Btw, I’d make it apply to the Militia-line only, so it won’t be too similar to Vikings. +40 for Pikes is a little too much. However for Champs it’s solid.
You’re right that they won’t have any Infantry Castle Age bonus, however do they need it?
Infantry isn’t a viable unit to begin with in the mid game, it’s a late game and early game unit.
They have so much other power spikes at this stage, CA with extra damage, Monks, UU…
So no need to worry.
Yeah sure. This works.
Perhaps a bonus to their Towers, like: Destroyed Towers give 30% of their cost
It’s quite nice to have in Castle Age, especially when your opponent is slowly destorying your Trush towers, though I’d make it really cheap, the civ has enough stuff in Castle Age, it’s not desperate for an identity/playable feature at this stage. (unlike Japanese for example)
Haha no problem man!
I’m trying to be honest and therefore many times harsh, this time your positively surprised me, it’s actually a great design, despite how gimmickless it may seems.
I knew one day I would pull through and prove I can do this. A lot of the other designs were ones I posted with no feedback at all, so I was just going with my gut on how those bonuses would work. I also kind of lack imagination sometimes, so extra heads help. I gathered feedback on the Georgians from both Facebook and the wiki, and now I have feedback from here.
I just updated some things, so you may want to check them out
I missed the applicability of the UT on my first run. Even so, I’d probably knock it down to 80 or so. Also yeah, I guess the UT is a lot like Farimba. I might split up some of the damage between different unit types even (e.g. Cav +1 attack, +2 vs. pikemen and archers. Just spitballin)
On a lot of civs free redemption might be OP, on this one I kind of think its fine since they don’t really have much going for them early game and this would help them counter siege pushes.
Eh, while I’m all about creativity, there’s only so much you can do before there is some kind of overlap with another civ. A weaker/more limited version of another civ’s bonus is generally not ideal, but in rare cases I think it can make sense. I understand the rationale of wanting to have some of the bonus infantry HP applied earlier, because for most of the game your swordsman line is generic and overpriced, then there’s this massive +40-50% HP spike in Imp, which IMO is a potentially greater design flaw than the smoother (but overlapping) pre-Imp buffs. Even a fully identical civ bonus copied from one civ to another could play out very differently depending on tech tree, UUs, and synergy with other bonuses (I’m not saying do this, just making a point.) That said, just applying it to swordsmen would probably be fine.
Decent for feudal, kind of weak thereafter. I like the idea of the tower attack speed also applying to TC, which hasn’t been done yet.
I already removed it, but you do have good points. However, it was pointed out to me that they have good options in the Castle Age with their towers, Monks, and CAs, so they really don’t need spectacular infantry then.
It can make sense only if one is a civ bonus and the other is an UT. Just like Teutons bonus melee armor to Infantry and Bulgarians UT. And some other examples.
Obviously the Vikings bonus is more elegant and versatile to use. But you simply cannot copy paste a bonus like that, that’s not the future of AOE, I’d rather have less civs if this is what it takes.
Besides that I’m sure we have plenty of ideas left to implement before we ran out and just copy paste.
Besides all that, the attempt to make Longsword relevant is nonsense, Militia-line will always be naturally viable only at the Dark Age / Early Feudal AND the very latter stages of the game where gold efficiency is a key.
There is absolute zero potential for a mid-game Infantry play, UNLESS you Eaglize/Huskarlize (movement speed + PA) the unit. So all these utopian thoughts of a fully balanced RPS (rock paper scissors) mid-game warfare belong to a different game, in AOE II there is no such mechanism, it’s much more complicated than this simplistic urge.
Once we accept this unique yet asymmetrical role of the Militia-line, we can wisely address it when we design/balance the game/civ.
I think that’s still too restrictive. For example, Malians’ longer lasting gold (vs. all res for Mayans), or Berbers and Magyars both getting a discount on scout line. It’s true that there are other things to differentiate these bonuses (amounts and units affected), but that’s what I have in mind when I say overlapping bonuses. These should be few and far between, but they can and do exist.
Hmm, I didn’t think about BBT. TBH I’m not convinced that would be OP, but there’s a chance, especially if BBTs get a projectile buff. But yeah, BBT and keeps/TC/Castle function differently enough that there should be a different multiplier. +18% ranges from fine to potentially too strong for BBTs, but is basically Stronghold for towers/castles, which is a very weak effect.
It’s a different bonus… One if focused on Gold the other is global yet lower amount. In fact Mayans bonus practically makes their hunt last much longer which is huge.
Again, same as before.
With that being said, Magyars and Berbers designs are a little problematic in their own way.
That’s why I said it should be applied ONLY on the Militia-line rather than both, in order to make it different. Plus only one of them should be scaling through the ages, the other must stay flat, and again, more conviniently an Unique Tech.
I would. Something closer to what I or @AllergicTable49 suggested. Even if you made towers fire 100% faster (don’t) they’d have 2/3 the DPS of Japanese towers vs. non-siege. Obviously you’d want to make it weaker since it applies to Castles/TCs also, but I think 15/30/45 or 20/30/40 would be reasonable.
Hardly the most iconic aspect of the Celt civ, and probably the first thing to be changed if Celts get even a minor rebalance. Apart from that, yeah, we don’t want bonuses to resemble each other more than necessary.