Civilization Idea: Khitans

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

In this game, all conversions so far have been based on references to monk units converting others.

I don’t really like the conversion here. They were not monks, they were warriors, soldiers, noblemen’s personal entourages. Should Faith and Heresy work for others if units are captured, subjugated and joined? I mean, the concept of melee + conversion is fresh, but I personally would more like to see it applied to religious fighters, like sohei.

Regardless of whether it is broken, the Hakka people and their tulou have nothing to do with the Khitan people.
If only because Hakka is a part of Han culture, then at least you should give the tulou to the Chinese first.

Also, I don’t understand why there is so much emphasis on the Khitan-Han relationship? The Khitans did rule the Han people, but this does not mean that they need to have such an obvious and distinctive Han culture stuff, including the Han UT and the Han unique buildings.
The Mongols had ruled most of Asia, but their civilization is still their own.The Chinese have been in the game for over 20 years, no need to be something similar to the Flemish for the Burgundians or the Kipchaks for the Cumans.

The only civ I think would be suitable for this bonus is the Britons.
Only the Britons seemed to have officailly and systematically encouraged commoners to practice archery.

In addition, no matter which civilization, having this bonus by default is likely to be broken.
Personally I’d like to see Britons’ villagers fire arrows after Yeomen is researched.

Valid, but very boring reference.

Regardless of the effect, is it just using the name of a dynasty for a UT?

No Steppe Lancers line, Camel line and Hussars?
The Khitan people lived on the Steppe! I think at least they should have two of the three.

This civilization has been made too similar to the Chinese.
As the Khitan civilization, there are too many references to the Han people, but not enough reference to the Khitan people themselves.

22

No idea is stupid just hard to do with aoe2 format.I once suggested a finish civi concept but it was pretty impossible to make without combining them with sweden.

23

Is it, though? The fact that it replaces houses and camps and that it’s quite expensive means that it will significantly hamper a player’s Dark Age build. Yes, it doesn’t have a stone cost until the Feudal Age, but 175 wood is a lot in the Dark Age. That said, I probably should trim some of its features.

I initially wanted to make the building an extra building functioning basically as a Town Center, but then I thought it would be more interesting if it replaced things, and it only got insane from there.

I figured that Tulou villagers would train much more slowly than TC villagers, but it’s probably still broken.

I’m beginning to realize that myself.

Think of it less as conversion and more as capture, and the effects of Heresy as some kind of ritual suicide, which was often done after being captured.

Rule of cool, my friend. Rule of cool. Besides, the Khitans ruled China, so it only makes sense to get some Chinese cultural elements.

24

But personally it’s not cool. The connection between Hakka tulou and Khitan people is weak and far fetched. It feels like you’re just giving them something special just for the sake of giving them something special. Unfortunately, this would make it look like you don’t know enough about Khitans to provide an interesting design with more accurate references.

The history of the Khitan people did not begin with the establishment of the Liao Dynasty and ruling the Han people. Until then, they were their own nomadic power. After that, their Qara Khitai was not in China. Whether it was the Liao Dynasty or the Qara Khitai, the Khitan rulers ruled over diverse populations, not just Han Chinese. This should be very common in history around the world, especially for peoples from the Steppe, no need to deliberately emphasize it to such an extent.

When I play a Khitan civilization, it would be cool to experience a lot of Khitans’ own things. If I want something Han Chinese, I’ll play Chinese.

25

I think Tulou is strong enough to compensate.

  1. TC literally gives only 5 pop space.

I have some idea of a new drop off building as an unique building on my feature topic.

26

Problem is, this expense is pretty irrelevant early on - the building is still cheaper than what an opponent will spend for the same effect (200 wood for 4 houses and 1 dropsite), on top of having many other bonuses. @TimoderGroBe made a relevant point about initial placement that makes it kind of awkward, but on a lot of map gens I think you’d be able to place it either by your woodline or on berries and still be close enough to benefit hunters/shepherds under the TC (or failing that, just bring animals to the Tulou). The fact that it has some attributes of a tower and eventually turns into a mini-TC means you’re not worried about saving your starting 200 stone for towers or TCs, and the garrison ability probably means you’ll never have to wall. And the added stone cost in Feudal doesn’t actually become a relevant constraint until you’re going for your 6th one. And when that does come into play, it’s a very small price to pay for having double the Roman eco bonus for the vast majority of your eco. You’ve given it so many abilities that it basically has no weaknesses aside from the cost (which as discussed earlier isn’t even really a weakness). Again, I’d focus on one or mayyyyybe 2 of the existing dimensions. Even just making it a universal dropsite/house is more than enough to make for interesting and unique gameplay. Throw garrison on top of that, and it just makes the Khmer house bonus look pathetic in comparison, not to mention the arrows, aura effect, and ability to train villagers.

