[Civ Concept] Come help with the design!

Hello everyone! So a few days ago I watched this video from SotL where he made a commentary about having a lot of chavalry and infantry civs, so I started thinking about a new possible Archer civ for the game.

For a new civ to make sense, I think it has to be competitive, fun, and bring something new to the table. With this in mind I came up with the following idea as the base structure for the civ, but I’d like to see how far we can get with the design as a community.

Civilization Name: Undefined (we need a civilization that is represented by the following mechanics!)

Civ Bonuses:

  • Bonus 1: Starting in castle age, infantry (and maybe foot archers too) deal 2/1 damage back whenever they are damaged by an enemy melee/ranged unit. (Missed shots wouldnt proc, siege is unaffected)
  • Bonus 2: Maybe Once a research is completed, gain 25% of its cost back in wood.
  • Bonus 3: Maybe Repair cost reduced by X% (maybe 60%, making it only 40% of normal cost).
  • Bonus 4: To be determied

Unique unit:

  • No name yet! - Foot archer with stats similar to an Arbalest (maybe 1 less range and/or 1 less damage, but could have like +10 hp).
    What makes it different? Split shot → Every time they attack, they shoot 1/2 (2/3 if elite) extra arrows at different enemies for a % of its damage.

Castle Techs:

  • Castle Age: Executing arrows → For a (slightly pricy) cost, foot archers (arbalests and UU) execute targets whenever one of their shots would leave them below X hp (this could be a fixed amount like 8hp, or a % of their hp, like 5%) (Split shots would apply this)

  • Imperial Age: Open for ideas!

Team bonus:

  • Maybe Walls/Gates grant +1/+3 LoS

Tech tree:

  • Barracks: Full
  • Archery range: Full archer and skirmisher line, cav archers do NOT have Heavy upgrade.
  • Stable: No Hussar upgrade, No Cavalier upgrade. Room for steppe lancers and/or camels depending on the civ’s region.
  • Siege workshop: No bbc, no siege onager.
  • Monastery: Mostly full (block printing, redemption, fervor, sanctity needed but MAYBE no atonement)
  • Blacksmith: Full archer upgrades, Full infantry upgrades (considering removing last attack), 2/3 cav defense upgrades (could be improved to 3/3 depending on stable units)

Intended Playability:

The civ is intended to be played as an archer civ with the executing arrows as its special feature. Having infantry support that slowly damages its attackers would mean archers are more likely to execute enemies, but at the same time allows for counterplay by the enemy by adding 1 or 2 monks to heal the return damage.

Lacking both bbc and -decent- cavalry as an archer civ usually means you will struggle against enemy siege, so that’s why I expected the monastery to be full and allow for counterplay in that regard.

The wood eco bonus rewards the player for getting upgrades (let it be economic, university, monastery or other military upgrades). In the early game something like Loom would only give 12.5 wood, but as the game progresses and upgrades get more expensive, the return on the high prices would minimize the sacrifice of getting these upgrades (for example getting ballistics for a total of 475 resources would mean a return of 120 wood)
Repairs discount intends to give them some benefit in the Treb v Treb wars while not making it too broken.

How can you help?

  • The civ needs an identity that makes sense with its bonuses and UU
  • The civ could use another (not op) bonus!
  • I think the civ would really benefit from some diversity to its gameplay. I think that’s what the Imperial tech should allow. Maybe if we have a civ with steppe lancers, the tech could be “give steppe lancers +4 pierce armor” (remember they would still lack the blacksmith’s third armor upgrade).
  • Any ideas on how to improve current propositions is welcome! Keep in mind most numberic values in this post can be improved, I just gave a general concept of the civ.

I’ll be reading the comments. If you read until this point thank you very much and have a nice day! :slight_smile:

1 Like

I feel like the civ is a little too gimmicky and too centered around the Castle Age UT (which you said was the goal) - if you need the Castle for the civ to function it’s probably not going to do too well.

Also the first bonus sounds very OP, sort of same with the Castle UT (though it could also be useless since you overkill with archer mass anyway - either way, I don’t really like the function). The UU is just a different flavour of Chu-ko-nus too, no?

I feel like a community-design you could start out by just giving the theme (e.g., Archer civ, as they’ve been left out from the last DLCs) and go from there as a community-designed civ, rather than having most of it written out and some people chiming in.

One of the bonuses SOTL mentioned not being used is + movement speed for Archers, which I think could be very interesting. The archers would definitely have to lack some upgrades though to compensate or they’d just be the strongest archers due to micro while devaluing Plumes identity a little.

I like the idea of repair costs being reduced and the walls/gates granting LoS though, could fit a defensive/turtling civ.


I agree that the civ really comes together when the castle Ut comes into play ^^. But if you were to not build a single castle in the whole game, you would still get a generic archer civ with “return damage” infantry. It’s not as sexy buy it would still play similarly to Italians/Chinese (without the insane eco).

If you think about it, when fighting melee units it’s not that different from having +2 attack (that’s kinda why i was thinking blast furnace could be removed). When it comes to ranged, a champion is for example killed by 14 arbalest arrows. Getting those 14 arbs from 40hp to 39 is probably not gonna matter that much. You would need to suicide an inmese ammount of infantry in order to get kills on the enemy, and the enemy still can negate the damage with a single monk in the backline. I think it would be a fun mechanic, and would only be really strong when it comes to champs vs skirms, but even then that matchup is intended to be favorable for the champs, so I think it’s fine.

That’s the same feeling I had when thinking of it. Is it op or completely useless? I think that’s where it gets intresting; you would be rewarded for NOT focusing single units, but instead spreading attacks. Keep in mind the execute HP value is adjustable, and it could go as far down as only meaning that archers need -1 arrow to kill their target.

Yes indeed! Only that instead of shooting at the same target they would shoot nearby standers with their extra arrows. (and animation would probably be different, more like 1 shots shoots all arrows with a slower reload)

I didn’t like that bonus for the same reasons you said, it seemed veeeery hard to justify and I think for the most part it’s a good thing that it is not in the game.

Indian or African civ.

What happens when there are no near by targets ? Also you cant have different attack animations in this game.

I think in that situation the UU would not shoot split arrows and should, in that situation, be slightly worse than a generic Arbalest.

I ment to differentiate it from the Chu Ko Nu’s firing mechanic, which is to fire multiple arrows in quick succession, but one at a time. The proposed UU would fire once, and shoot all of its arrows at that point (and attackspeed should be balanced keeping this in mind)

I guess this unit is like the Portuguese uu but fires arrows in a volley like a longship.

Guess there is some historical background to this.Aztecs and Armenians might have done this as per the video.