Why are you ccomparing none medieval things to a medieval game?
1 Like
Exactly. They are the largest civ umbrellas. The Franks and Britons are not as internally diverse civs as the Slavs, Teutons, and Indians.
The Slavs in the game are actually Ruthenians.
Teutons, as the name suggests, is the Teutonic Order.
The Indians in the game are actually the Delhi Sultanate itself.
These three civs are the most abuses in the game. Other civs are much more homogeneous nationally and culturally.
1 Like
No, an Order can never be a civilization.
The name suggest medieval HRE, Regnum Teutonicorum.
Get it right.
There is no Teutonic Order as a civ, and there never will be.
1 Like
Because we arent talking about whst they actually represent but what are they meant to represent. Teutons is meant to represent the HRE, Indians are meant to represent Indians.
The diference is that making a medieval Indian civ is an honestly pretty stupid choice because you are representing civs with no cultural nor ethnical links named based on a geographic location inatead of a people while representing the whole HRE with a civ makes total sense.
1 Like
Hey bro, I have few suggestions for Serbs. Let me know what you think.
I wouldn’t agree on it being archer civ, cavalry ok, but maybe defensive or infantry civ.
So archers cost no wood, seems too op to me, and archers aren’t what Serbs are known for.
Mostly good, but I would change third one with something else.
And gold mines lasts 20% longer seems like some other civ has that bonus already…
Sorry, I don’t have good suggestions for these…
Popovski Bir - is a great idea, I don’t know if this is too strong, but definitely accurate.
I’m not sure for Zamanica, both techs seem economy oriented, maybe instead:
Faithful - units very resistant to enemy monk conversion (because Serbs rejected every religion imposed on them, save for orthodoxy which was very much reshaped to reflect pagan roots)
On point, but I keep people complaining that there are too many cavalry UU in the game, I suggested it also. Here are my suggestions:
Gusar (irregular light cavalry shock troops, forerunners to hussars),
Vlastela (unique heavy cavalry with less armor and more speed),
Buzdovaner (heavy infantry which commonly used flanged mace, this wasn’t unique only to Serbia, however flanged mace Pernach or Šestoper/Shestopyor somewhat was).
Sagena longboat (similar to Viking Drakkar, it carried around 40 men) - Sagena ship was used by Serbian Adriatic pirates (9th-11th century) known as Pagania or Narentines pirates, their leader had a title Judge.
This seams reasonable.
Good suggestion, but I have better idea as this one feels more unique than just a simple monastery.
Wonder can be Fortress-Monastery unique to Serbian architectural style such as Monastery Manasija surrounded by high walls (Moravian style)
5 Likes
This is just a better Inca bonus.
NEVER have a gunpowder UT at the castle age
Terrible bonus. I would rather have normal farms
This is basically Lithuanians but sucking at early castle age then.
Not a fan of this. Basically the Hun team bonus
Now you are making their imperial age broken as well.
So this is basically a fast attacking low attack unit with high armour? Or do they have bonus damage against low armour units? Not a fan but its fine.
I dont like this at all. Sounds probably OP for team games
This bonus sucks
Not a fan of this but its fine on paper.
This bonus also sucks as an imperial UT
Too abusable.
This discount is better than the other archer discounts so it may need to be nerfed
Very descriptive
Not a fan but probably fine if it only takes effect on castle age
?
OP with Illumination. Balanced without it
What bonuses? What is their niche?
A worse Sicilian bonus I guess.
Either way Polish and Croatians suck hard on early game. The Polish eco bonus is worse at late game and its usefulness of early game is debatable (its most probably worse) and Croatians dont have anything going on at mid game with just tankier spears. Serbians have the villager bonus and the arcvher bonus that may need to be nerfed in some way but its probably balanceable, their light cav may also help. The Pole late game paladins are ridiculously OP but their early game sucks hard.
Bohemia needs an alternate eco bonus and castle age UT but beyond that its probably fine. Would rather give them another focus other than gunpowder as well. Serbians need a partial redesign and may need a bit of love at castle age while maybe a nerf in feudal.
And?
Tarasnice is a Castle age Gunpowder unit so 
It is not terrible lmao, but ok. This would be a huge bonus early on and even late game
Ok
Give a better bonus.
I saw some suggesting 30% without people complaining
No one makes monk armies remember?
Give a better bonus.
Ok? +2 is fairer if loom is a thing
Give a better bonus.
I don’t know this is abusable but ok.
Wow, I never knew some things could be better than others. Kinda like the Cuman tech that is better than Franks’ tech or Huns Team bonus huh?
Ty
m
No idea
MY thread was made before Sicilians were known 
Cheaper farms in early game, more condensed so not as far from TCs or other defenses. In late game also more space for other buildgins
3 Likes
First give us dogs (not “Hunting Wolf”)are a scenario editor unit.
You cant have a bonus that its always better than other. Thats how civ design works
Fair.