Which leads into the next point that, aside from balance, it’s just overloaded. Suppose there was a new UU based on the Conquistador, but it also had a bonus against enemy UUs, generated gold while fighting, and regenerated health. It’s plausible that such a unit could become “balanced” by making most of those effect sizes very small and giving the unit poor stats. But it would pretty clearly make existing UUs that are defined chiefly by having only one of those gimmicks look very lame by comparison.

27

I like the idea, but it should probably be locked behind Castle Age or a unique tech. I believe AoE4 has this bonus for English from the start – not sure how they balance that.

I think they should still have a melee attack against towers – standing next to a tower when attacking it allows them to avoid the arrows (unless it has murder holes). There are also some problems with them having a piercing attack that I’m not sure how to resolve (e.g. it will be easier to raid them with eagles or huskarls, and they’ll have a hard time dealing with rams).

This seems good – kind of bland, but no more so than some existing bonuses. It’s probably quite powerful, since I think it’s strictly better than Franks until Imperial Age.

I think it’s hard to tell how powerful this is. I assume this is so a small number of their archers can protect their cavalry from spearmen. That seems sensible and fits the theme well.

I don’t like this. Too RNG-based for me. Since it’s a low percentage linked to an attack, sometimes you’ll convert units with most of their hit points left, other times you’ll convert them on very low health or even kill them at the same time. I think the results will be too inconsistent.

Fun fact (that you probably already know): the word horde is derived from this.

Sorry to be so negative, but I have several problems with this:

  • The Khitans are known primarily as a nomadic people, and this seems to go against that about as much as possible.
  • Historically it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Khitans.
  • They can build it in the Dark Age, but it seems they were first built in the 12th century, towards the end of (or even after) the Liao Dynasty that this civ is supposed to represent.
  • It gets more expensive from Feudal Age onwards.
  • It feels to me like it would be awkward rather than fun to use, especially if you want to mine stone and don’t have any.

If you’re dead set on it, maybe it should replace Town Centres from Castle Age onwards, and have one specific effect that they don’t have

The villager effect is good – the idea of villagers becoming trash archers is my favourite part of the civ design. I have no idea how balanceable it would be. But this tech feels like a bit of a mishmash, and I think it’s weird to have a “conscripts” tech on top of conscription (but cf. yasama/arrowslits).

I’m not keen on having that name for a unique tech (if I understand correctly, it’s a bit like if Britons had a unique tech called Plantagenets or something). Not sure why it’s +HP, other than to be something for cavalry.

Seems odd. Why?

28

Yeah, I’m realizing that now.

Good idea.

Well, I’m not sure how else I would make the capture mechanic work.

Yes, I did know that. But it’s still very interesting. English is a fascinating language.

Yeah, thematically, it’s problematic on multiple levels, but I rather like the building and centered much of the civ around it. I might be able to retheme it so it fits the Liao Dynasty or Khitans better, but I’m not sure how.

Yeah, I was strongly debating giving it to them.

29

Villagers already have bonus damage against buildings, and especially walls/towers, so I think that aspect takes care of itself. As far as the pierce attack vs. high PA attackers, they’re still much better off than a generic villager with more armor and the ability to attack from a pretty significant range, so I think this is a pretty important weakness that needs to be preserved. The way I see it, they’re not losing DPS against high PA units relative to a generic villager (who will also only do 1 damage to any enemy with the first two armor upgrades) - they’re gaining it due to the ability to attack in groups at range, on top of the armor, and the significant DPS powerup vs. enemies with lower PA. They will also still be strong vs. Rams because they still have a melee attack class (even if it’s set to zero, this will allow them to take advantage of the negative melee armor of rams). If anything I think this tech is a little too strong, as you have units with almost the DPS/Range of a Persian Trashbow, but with more HP and armor and no skirm weakness. (In my ideation I have them start off with a range of 2 in Castle Age and only benefit from fletching-line, not the armor techs).

