I wanted to say that the concept of a unique unit that could pack/unpack like a trebuchet would be a nice addition.
I don’t know if this one in particular would be the best, but the idea was not exploited.
1 Like
If they’re gonna cap it at 40 civs, as some are now speculating, I’d rather not have 2 of the remaining 3 be Europeans. I’d want at least one more civ for India, and getting something for the kingdoms of Zimbabwe (Swahili? Bantu? idk) would be nice, too.
1 Like
they won’t cap it at 40
2 Likes
Hahaha I love that now new civs threads are gonna be free of “devs said no new civs”.
If we’re gonna split slavs in three civs what about, instead of Rus+Poles+Bohemians, we do Rus+Wends+Serbs. With serbs beiing a (maybe innaccurate) way to represent south slavs. Serbs, croats and bosnians were their own kingdoms in the middle ages, and I know croats are more of a naval civs and serbs should be castle oriented or smth like that, but we have worse umbrellas than that and serbs croats and bosnian are the same ethno-cultural group anyway.
Edit: I forgot to talk about the bonuses.
I like the pikemen and skirms upgrade free (I understand it as they have no cost but still have to be researched).
The 2 vils per farm is amazing. It’s a way when you can make a civ unique without making it weird. It’s changing a mechanic, but one that doesn’t involve much interaction from the player anyway.
A UU that can be packed and unpacked is a great idea. Not sure about it being a building that can train units.
We do nt need 13 Slav civs either, at most I could see Wends, or Poles + Bohemians.
I seriously hope the next expo is not in Europe, though.
3 Likes
Wends are mainly before 1000s, and I am focusing on 1000-1600 with Bohemians and Poles, which makes Wends irrelevant.
Bohemians + Poles + Serbs + Moldavians would be better for West, Central and South Slavs
2 Likes
Wends are not meant to refer to the tribal group, but as a way to refer to both poles and bohemians.
I learned in this sub that it was a german exonim for refering to slavs.
1 Like
It wouldn’t do anything if it couldn’t train units. To balance, it would have high price and build time
So are Huns and Goths, yet they made it into the game.
If anything, AoE2 has a preference for civs that existed earlier, and has them transform into their later counterparts by virtue of UUs and UTs.
1 Like
It is better that we haves Poles and Bohemians who both could equally represent Wends while being unique from each other
It could be a field cannon or a ballista or smth like that
1 Like
I honestly struggle to find how one would ever make Poles different to Magyars, Lithuanains or Slavs, in any practical level, by themselves.
A Wends civ sounds better.
1 Like
I honestly don’t want to get into a debate which of Bohemians or Poles “deserves” to be an in-game civ more.
And if they’re both added, in a single expansion, people who are championing Arfrica and Asia will riot.
Next DLC will likely be set again in Eastern Europe featuring Polish and Bohemians, considerating how themed is upcoming one, and with campaigns related to Jadwiga (Polish), Hussite Wars (Bohemians), Vytautas (Lithuanians) and Matthias Corvinus (Magyars).
The next one then for the Caucausus region with Georgians and Armenians,
4 Likes
Serbs have been added to my list.
Wends are out of any debate since we do not have Germans for Goths, Teutons, Franks, Vikings, British etc. and “Latins” for Italians, Spanish, Portugals 
1 Like
Yeah man, that’s a you problem, and frankly, if you can’t see how my suggestions are going to make Poles unique to the other Slav civs then that just proves your ignorance.
Please explain you reasoning for choosing ‘Wends’ instead.
1 Like
and people don’t hate Incan trush enough as is.
this is relatively balanced.
I think this is more nerf then anything.
I actually like this.
i really don’t like this idea at all, either its too slow, or its too strong.
for an imp age UT this honestly doesn’t seem that good, as by the time you get to researching it, the major benefit of it is long gone.
a heavy cavalry with extra range is cause for concern because it negates part of the advantage that pikes or camels have over it.
need to know what the tech tree looks like further.
3 Likes
+3 attack, no extra HP or Armor bonus. Basically just to make them a little stronger against raids.
Archers cost no wood, period?
First for everything
Or it’s just perfect.
I had this thought too, but maybe it gives more pop space for soldiers instead? I really don’t know.
No range then, something else we need to be found
+3 attack vs 1/1 less armor, Incan villagers don’t get extra health.
I think making them cost no wood is a dumb idea in general.
no, because here’s the thing - perfect in the mid game is not perfect in the imperial age.
i mean it could be balanced, it would just have to have a clear downside.