I will take your word. I am not too familiar with the Genie engine, but from what I’ve heard it’s a quite antiquated and hard to alter.
Some of the most upvoted civ request threads are about American civs.
They’re just not getting bumped for no reason like some other people do.
2 Likes
100%
Some people just keep repeatedly posting links to videos rather than making a coherent civ design and leaving it at that.
2 Likes
I have finished the first round of summarising balances and changes for existing civilisations. I will use this post as a reference to explain some of the logic.
I tried not to revolutionise the civilisations too much and keep some of the original design and yet trying to use as many good ideas as I have read around. The most radical case is the Armenians moving from ‘Infantry and Ships’ to ‘Cavalry and Ships’, but they are the most problematic. Moreover, a few holes in the technolgy tree are also maintained and certainly some things can still be improved.
Also for context, my elo is in the 1800-1900 range, and as much as I follow the competitive scene maybe there will be some balancing that will create unintended consequences. Bottom line, I have yet to point out any threads for rebalancing some units, such as Samurai. And there are also other civilisations that would need more changes, but that will be for a second round, by the time I finish pinning all the new civilisations suggestions that you have posted in the thread.
1 Like
Tbh I wish there was more stuff about precolumbian America online
1 Like
Replace Teuton Paladin with Crusader Knight
Replace Frank Paladin with Frankish Paladin (the one with lance)
or instead of replacing the Paladin, make these units trainable in stables. This way one can choose if they want classic Paladin with lower attack but more hitpoints or Crusader Knight with crazy attack but lower HP
1 Like
I’m lately watching several explorers in the USA, who go to the “southwest” of the USA.
He explores native american sites. There are many villages in the desert.
And even descendants of the Aztecs who went north, the “pueblos”.
The biggest problem is, they lived in caves and cliffs. Many villages are like Capadocia in Turkey, in the mountains in caves. Shallow and not shallow.
And the Pueblo’s actually build fortlike cities.
The problem is, there is barely any writing about them. So writing a civ on them is quite hard.
Their timeframe is 800-1200 AD. So that is fitting.
But we don’t know much about them to write a proper civ with a proper techtree.
Or you would have to do it like the MesoAmericans. But then you might miss unique units. Or you need to make something based off more recent history.
Only thing we need are leader names and a story to tell.Wonder can be made up uu can be a generic unit like a tomahawk thrower or something.
1 Like
I meamt “America” as the whole thing, not the US. I feel like beyond the Incas and Mayans and mayyybbeee the last years of the Aztecs before Cortez theres barely any coverage of the Ancient Americas.
Its not like in the west theres much coverage of stuff outside of Europe, the Mongols and Japan, but the Americas is where large part of the “western society” lives
Eithrr way I will def check out that stuff
Also as far as Im aware the Puebloans arent related to the Aztecs at all as far as Im aware
I agree, i want to see way more MesoAmericans too. Like Tlaxcalans, Tarascans, Chichimecs, and more.
And also some South American civs.
" → Make the ‘Crusader Knight’ a unique unit upgrade like the ‘Savar’ (thread)."
Please do this. I love the Crusader Knight model
There’s a lot in Spanish and Portuguese luckily, though it would be nice if the content were as well translated into English.
I’m reading right now the General History of South America, though it’s only available in Spanish:
I’m at the second book right now.
Tarascans and Chimu are really must-haves if you ask me.
3 Likes
Meanwhile, I have added them to the list
1 Like
Regarding the goths, I’m not a fan of the suggested changes. I agree that them having access to gunpowder is silly, although without HC they may die to stronger infantry civs (like Slav or Japanese champions).
If instead they get thumb ring I guess their cav archer can fulfill the same role. But it would incentivize players to use cav archers the whole game and not infantry.
I have the same issue with giving them the last cavalry armor. Now they get fu cavaliers, when they are supposed to be a one-trick infantry civ.
Maybe, If we take gunpowder from them, they should get parthian tactics instead of thumb ring. It’s still fitting with the time period, and it buffs their cav archers but not too much (so they don’t become a castle age all-in CA civ). They should definitely not have the last cav armor. I get that hussars are a bit out of place, but the same goes for cavaliers. Just see them as “light cavalry++”
Regarding the huskarl, I don’t think its name should change. It’s one of the most iconic UU, it has been a huskarl for 20 years. Everybody knows about the flood of huskarls. I don’t care if the name is not accurate, it’s too late to change it. At the end of the day, it’s the same game we have mameluks in.
I am answering from the end because they are only hopeful suggestions, because we know that realistically none of what is written in the post will ever be done. So with that in mind…
A one-trick pony civ is poor, having a clear strength on the other hand is right. There are many civilisations like this, such as the Franks or the Britons just remaining among the classical civilisations.
With no bonus to help them? This is really difficult to do.
In any case, I understand what you mean. Husbandry could probably be removed to compensate.
1 Like
Never say never as long as money keeps coming in.
This is true, and many of those changes you can bundle into ‘free updates’ to be presented at some Microsoft event to incentivise people to buy the game or some DLCs.
In short, you can do many things if you want to.
I’m scrolling through the thread to sort out the civilisations, and I think I’m done with Africa (for the others I still have to finish).
Africa
→ Ayneha (Songhai Empire) (wikipedia).
→ Bakongo (Kingdom of Kongo) (wikipedia).
→ Edo (Kingdom of Benin) (wikipedia).
→ Kanouri (Kanem-Bornu Empire) (wikipedia).
→ Karanga (aka MaKaranga, Kingdom of Zimbabwe) (thread, wikipedia).
→ Soninké (Wagadou, aka Ghana Empire) (wikipedia).
I take this opportunity to point out a few things. Some people indicate the same civilisation by different names, so maybe some civilisations had already been listed. Or even some people use modern terms like Zimbabweans, instead of indicating the most dominant culture/civilisation (example: Shona). But still, this is Age of Empires. I know we have the Cumans, but let’s at least try to keep civilisations that were militarily relevant.
The Somalis are missing.
Akoskaaa10:
Lakan247:
It’s more of my wish than the community’s, but I would like if the devs intend to include the Nubians, they would just rename the Ethiopians to Nubians, since their playstyle is basically the same. And then make a new Ethiopian civ based on the Solomonic Dynasty, since there is much more information about it than Aksum, with much more interesting campaign possibilities.
1 Like