Well then, I won’t make it quite so expensive. Maybe 80 food and 60 gold? Not much more expensive than the Leitis, but enough to make a difference.
like i said, would have to depend on the stats of the unit.
Italians, not unique and therefore should be changed.
Decent, would make sense if they didnt have Blast Furnace, or else they’ll be better than Lithuanians that’re forced to collect relics.
In order to implement this one, Armenian Monks cannot have access to both Redemption and Atonement.
NOT AOE. You cant encourage Noobism.
Can be cute, at a very low rate, MUST cost Stone.
Civ Design score: D+.
Sorry.
Oof, that’s a very harsh score.
I thought I was good at civ design, but it appears I’m really not. Maybe I’ll just leave this stuff to the devs and not bother sharing my designs, because they’re clearly uninspired/overpowered/overlapping.
While much of the bonuses are uninspired I don’t see how in a vacuum the age up bonus is a better Lith bonus but it’s honestly a worse Ethiopian bonus as in age 2 it’s 100f and gold while this civ gets only 125f and in age2 it’s still getting less gold.
That said the civ feels very haphazardly put together. I could easily see Armenian having Camels or maybe something other than attack damage on knights. Also the Ayrudzi has interesting potential.
For instance did you know that people thought Armenians threw maces but it was actually a mistranslation for a form of javelin which was spelled similarly in their old language.
Dont stop sharing, just make sure to elaborte more, tech tree, reasoning, stats. And most importantly, make sure your bonuses are unique enough and implementable.
They brought us Burgundians, Sicilians and Bohemians. 11.
The problem is, I just have trouble coming up with unique bonus ideas, and when I do, they’re either unfitting or overpowered.
I wouldn’t say it’s encouraging noobism, but simply acts as a safeguard against accidental shots into your own units. 50% of a lot of damage is still a lot.
1 Like
Can you elaborate?
And that’s what bugs me. Other people’s versions of the Ayruzdi has them throwing maces, which isn’t accurate at all. Mine is actually a lot more accurate, since they wielded maces that made it easy to knock a rider off his horse, hence the anti-cavalry bonus damage.
I think the reason my civ designs seem lackluster is because I prioritize accuracy over uniqueness. Being a history buff myself, I want to feel like I’m actually ruling over the historical civilizations, and sometimes that comes at the cost of distinctiveness.
Hmmmm, you may be right. I thought that taking away Illumination would be enough, but probably not.
I didn’t think about a stone cost, but that would be a good idea.
The fact that it’s also available to allies means that the Armenians would be a good team civilization, since more expensive units can heal in the field without the need for Monks, which are slow and vulnerable.
1 Like
Correct, they do not have Blast Furnace.
Notably, this also impacts their infantry, which, given their lack of Halberdier to incentivize the unique unit, means that their infantry isn’t really all that good.
1 Like
Can you explain the historical justification behind that?
It would mirror the Georgians’ unusual access to Steppe Lancers, but I want to make sure it makes sense.
How about I replace it with a bonus of about 15 food and wood being generated per minute, starting in Feudal Age? Would that be too strong?
Hey apocalypto,
Can you please explain a bit more about the civs you propose? Like historic background, figures, art…?
I like Civ concepts, but I like them to be a bit elaborated. The thing is the forum isn’t for civ concepts only.
Imo when it comes to civ concepts class > mass always.
(We also have already a lot of civ concepts that only content civ design. And with my hub and emoji system I wanted to encourage people who are interested in designing civs to also give some more information and tell a “story” about the civs they propose.)
2 Likes
I think the proximity to Turks, Persia, and Mongol and Cuman encroachment means plenty enough reason to justify camels. It’s a civ sandwiched between all of them and doesn’t get it? Feels weird. Heck you could even give steppe lancers and not elite since they’re near enough to the steppes.
As for the mace. What if instead of a bonus damage they have a “stun” effect that prevents struck units from moving and attacking for some amount of time and puts a stun immunity timer on the unit after it’s been stunned once to avoid Stun locking.
Sure thing.
The Armenians in game mainly represent the Bagratid Dynasty, founded by Ashot I, who is also the subject of their campaign. They’re paired very well with the Georgians, who historically had a very close relationship with them.
