Your thoughts on other sections are always welcome.
You are on the same page. Iām fine with more Yaks, as long as it doesnāt allow players to age up too quickly.
The earlier armors donāt seem to be favored by people, at least you two. This seems to be something I didnāt encounter when I gave it to Khitans a long time ago.
This does make them more likely to use Knights in practice. So, if a better economy basis like more Yaks and/or a little nerf for Knights like removing Bloodlines or Husbandry can help balance the whole thing, I would be happy to.
When I originally conceived it, it was based on high risk and high reward so there is no discount for armors. It is supposed to be a strong bonus in the early game, but if used carelessly, such as researching too early or researching too much, it will be a serious investment mistake.
If this needs to be removed, then we have to make sure they have other early advantages. Iām not sure if the Yaks only can do this or if new bonuses are needed there.
Considered with the Malian free extra pierce armors, Iām not sure if this will encourage players to use Militia-line more, but free first infantry armor can indeed encourage M@A use.
Iāve considered a similar one: double effect on Supplies-line techs. But Iām not sure if thatās balanced, especially compared to Goths. The civ may have to lost Champion for this. Probabaly neither this nor your suggestion strikes me as likely enough to constitute an advantageous early game.
I try to introduce a new mechanic. An AoE3 player may not be so concerned about the trickle of resources.
This is based on a certain historical reference that nomads bought armors from Tibetans, and that the Song Dynasty also purchased armors from Qiang people.
The later games of this civ are less powerful, so I hope there is a helpful late game bonus. No problem to change, just I wish thereās still a way to continue to reflect the historical reference.
What does auto win mean?
My initial idea was that this would help players start preparing for Castle age Monk Rush early, much like Camel Scouts help players prepare for Camel Riders early. Itās not really encouraged to perform Monk Rush or collect Relics in the Feudal, as that would be an expensive and easily blocked strategy, but if the player insists on doing so, at least the opponent needs to respond to it rather than to ignore it, such as being forced to train more Scouts.
In my opinion, this is not broken, so far.
Frankly speaking, I try to introduce Lamas not mainly for the superior statistics than the generic monks, but actually to enable the monk unit to build unique buildings. Making generic units buildable seems a little intuitively weird to me. If there are Lamas who can build Gompas, they can become a monk version of Serjeants and Donjons. I lock this ability behind the UT, which may be why I donāt let Lamas directly replace Monks.
If Lama is a risky term, it can be replaced with Khenpo, or simply Abbot.
Auras of buildings are acceptable to me, such as Folwarks, since they donāt move and can be clearly shown.
The current aura of Gompas is indeed a reference to Centurions. I want to make it beneficial for infantry, especially the Militia-line, to push Lamas + Gompas + Champions into their ideal best lineup, so you can also see that I have Gompas training Militia-line as well. It certainly could have dropped the Centurion reference if there is another way.
The healing aura of Monasteries should also be a part of the latest Saracen UT, Bimaristan, in my opinion.
Less damage taken aura can be considered (btw it is very similar to the auras of Japanese and Indian monks in AoE3), although it is not a direct buff.
Their basic stats are definitely better than Inca Slingers.
As I stated, they could be mounted units instead if people wish.
If having a bonus against camels doesnāt make it unique enough, maybe add a bonus against elephants.
Or, give their projectiles a blast radius. This will make them act like grenadiers lol.