i overall like the ideas. the Kuafu limited is a good idea, but i would give it better stats to be more raid resistent especialy since it costs favour unlike dwarves. the building bonus should stay aswell as at least the wood gather if not the gold gather bonus too.
i like to give every major good a more stronger identiy.
i like getting the mythic age god earlier but its skill unlocks mythic age.
i like to make chu ko nu classical and dao swordsman heroic.
white horse should be the equivalent to norse raiding cav.
i am torn about the fire archer tho… i think fire archer fits chinese better than wu zu jav but for whatever reason the sound they make annoys me and it sounds in my ears differently than other archers if they would fix the sound i would prefer fire archer 100% over wu zu jav.
oh and i would maybe change white horse cav to be range archer cav cause i am still confused that japense get archer cav but not chinese.
i would make the white horse have a strong multiplier vs infantry and a slight multiplier vs archers. and if we stay with the fire archer (with replaced sfx) instead of wu zu jav i would give the chu ko nu a strong multiplier vs archers and a slight multiplier vs infantry.
you could also make Jiang Ziya as the unique healer hero for shennong but still remove him for the other two.
i would give the hero kuafu a name (finally) like may Bofu?
Interesting concept, however:
How are you gonna deal with mass Slingers, coyote warriors, huskarl or warrior priest without a generalist melee unit in classic age?
Army compositions with high pierce armor would be even stronger vs china
Removing units for the sake of it or swaping the around ages leave gaps that they used to fill. You need to account for that to keep options available and not just have a losing situation into certain gods.
Chu ko nu and fire archer is kinda fine since they overlap in function for most things. That said, you would be losing the vs building archer unique aspect and without dao in classic age your capability to destroy buildings in classic age becomes very poor, neither halb, nor pioneer, chu ko nu or wuzu jav do a decent job at this. Breaking walls is gonna take a while.
As for the White horse cav:
A raiding unit that becomes available in Heroic age is slow, considering other raiding civs would have been doing that 1 age earlier. This is why White horse cav, as well as all the other heroic cavalry units are more combat focused.
It is already a more practical raiding option than Tiger cav since its faster and easier to mass.
I was thinking about that change as well, to keep the fire archer and to remove the Wu zu javeliner, while making the Chu Ko Nu the anti archer unit. But Chu ko nu have such a small range that i tough it would not be effective. The more important reason is the pioneers, both pioneers and fire archers use bows and are very similar. Having different weapon for different counter unit made more sense to me.
I dont think WHC should be range unit. I did try some concepts with that but felt too much. They already have one of the best cavalry in the face of Tiger Cav, giving them range cavalry sounds too op, and too similar to the Egyptians. If Tiger Cav had multiplier to only one unit type, i can see it happening, but with Tiger cav having vs 2 unit types multiplier, giving WHC 2 types of unit multiplier seems too much, and range at that (that sounds broken).
Yea i was considering making Jiang Ziya the Unique hero for Shennong, but after my ludicrous play for the immortal pillars, Changjie being the spokesman of Shennong made him pretty iconic imo, and cool to have him as part of his gameplay. TBH it doesn’t matter who is between those 2, one seems more thematically connected thats all.
Well vs Slingers, i assume the Wu Zu javeliner. Huskarl in clasical is available only to Freys, so thats gona be more tricky than the other Norse mach ups, and for that specific match up the Chinese would be playing different strategy. More defensive, wall and buildings. After all they do have 3 range units in classical, they should have some weakness overall. And with the new Heroes available in Classical it should be fine i guess. If you are FuXi having NeZha frontline with his fire trail should be enough. NuWa is already packed for defense play. Shennong will have access to strong healing hero in classical that will be mitigating some of the dmg, while he plays more defensibly vs Freyr specifically. Aztec will be mostly like that as well, tho Warrior priest and their Bankai form should be hard nerfed to the ground or reworked, im not a fan of the Aztec at all with their current implementation. But that is another topic whatsoever. I think an army with so many archers available to them so early in the game should have some disadvantages, but also having 3 types of ranged units in classical is HUGE advantage as well. It sure can be played around, i dont think there should be problems in that category. Currently the Chinese have 3 ranged units with no disadvantage, ranged vs myth, range vs infantry, range vs range, and them having the most available units in the game dose lead me to removing some of them. I was thinking of leaving the Dao Swordsman in classical, but that still leaves them with 5 available spamable units compared with the Greeks that only have 3, or the Egyptians having 4, or Norse having … i still think the hirdman is a mistake but o well, 5, Aty having 4 units, Japanese - 4, Aztecs - 4. I think the current live version gives too much units and options to the Chinese and that should be reduced, balanced and streamlined.
About WHC, I think thats the idea. The Chinese are not riding civ, they are slower and more defense oriented. Thats why you get WHC in heroic, it is not expected of China to raid like Norse or Japanese, or have the option like the Greeks. And loosing a whole age of not raiding can be a big disadvantage. Having a more dedicated raiding cavalry unit rather than good overall unit should close the gap faster, with faster and instantaneous raiding. And that will differentiate them more from the Tiger cav, that is just pure awesomeness late game. I think it fits well and is better thematically and gameplay wise than what we currently got.
They dont
Game is not only about what you wanna do, also what you can be forced to depending on map spawn, etc.