The reasoning behind the bonus for their partial age up refund was how they quickly shook off the invaders who subjugated them and formed their own separate kingdom. The quick injection of resources they get at the start of each age represents that fact and helps them get going quickly and apply pressure to the opponent early, like their historical background.
They have extra Stable unit attack for each age because Armenian cavalry was historically top-notch in its day. Thus, I feel it is right for Armenian cavalry to be unusually good at what they do, and this is also partially reflected by the Ayruzdi’s bonus damage, which we’ll talk about in a minute.
They have extra conversion range on their Monks as a reflection of the fact that they were highly religious and actually have their own church, the Armenian Apostolic Church. In fact, the Armenians converted to Christianity in the early 4th century and have been Christian ever since.
The Mangonel line bonus references mountain men recruited by nakharars who were trained to drop rocks on enemy troops. Onagers are arguably the closest we have to that, so it makes sense to give them a bonus. Plus, Armenian siege equipment was highly top-notch, and Armenian siege engineers were actually hired by other nations to build their siege weapons. (It actually used to be a Siege Tower unload bonus as a reference to hooks used to scale walls, but since no one uses Siege Towers, I changed it.)
Baptisteries have an arbitrary effect, of course, but it is a reference to how baptism is very important to the lives of Armenian adults, to the point that they have entire ceremonies for them and they’re essentially a rite of passage. The unique tech Baptism also references this importance that baptism holds in the lives of Armenians.
Now in terms of the unique unit, the Ayruzdi, as I mentioned in an earlier reply, the attack bonus against cavalry references how they had weapons that could easily knock riders off their horses, and also references how Armenian cavalry was some of the best of its time. Therefore, it makes sense that the Ayruzdi functions the way it does.
In terms of the other unique tech, I basically already explained it, since nakharars were basically princes or nobles who ruled over individual areas of Armenia and trained their own standing armies, including the aforementioned mountain men. I figured making Siege Onagers have no minimum range would be too strong combined with their bonus, which is why I gave it to Scorpions. However, when Trebuchets attack melee units at their base, it looks a lot like dropping rocks, no?
In any case, every single decision I’ve made with this civilization is a deliberate callback to their history, which is why it slightly irritates me that people want me to change them.
1 Like
I dunno, that seems pretty complicated and unnecessary to me. As I explained before, Ayruzdi used a weapon that easily enabled them to knock riders off their horses, which can manifest itself with high bonus damage.
Valid point, and I’ll certainly consider it, even though I was trying to go for a more European vibe for the civ. Maybe access to camels would set them apart from other cavalry civs, like the Lithuanians.
That’s pushing it. I gave the Georgians access to Steppe Lancers as a reference to their relationship with the Cumans, but I don’t want the Armenians to have too many options. Camels will be the farthest I go.
Let me put it this way: The bar for a new civilization to actually be included in the game is very high - it takes a lot of research, testing, balance/viability considerations, and enough originality to make the civ not appear as a clone/rip off of previous civs. On the other hand, the bar for someone to make a thread about a hypothetical new civ is quite low. Brainstorm for a bit, type up some ideas, and hit post. People will often judge a would-be designer’s (low bar) effort by the (high bar) standards for it to be included in the game, so expect a lot of pushback on balance, historicity, viability, and similarity to existing civs. Hundreds of people have come up with civ concepts that they think are great. While they may have some good ideas, the reality is (in this and most contexts), ideas are essential, but cheap. Creating something great is rarely a simple or an easy process, and lots of ideas usually have to be tossed aside or reworked before the final product is reached. For any product intended for public consumption, consider pushback and negative feedback to be important aspects of the design process.
That said, if you view all criticism of your ideas as personal hostility, or as as sign that you are “bad” at something rather than as an opportunity to improve your ideas or broaden their appeal, you’ll be making your odds of success much slimmer than they need to be. When people disagree or don’t like something you make, you don’t have to do whatever they say, but at least try to understand where they’re coming from, and consider making a design change that addresses their concerns, while being true to the civ concept.
Anyway, don’t let me discourage you; I have to balance between wanting more content and generally liking the idea of civ proposals, with also wanting that content to be very high quality to increase the likelihood of its eventual inclusion.