Yeah, TCs are one of the most constrained buildings, to where the whole idea of Cumans is balanced around being able to make them 1 age earlier, with strict limitations (limit:1, slower construction). The Rook and Mr. Chocolate have made good points regarding how this may not be the best fit historically while I’ve mostly focused on design aspects, but if you insisted on making a building that becomes a TC-lite, I would set it up something like this:
High cost, high pop house replacement (as now), with 1 additional feature that’s shared with a TC (universal drop off or garrison). In Castle Age, you can pay to upgrade them one at a time to either a fully-functioning TC, or a TC-lite that works more slowly but can train villagers. The cost/time upgrade can be balanced in a way that gives a slight advantage relative to a generic civ dropping new TCs. Alternatively, this transformation is effected en masse via an Imperial Age tech whose cost varies with the amount of Tulous effected.

2 Likes
30

I like this idea,…

I would also suggest to make it physically smaller 3x3 with the universal drop feature as described above (with all the other details previously mentioned)

31

I know others have probably mentioned about this, but I’ll add my opinion to it nonetheless.

This is as bad as Disney’s Mulan movie showing Mulan’s family living in a Tulou, perhaps even worse.

Tulou was a unique type of defensive building made by the Hakka people in Southern China, so the region is completely off. And plus the earliest examples of Tulou only appeared in the late 14th or early 15th century, which is a few centuries after Khitan people’s demise.

So this is both geographically wrong and anachronistic. And Tulou’s defensive nature was meant for a sedentary way of life, whereas according to historical records the Khitans were mostly nomads.

1 Like
32

The Khitans only ruled a portion of Northern China, Southern China was never under their rule. Therefore giving them a type of building that appeared in Southern China several centuries after their demise is wrong on many levels.

33

So why give it to Khitans? It’s as weird as giving turtle ship to Vietnamese.

Questionable design. Going up nerfs your critical building by a lot? :joy:

34

I think it is strong but also not being able to make Houses or camps is a nerf. If you are housed you might not have the resource or time to drop a Tulous. if you want to build a mining camp in the middle of nowhere you have to invest 175W and 50S yes the +20 population space is nice but you might not need it at the time and what if you have already have reached the max population.

1 Like
35

There are two obvious issues with the civ. First, the 10% conversion chance of Ordu should be changed to 5%, and the conversion can only happen after at least 5 strikes. Second, as many have mentioned, Tulou cannot be allowed to create villagers. That’s a problem. I’ll look into more details and post them when I can. Don’t have a lot of time at the moment, but this looked pretty cool, and had to comment.

Don’t ever say that, my dude. You are one of the few people whose civ designs I see and think, “Oh, I want to play that”. Good or bad, you have style to civ design, there is flavour to them. So own that. And, keep making them.

2 Likes
36

Good idea, and this makes it more reminiscent of a Monk’s minimum conversion time.

The whole Tulou itself is a problem, both historically and geographically. It’s an anachronism in multiple ways. I included it originally because I had just learned about it and thought it was cool. I was able to justify it to myself, despite not fitting well, using the Rule of Cool. But other people’s objection to it made me feel like it was a mistake to include it despite its cool nature.

Thank you! It means a lot to hear that.

1 Like
37

It’s a partial loss of flexibility, but I don’t consider it a net nerf unless you misplay. Getting housed is even less likely than normal as long as you plan ahead, since you only have to track your headroom in increments of 20, and you’ll want these things anyway for the significant eco boost and protection (they make your eco nearly unraidable except against sizable mid-lategame armies). The fact of them being both an eco boosting and a defensive building just makes it way too easy to boom and defend until probably mid Castle. In late game, yes, they get pretty awkward as you’ll have to pay stone to refresh your “lumber camps,” but if you haven’t won by then with a 10% better and extremely defensible eco, I think that’s a well-deserved drawback.

Sure, but your better eco will help you afford that, and you have protection from getting caught out by enemies. It’s not like the building’s useless after the minerals are exhausted either, as you can still farm around it.

Rule of cool is a thing, and IMO a pretty relevant one when it comes to civ design. But it still implies applying the “cool” unit/mechanic/building in the most historically and thematically appropriate way you can.

2 Likes
38

That is a high percentage

39

That’s a good point – they probably only have lower damage per attack in very niche cases (e.g. versus unupgraded eagle scouts).

It’s distinctive and period-appropriate for AoE2 generally, just not for this particular civ. I don’t know enough about the Hakka to know whether they would make sense as a separate civ.

40

I don’t know if I’m allowed to necro my own topic (if I’m not, sorry mods), but apparently the Hakka originate, in part or in whole, from northern China, so the Khitans having access to the Tulou may not be so bad.