Having a weakness and having no way to deal with something are to separate things
Thats on mythic age, if you are moving that to classic age then sure, but also would be insane of a power up
This is not happening in a proper scenario tbf, thou i guess i kinda see the pov you sre coming from where you throw a wall and call it a day.
Not even campaign levels of healing héroes make up that difference
Its not. Archer mass in classic age is the worse option of the 3 unit types. They dont preassure Buildings, you are removing fire archers. They are slow and if you sre caught up even the units they are supposed to beat, beat them when the gap is closed.
This is false btw
Yea but thats part of the assymetry. Aztecs have 5 btw: archer, spearmen, coyote, ocelot, warrior priest
Greek have 3 but get another 3 on heroic. China right now gets 2
Eggy also gets 3, same for atty or 4 if rhea. Japan has 5 and unlocks 3 more on heroic.
That is fair, Just mentioning you are leaving big gaps in your way of going about it. I Personally dont think china should Just have no options vs huskarl because its only one god.
Its not for the same reasons you mentioned. Its coming up an age later. Walls are around among other scenarios. The goal of the game shifts and thats why the heroic age cav units are more combat focused than the classic age ones. You yourself reached the reason why its a bad idea to remove the combat aspect.
Disagree, but its whats interesting from this theory builds, how different povs see different flaws on things and how to go about them.
True!
I think i see the Chinese playing slower and more defensive, where walls and barrack towers play bigger roles, in combination with 3 archer types you should be going Heroic pretty safely. And if you are playing on defense and have the base as supporting factor, healing can matter a lot. I dont expect China rushing classical with all in Archer ball, i mean, this type of play ( one type of unit) should be hard to pull off or not at all in a even match.
True, but isnt that part of the asymmetric design? The Norse have mostly infantry and a playstyle that is aggressive, while the Chinese i see as having archers and playing defensive. With other civs having different playstyles. Rather than the same playstyle but executed with slight micro and macro differences? And the weakness of the Archer is compensated with buildings and towers that can be placed on barracks and in some cases walls.
My logic here is that with Priest are part of your army as Egy, if the enemy have MU you are bound to see them, and since it is spamable i counted it in the 4 unit. Like you have access to 4 spamable units in classical not tthat they are unlocked in classical. Aty get 4 in classical - Murmillo, Turma, Katapeltes and Chierobalista? Japan - Onna musha and Bushi , for some reason i didn’t count them. And yea, forgot the Warrior priest for the Aztecs (srsly they should put a build limit for that guy). As for the greeks - yes you get 3 in classical, 3 in heroic and 1 in mythic = 7. With my design the units you see in your army is 7 again - pioneers, ge halbedeers, WuZu Jav, ChuKoNu, Dao Sword, WHC and Tiger cav. With the current live version of the Chinese we get Fire archers and Sages putting them with 9 spamable units. Will not count Jhiang Ziya since he have build limit of 1.
Do point them out if you see more gaps. Some are intentional but i might have left some unintentional.
I still think WHC as a primary raiding unit, similar to riding cavalry fits better. Since i dont want the Chinese to dominate or be mobile powerhouse in Heroic as well. I think that is the asymmetrical part of my design. Giving the Chinese very different scenarios and obstacles for them to overtake. In heroic they get Dao and siege so they can continue their advance and can now take open field battles with more immobile army, with the access to a second Unique hero, as a sponge in the front line or back that can help defend flanks and such. I think it creates fun and different point of view and experience.
Im interested in this topic, especially game design and it is fun to talk about those things. If for example, Dao are available in Classical, giving the Chinese 3 ranged and 2 infantry units, do you think is a better approach? And is that approach good for the asymmetric aspect when at the same time the Greeks get access only to 1 archer, 1 inf. and 1 cav.? Since sure the Greeks can have access to counter every scenario, but it is more expensive and you do need 3 buildings, while the Chinese get so much choice in classical and have 2 upgrades on the barracks, one of witch is faster training. And the arguments about that some units counter the Chinese army with my design, dose it not affect the Greeks that they are missing anti archer unit. or more importantly, they dont have a reliable way to deal with range MU in classical. Like, a lot of the current civs have “big gaps” but the civs still function well, no?
This is not the case currently. Lighting weapons is a very good combat god power that enables to fight in classic age specially vs civs you can gold starve.
Xuanu also allows for the addon upgrade to make Buildings work as if they were X3 so you can quickly mass an army in classic age and fight.
Bringing up norse. Its like if you remove throwing axemen from classic age. They dont have archers, and thats their weakness. Yet they have a tool to deal with certain units. Remove it from classic age and now theres no unit they have in that age that can deal with mass hoplites or mass murmillo. Imo one thing is to keep a weakness and the other is a handicap by removing a needed tool. Like wise, if norse didnt have raiding cavalry in classic age they would have no unit that would beat a pure archer comp.
Yea that was Just confusing from the way i wrote it. I meant to say eggy adquieres 3 new units in Heroic age. You are right they have 4 in classic
This they already do thou. RC doesnt have vill bonus. And for WHC since they are quite faster than Tiger cav they will always be better raiders, Just like RC is faster than jarl. If you wanted it to have a better impact on the raiding dynamic would need to bring it to classic age.
Some maps allow this, others not so much. Having forward gold mines or no secure second gold mines force you into having to branch out of your base sooner than what you would probable like. So its less of a decisiĂłn choice of the player and more adapting to whats available and not being able to