My issue still stands, if you have adequate anti infantry and access to some sort of hussar slayer, you can counter this civ. For a civ built around smithing missing any smith techs feels wrong.
Compare to Vikings who can deal with most anti infantry with Bogsvegar Arbalests. Or Malians whose tech tree versatility is imho top 10. This civ really feels limited on generic unit options and thats a shame
Aztecs, Teutons and anyone loaded with hand cannons is not gonna be a fun time to fight
I feel like the Arimannus can help against any spears sent to deal with cavalry. However, perhaps Gairethinx should get a new effect replacing the old one, where it helps units with spears, since it was a ritual that involved banging spears against shields. Perhaps Gastaldi and Spearmen gain +15% speed in proximity to an enemy, and Skirmishers gain +2 range? The former would help spears catch up to any cavalry that are trying to run away, and the latter would help skirmishers take out anti-infantry units early. I know it overlaps with Atlatl and Yeomen, but its effect is more limited, which is consistent with many other overlapping UTs. Redemption should be taken away to balance this, probably.
Agreed. Thatâs why I gave them full Blacksmith. I just donât want the Arimannus to have very high pierce armor, because then it turns into a Jagskarl. Perhaps I can limit the first UT to only affect swordsmen, just like it did when Arimanni were their only unique unit and were cavalry.
My new UT effect maybe should help with this.
This just seems annoying to use
This is useless
Alright
This is absurdly OP
Unlike the Inca free llama this doesnt require villagers to work for extra resources
Sure
This is just the Jaguar Warrior
This is absurdly OP, its pre-nerf Cumans on steroids
Malians
Lame. Just give them âmilitary units attack fasterâ if you want to do this.
Overall, not a good design. Worse than your usual output. And its not even my European fatigue speaking, its just very flawed
I could give you some ideas for a rework but it would mean getting rid of or massively reworking all the TC bonuses and infantry stuff so Im not sure you would even consider it valuable
Probably. Iâll definitely change it.
I disagree. It makes raiding the Lombards with scouts much harder, because villagers can fight back and have a reasonable chance of winning against 1 or 2 scouts.
Okay, so I can probably change it to just have them built 100% faster.
Itâs the old Jaguar Warrior. The new Jaguar Warrior is significantly different, so itâs basically a completely different unit now. This is more true to how they used to be.
Okay, so what it sounds like is that villagers from Nomadic Borghi probably shouldnât have a creation boost, at least in Feudal Age.
All right, so I can change it to +5 like someone else suggested and make it apply only to swordsmen. Thatâs pretty unique.
I agree that itâs pretty boring. Iâm trying to think of something else.
Thatâs pretty harsh, but probably accurate. You should see the ones that I donât post here.
I just think its too small and too situational. It could be better in feudal and much better in later ages.
Maybe even give villagers more pierce armour so they are better at fighting both scouts and archers
Thats probably a bit too weak, maybe include some other buildings? Say, universities, markets or monasteries
I know the devs kinda already did something like this with the Huskarls and Ghulams, but I dont like when a UU is just a more complex version of an existing UU. Maybe make the unit attack super fast but with a weaker base damage? Idk.
I would prefer to just avoid copying Cumans, specially for a cav civ. Cumans were already super hard to balance too (Ornlu in fact wants Cumans to get a weaker unique TC to be more balanced in feudal)
However I get thats their main eco bonus so you would want to keep it
At least to me, it seems like Malians lose sooo much for their late game champskarls that adding a civ that does it just better is a bit unfair. I would prefer if they had a UU replacing longswords and two handed swordsmen having higher pierce armor but lower hp.
Trying to tie a weaker version of existing bonuses to auras is a bad start imo. âAll military units attack 15% fasterâ is also kinda lame, but its not nearly as bad for me
Id normally agree but what can this civ defer to ahen its champs cant work? Its uus? Halbs? Hussars? Malians have a lot of decent options at the stable or even cannons or siege onagers to support the armies but this civ is so one dimensional militarily the Goths are more well rounded
They have full trash, siege rams and heavy scorpions, Its not that bad
We need these kind of reworks for alot of the northern/central germanic heritage civs.