False. You are paying almost twice as much for the same ammount of food who will run out twice as fast. Even in terms of work rate the Khmer bonus helps more. In late game you save space at the cost of wood as well. Just make the farms cost the normal ammount of wood. Even after that the wood you save in the first minutes its barely better than the Teuton bonus and then it becomes normal after the first farm expires.
Its not ok though. Its bad design since the civ lacks an interesting strat and its too similar to other civ to some point.
Why should I? You are the one designing the civ. I dont need to take the time to try to fix all 4 civs for you
Theres some people who dont know how to balance. 208 Paladins with 23 attack is just ridiculously OP
Arena
Again, why should I? Theres still a ton of options for new bonuses that you should able to choose without them being bad
Yeah +2 is better, would be nice if the bonus scaled through the ages as well though.
WHY?
Just spam monasteries to death.
I say that because Im not sure 33% cheaper archers on feudal will ever be balanced. And that comparison is bad, each one is specialized in something (Huns help early game and its free, Franks helping on knight spam and Cumans helping the most on early imp raids)
You could give them a beetter description, you know?
I mean, Light cav arent very good on team games
Fine, its still a good idea to change it.
More expensive farms for the food they give you mean?
Also forgot to add that the gold lasting bonus needs to be better
Anyway, I would remove the current Serbian cav bonus and maybe give them something strong but minor. maybe removing bloodlines but giving +1 attack each age to all cav as well as imperial hussars
What do you think of this?
I left some suggestions of @DarthPyro4335 even those that suck because it’s not necessary for all of them to be great or the civ would be op
Buzdovaner - heavy infantry with high armor and health, low movement speed and attack speed, ignores armor, bonus against buildings
Sagena - faster than Galleon with faster attack speed, lower attack and lower health (maybe more arrows if garrisoned with archers)
Wonder - Fortress-Monastery Monastery Manasija
Popovski Bir: Monasteries generate food (Castle Age)
Slava - units very resistant to enemy monk conversion
Villagers gain +3 melee attack in Feudal Age
Cavalry do +15% damage while elevated
Archer cost 50% less wood
Gold mines last 20% longer
Team Bonus: Light Cavalry +10 HP
Restricted units: Champion, Arbalester, Gunpowder units, Siege Onager
4 Likes
Too similar to Teutonic Knights
That seems a bit like Longboats but seems okay.
I would personally recomend just removing it. Its a worse Tatar bonus in every way possible and for melee units its also really hard to use
also whats the point of a mediocre cheaper archer bonus without arbs?
Btw my criticism here is only based on civ design, not on my opinion on we needing the civs or not
I don’t think Teutonic Knights have ignore armor option, and Tutons have high attack and thus good against trash units, I thought Buzdovaner to have lower attack
To balance out not having having alabasters, so to mass skirmishers in fight against civ with mass alabasters
I know its all good
4 Likes
I dont think thats diferent enough honestly. Also a unit with low attack and low attack rate ignoring armour is kind of counterintuitive. I think you have to go with either a super tanky infantry with low damage output or a unit that ignores armour but not both
I rahter have them give arbalest or just not have the bonus affecting archers. The discount isnt close of being comparable to the arbalest upgrade.
I dont understand the general rebuke “too similar to XYZ”. If every civ in AoE2 was unique it would be AoE3 which many people from AoE2 community dislike.
The proposed civ should be appraised from all aspects not only bonuses… Like UU, UT, bonuses, historical significance, campaign suitability…
4 Likes
Aoe2 has more diferent UUs that 3 that its more flexible and more or less lets you add whatever you want. And Aoe3 also has a bunch of other weird stuff that allows you to play with similar bonuses to other civs like the US age up. You have to always make your UUs and bonuses diferent in AoE2
Im taking all those things into account but civ design is first
3 Likes
It should be a grand total. A boring civ design-wise, no matter how interesting it was historically speaking, still is a boring civ.
There’s also the question on how far you can go with antisymmetry and how close to existing boni new boni can be. All questions different people will respond to differently.
Especially wishy-washy terms like historical significance and campaign suitability seem to be the main reason here that people fight each other which civ should or should not be part of the game.
New architecture sets are a key factor for me too.
It’s first and foremost a game.
To return on topic, this suggested DLC is probably going to turn at least partially to reality with DotD. It probably makes more sense to talk about once we know more about DotD.
5 Likes
No no, I didn’t mean it would have low attack just less attack than teuton. So it would be more tanky oriented but still enough damage to be useful…
I know and you’re right, I just figured that Serbs weren’t know for their archers so I purposely wanted them removed, the bonus is there just so they wouldn’t be destroyed hard by archer civ, so there is a chance to defend against mass archers. Its definitely not close to arbalesters.
two down, two to go?
*Two down, please not any more
1 Like
whats wrong with croatia and serbia 
2 Likes