage166](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/yolkypage166/32/29229_2.png) [@YolkyPage166](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/YolkyPage166)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 9:28pm UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/158 "2026-09-08T21:28:26Z")
Look dude, I understand that you are really passionate about the Chinese civ but you have to understand that the developers won’t remove the basic gimmick of the Chinese civ and then completely change the balance of the civ, since you remove the mechanic that the civ’s balance revolved around. > [@M1kazuki6861](#): > > European civs aren’t generic—Dutch Banks, British Manor Houses, and Portuguese TC wagons Funny that you mention Portugal’s TC wagons, because I, personally, hate that mechanic for Portuguese and wished that it was never added in the original game. However, it was and I have to accept that it is here to stay, since I can understand that the civ’s balance and whole identity revolves around the free TC wagon and I understand that the majority of players who play this civ enjoy it as it is. So what do I do when I want to make suggestions about improving Ports? I suggest new, more interactive Cards or maybe some new Unique Units and I don’t ask for some massive, radical change to the core identity of the civ. I recomend you try a similar approach, you’d receive much more positive feedback. ---
**Author:** ![UpmostRook9474](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/upmostrook9474/32/47514_2.png) [@UpmostRook9474](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/UpmostRook9474)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 2:46am UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/159 "2026-09-09T02:46:49Z")
> [@YolkyPage166](#): > > I, personally, hate that mechanic for Portuguese and wished that it was never added in the original game. I’m not a big fan of it either. I don’t really need that many TCs. I just wish the Logistician would give me a Fort instead of a TC when aging up to Age II. I’d be totally fine with the Fort only having 75% of HP and 50% of attack power in Age II. Alternatively, the Logistician could give me a Military Wagon + 1 Cannoneer instead of a TC, and enable Cannoneers to be trained from Taverns and Forts. That way, I could use the wagon to build a free Tavern and train Cannoneers from it in Age II. > [@M00Z1LLA](#): > > The article I linked to the museum says it’s from the late Joseon period. Even if it fell out of use later it was definitely in use during the game’s timeframe. I’m skeptical of that. Based on descriptions in the Korean academic journal I linked, we know that after a victory in the late Goryeo period in which flamethrowers were used, they were rapidly eliminated because of their cost. In theory, that would mean that within this timeframe, the Koreans had stopped using this weapon, just like the Chinese. The Japanese had inspired them to abandon the older forms of firearms and shift toward the more modern muskets of the time. This is also supported by the performance of the Korean musketeers at the Battle of Hutong in the 17th century. I mean, even though we know they were so isolated that they still used fire arrows to attack an American ship in the mid-19th century, it still doesn’t really make sense for them to go back to using flamethrowers several centuries later. > [@M00Z1LLA](#): > > ![image](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/9/2/9223412f2d3548fb79b585f6a5944befcc9a1fd5.png) Okay, I search the photo later, and it turns out the weapon shown in it is actually a five-barrel volley gun, not a fire-thrower. Look closely. Although the image is blurry and the brightness is too low, there are indeed five gun barrels. What’s interesting is that the Korean five-barrel volley gun has a mounting base, unlike the Chinese version, which suggests that it was probably designed to be mounted on a wagon. ---
**Author:** ![M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/m00z1lla/32/104042_2.png) [@M00Z1LLA](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/M00Z1LLA)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:21am UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/160 "2026-09-09T03:21:41Z")
> [@UpmostRook9474](#): > > Okay, I search the photo later, and it turns out the weapon shown in it is actually a five-barrel volley gun, not a fire-thrower. Look closely. Although the image is blurry and the brightness is too low, there are indeed five gun barrels. > > What’s interesting is that the Korean five-barrel volley gun has a mounting base, unlike the Chinese version, which suggests that it was probably designed to be mounted on a wagon. Yeah that’s what is shown in the original picture and in the drawing. ![image](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/4/d/4d5711869af073adc47bcf2352df24f4e142fcc6.jpeg) ![image](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/4/b/4b1979dbd236097476c5ab9a0602a7e494ede742.png) 3 banks of volley guns go in the bottom compartment. And there’s a separate flamethrower weapon in the tiger’s mouth as a last resort defense. The descriptions I read said it was mostly for signalling where/when to attack. I think it’s probably obscure enough to be a HC shipment only kind of unit. That way it could be made really deadly with a volley attack from afar, flamethrower up close, and maybe even an aura that buffs other nearby artillery. ---
**Author:** ![UpmostRook9474](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/upmostrook9474/32/47514_2.png) [@UpmostRook9474](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/UpmostRook9474)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:25am UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/161 "2026-09-09T03:25:46Z")
> [@M00Z1LLA](#): > > And there’s a separate flamethrower weapon in the tiger’s mouth as a last resort defense. The volley gun wasn’t necessarily tied to the Flamethrower Cart as a single combined unit. Sure, this combination could work, but each of them could work on its own too. That tiger-shaped Flamethrower is also shown as a standalone weapon in that weapons compendium. And in the first place, the Flamethrower is already clearly outdated for the Koreans within the timeframe. A more reasonable setup would be to mount the gun on a wagon or cart and remove the flamethrower part, and appaerently that would basically just turn it into a Korean version of the Organ Gun. I’m not really opposed to this combination. It’s just that, if the Koreans can have access to Flamethrowers because of a compendium book in the 19th century, then there’s no reason why the Chinese shouldn’t be able to as well. ---
**Author:** ![Hsiman4096](https://forums.ageofempires.com/user_avatar/forums.ageofempires.com/hsiman4096/32/34835_2.png) [@Hsiman4096](https://forums.ageofempires.com/u/Hsiman4096)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:46am UTC](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634/162 "2026-09-09T03:46:41Z")
You can find the same weapon in 武備志 of Ming Dynasty, I don’t think it’s unique to Korean. ![QQ20260909-114351](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/2/2/226de6e3ade5b5320cfef303c6971d9731659b2c.png) [Previous page](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634.md?page=7) [Next page](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/asian-civs-overhaul/288634.md?page=9)