The Lombards are at least as relevant as Visigoths and Franks to the makeup of the region for a loooooong time so I would support this civ plan.
I would also like a general remake of older germanic civs that dont make alot of sense - goth, vikings in particular. Maybe a couple touches to Franks and Teutons too. Give that whole thing an Indians/Chinese style split.
Maybe get Danes and Finns out of it - Danes are what the Vikings should always have been called (even tho many civs would go viking) and the Sami are kindoff an important part of northern europe that no one talks about - hence Finns (for Finno-Ugric groups).
That would flesh out the region for good, I think.
I donât agree with doing a split of either Franks or Teutons. Add a few Barbarian invasion era civs and call it a day. Outside that, one DLC for the Balkans, and Andalusians which is only like half Europe (geographically but not culturally) iâd much rather the devs focus on fleshing out other areas of the world than get super granular with Europe.
Given that we already have the Italians, do we still need the Lombards that much? And if so, should the French also be taken into account when there are the Franks? Britons, Celts, Spanish, Teutons, Vikings â do we need to consider splitting all of them for the early (or late) Middle Ages?
If I remember correctly, the civ of Italians was originally created for the Lombards. The Forgotten Empires team did initially consider the Lombards, and they chose Italians instead of just Lombards in order to give the civ broader representation and coverage.
Putting all the above aside, I feel the design is gimmicky. You might as well make Borgo a unique building that directly replaces this civâs TC.
Not as much as others, but Iâd still say so. Apart from Alboin being a player name, there is no Lombard representation in the Italians at all. It is a poor representative of early medieval Italy, and we really could use one. Plus, the Lombards are actually ethnically distinct from the Italians, so itâs justified on that grounds.
The difference is that the French and the Franks are basically ethnically the same people, AFAIK. Also, the Franks in-game are the French, just with some Frankish elements. As previously stated, there is no relevant Lombard representation in the Italians.
Youâre correct, and they went with the Italians because they went with civs that were as broad as possible with the knowledge that there might not be any more. We donât have that issue now, so we can afford to get more granular.
Well, I considered that. I suppose if other people suggest it, I can consider making that change. However, no one else has really complained about it, so they seem to like the idea.
Not a unique culture, covered by Italians
Wrong. It was Germanic, unlike the Italians, and there are no Lombard elements in the Italians aside from a player name, which is inconsequential.
They arent
Do we? We have Romans and Goths
Theres still plenty of places that dont even have a civ to use
I feel like Italians are versatile enough to do a lot of things. While it being overfocused in an specific period is limiting, its far from the only case of that
I looked it up, and youâre right. However, the Franks civ in-game clearly represents the French in most respects, so theyâre clearly meant to be the same. If the Lombards were in-game already under that name, but represented the Italians, it would be the same kind of situation. However, they arenât, so we have post-assimilation Italians, but not the ethnic group that was actually their ancestor.
Not really, no. It clearly represents the late medieval/Renaissance Italian city-states, and isnât really equipped to cover any other time period or people group.
But why do Italians specifically deserve to have so many civilizations? Aoe2 paints civilizations in broad, messy strokes
Sure, but the Condottiero and stable + archer play is already decent
The Italians have a single civilization representing their ethnic group. The Lombards are a separate one entirely. Sure, they were one of the ancestors of the Italians, but you wouldnât go around arguing that we shouldnât have the Goths and the Spanish in the same game because one was the ancestor of the other. Same thing.
We have Romans for their ancestors and Goths to represent the Germanic kingdoms in Italy
And you are comparing the entirety of Spain to only North Italy
Actually, Goths do not represent the ancestors of the Iberians; they left very little in terms of legacy and influence compared to the Romans or even Berbers and Arabs. Itâs just that, since the time of the Reconquista, the Iberians have sought, comprehensibly, to identify more with Christian Germanic peoples than with Muslim Moors. And in the game, they are a placeholder for all the âbarbarianâ Germanic tribes that overthrew Rome, in any case.