If he thinks Turks can represent everything from Huns, Gokturks and Hephthalites to the Golden Horde, the Timurids and Ottomans ofc he thinks Tatars or Cumans can represent Huns
2 Likes
Who CARES!? Are you Turkic yourself? If so I don’t like people who want their nationalities represented a certain way becaus…. I’m sick of those people because why should I feel or why should YOU feel so much affinity for events many centuries ago? Lay off already and get some new things to whine about!
ENOUGH OF THE ARGUING!
Sheesh…y’all are a bunch of children!
Anyway… @AllergicTable49, I had an idea for a new unconventional trait of the Kazakhs: give them an extra Steppe Lancer upgrade ala the Hindustanis as their second unique unit. That will make them slightly more comparable to knights.
Personally, I like the idea of more Turkic civs. I love new civs in general, as long as they aren’t OP or UP (like Bengalis and Dravidians). I don’t like the arguing though. I agree that everyone should just enjoy the game for what it is rather than arguing about the ethnicities of in game civs.
The design of civilization bonuses, UT and UU feels very bland, sorry.
Even with no cavalier as a gimmick, this might still be a boring civ. I can’t imagine how to season it.
On the other hand, as far as civ picks go, I personally don’t like Kazakhs.
It feels to me like bringing in the Iberians and then saying they can represent the Celts, Latins, Visigoths, Berbers, Abbasids, Moors, Catalans, Aragonese, Castilians, Portuguese, etc. on this peninsula, then say they have potential.
Since the Turkic peoples of Central Asia after the rise of Mongols were obviously covered by the Tatars, I still tend to choose Göktürks to represent the Turkic peoples of Central Asia before the rise of Mongols.
Btw I love Turkic People and culture…Turks,Cumans,Tatars & Huns are my favoruite civs. I only think that 4 Turkic civs are enough for the game.
1 Like
Great number of Magyar people in my country(Hungary) including me think of their origin as Turkic somewhat. Even Hungary is observer member of Turkic Countries Committee. (Just saying)
Also Proto Bulgars (their first roots were pure Turkic ‘‘it is stated in the many historical resources’’ but todays Bulgaria isnt Turkic&Turkish after all )
Turks made mass migration&raids to many different area for that they have settled at many different lands.They erected hundreds of Kingdoms,Sultanates and Khaganates. Some of them convinced Christianity or İslam also even today some of them still Shamanist in Asia. etc etc .
I dont hate Turks . I love them 
I consider them as cousin even. But 4 is enough for the game.
According to what you said and the private messages you sent me, the Magyars, Bulgarians, Mongols and even Koreans are also same peoples with Turks, and there are only Turkic peoples on the steppe from ancient times to the present. Put others aside, you already ignore the Eastern Iranic peoples including Sogdians, Scythians, Sakas, Tocharians, etc.
I find that your arguments are often based on “feelings”, “thinkings” and sources that are likely to be outdated or lack sufficient scientific evidence. However this kind of civ pick or ethnic issues is different from the game design discussion purely for entertainment, which requires more seriousness and caution.
1 Like
Did they have a big impact during the games time frame? Saka and Scythians seems to be more in the aoe time frame.
1 Like
I love the idea of a civ relying only on Steppe Lancer as their core Cavalry option. What upgrade/bonus would you give them?
-
He likely ignored the influence of non-Turkic peoples on the steppe. This has nothing to do with the game.
-
Scythians also exist in AoE2 (though not much). The Sogdians played the main role on the Silk Road in the early Middle Ages.
We’re not in this thread to have a “civil” discussion about people groups and their disambiguation in AoE2. I would like some civ feedback, please.
I would swap the TB and the Trade bonus. Might be strong, but then You don’t have a totally usless bonus for 1v1.
Hmmm, that’s a good idea.
1 Like
I would give them plate barding armor. Tatar steppe lancers get 6 PA and 4 MA, while these guys get the same 6 PA but have 2 less MA than Tatars. Though they do get 20 more HP, I think it is very bad judgement to give a unit as weak as the steppe lancer such uselessness. Tatar steppe lancers are just flat out better and they also get that armor on CA and hussar. So I would tone the PA bonus down to just +2 starting in castle age, but give them the final armor upgrade.
Give them a better eco bonus, the house bonus is quite weak (it saves like 5 wood per house), so I would recomend to replace it qith cheaper houses. Also it would be nice to buff the camels somehow since they only have a bonus for steppe lancers vs archers
I would also say that you should give them the last cav armour and remove the imperial age extra armour for Steppe lancers, since not having the last cav armour but have an iUT called Royal Armour
And I really dislikd the castle age UT since its way too situational and not worth it before imp I believe.
How does a faster build speed save wood?
That’s a fair point. I wanted to make Steppe Lancers about as tanky against archers as knights, but I suppose it isn’t really possible with their low hit points.
Faster built buildings means that your villagers have more time to work. With this bonus the villagers would gather 5 wood in the saved time
I see it more as a convenience factor, since you’re less likely to be housed for long. There’s no tangible benefit to it, but is a useful bonus for making everything go smoothly. It can also be a useful defensive bonus.
Yeah but they do need something tangible early game or at least something really strong by early castle age