Why should it matter?
If you look at contemporary politics and political correctness, there may be problems with adding any civs from outside the current European Union xDDDDD.
There’s still problems adding those within even with
I love everything but the monk range bonus… that can become very broken, very quickly. Imagine if even light cavs get coverted before they reach monks… That might be a little too much.
That is very true when the war started there were people here asking the slavic civi to removed thinking they were russians.
Slavs civ is based on the Eastern Slavs, who at one point were united by Kievan Rus. Even the Slavs civ icon is based on the trident of Yaroslav the Wise. This civ is as Russian as it is Ukrainian, Belarusian and Rusyn.
The only thing this civ needs is a name change to Ruthenians or Rus - I think Ruthenians is more “politically correct”. It would also be nice if representatives of the South Slavs appeared: Croatians (Mediterranean Architecture Set) and Serbs (Byzantine Architecture Set).
2 Likes
I highly doubt we will get a new building set.
Yes, because the devs are lazy. We should’ve gotten another set by now.
If and when a Caucasus expansion comes and doesn’t introduce a new architecture set, I will simply collaborate with AbeJin to mod a set into the game. Maybe we can bug the devs enough to make it official, since they didn’t have to work for it. All they’d have to do is upscale it somehow.
1 Like
Good luck with that.
1 Like
Yes, because for some reason, the devs don’t want to have anything to do with the fans, despite once being fan modders themselves. It’s quite sad, really. They’ve forgotten their roots.
I didn’t give them camels because I see the Armenians as more culturally European.
That ain’t a really good reason, are Chinese and Byzantines culturally middle eastern/south Asian all of the sudden for having camels?
It adds some civilization flavor tho first ME civi without camels similar to cumans first european civi with camel and one without upgrade.
I think the Chinese have camels because they had access to a desert. Same with the Mongols. I’m not sure why the Byzantines have camels; either they historically used them or they just have them because they used to have the ME set.
Either way, giving the Armenians camels didn’t seem right, and it also overlaps greatly with their UU.
I think the Chinese have camels because they had access to a desert. Same with the Mongols. I’m not sure why the Byzantines have camels; either they historically used them or they just have them because they used to have the ME set.
Either way, giving the Armenians camels didn’t seem right, and it also overlaps greatly with their UU.
Considering Armenia was under Persian rule for a while, i don’t think it would be out of the norm for them to have them. As for China and Byzantines, they held regions and were near civs that had access to camels
Yeah, true, but the civ’s mostly meant to represent independent Armenia, and I don’t think they ever used camels in real life.
This is the first time seeing this thread, and the very first thing that surprised me was how unplayable the monks are for this civilization despite its bonus. You should not give them a good monk bonus just to exclude some of the most crucial monk technologies in such bulk (Even the Aztecs have all the techs). It does not balance them, rather it makes them and their bonus superfluous. Redemption, Illumination and Theocracy are top notch, dumping one, nonetheless all three will sharply reduce interest in this civilization. I would work on this before even considering fixing the Eco or other problems, as you appear to want it to be a defining characteristic of your civilization’s play on a variety of competitive maps.
To put it another way, balance is not making strengths milquetoast.
Thanks for the feedback. I will probably only take away Redemption, as I think I went overboard trying to balance the really strong Monk bonus. You’re right that it tends to just make them less interesting if a strong bonus is offset by many missing technologies.
It is a possibility, but the problem with taking away Redemption is that it is extremely valuable at all points in which monks are available. Redemption monks stop strong Mangonel pushes and deter or counter cannon fire. You also lose the ability to disrupt enemy operations and gain footholds in enemy bases by stealing buildings or to use the buildings as chargers for stealing units. Monk/siege pushes use Redemption monks to shut down certain forms of defense. With the extra range, your monks would already have an edge in Atonement battles (No different than the Teutons who are more resistant or the Bengalese or Aztecs who better survive the Light Cavalry aspects). If I were choosing a Monk civilization, that would be a very strong consideration. If you gave them redemption, they would still be fine. They would remain vulnerable to Light Cavalry, and negligence. I would admit that they would be potent in monk wars, but those require immense skill and even then, do not always go your way.
In sum, Monks have certain abilities that define their usefulness. If a common player had to rate them, a player would likely go A, A-, and F. The drop is that steep, though some civilizations like the Bengalis might fit as the occasional rare B. The Bengalis lack Heresy, which means they have to quit Monk wars the minute they lose momentum, or they will be crushed with little means of coming back.
Historically speaking, Europa is only region doesn’t have camel in the World. Mongols, Turks, Chinese etc. all Asians had Camels, their camels was Bactrian Camel rather than Arabian Dromedary Camel.