Currently, the White Huns are represented by Mongols (who possess fast-firing CAs, Ferrari siege units, and a unique horse archer that tears siege).
If the White Huns were represented by Huns or Tatars instead, would they be a challenge or a pushover for the Persians?
Itās not that gokturks are well represented by Turks either. Both them and hepthalites could be their own civ. Maybe with that Persian reworkā¦
Itās funny that the Hunas are represented by Tatars in Devapala. But they were likely closely related to the āWhite Hunsā, who are Mongols here.
Perhaps we need to head back to Central Asiaā¦oneā¦lastā¦time.
Yeah, itās surprising that neither of them is represented as Huns, and it may suggest that the devs actually donāt think any existing civ can represent them properly.
That being said, we have the same thing with Venice being Byzantine or Portuguese depending on the scenario but never Italian.
Maybe discounted CA is not enough for a challenge , hence they picked mongols.
My guess is they went for the most fitting tech tree.ideally they should be huns as hins are ingame already.
Venice being portuguese kinda make sense as tech tree fits them better than italians.
Like I said, discounted cav archers with one less armor alone is nothing, and their siege weapons are sad. Thus is the reason the devs didnāt pick Huns. Fighting the Huns is nothing comparing to fighting Mongols.
The devs pick Mongols because they are more challenging Sure the CA also lack final armor, but they fire faster, and their UU has bonus against siege. And their siege weapons are fully upgraded with speed. If you didnāt play properly, your base and army will get torn apart by them.
I mean not that having a civ or the other in a campaign means much since you can basically change everything through triggers
It would have been interesting if they were represented with Huns in both scenarios, but had their architecture changed to the Central Asian one. Like how the Sicilians use the Western European one when representing the Normans.
Would be nice seeing this ability to switch architecture for scenarios used more often where appropriate.
Iāll even suggest having Alaricās āA kingdom of our ownā and Attilaās āThe fall of Romeā enemies changed architechture set and name to Romans.
How about changing the architecture and name of all enemies in the Tariq campaign to mediterranean and Goths?
And maybe many more enemies in all the campaigns. Iām thinking changing the names of all enemies from Barbarrossaās in Italy to Italians
I think the civ names can be useful for indicating what to expect from that player, especially for players that train unique units, e.g. Patavium and Verona. On the other hand, I agree about architecture, and in particular would like to see enemies in The Fall of Rome building triumphal arches and amphitheatres rather than various medieval churches.
I thought that myself, BUT, you can always specify stuff in hints, like, change this
Mediolanum (3, Green) has an aggressive army that may come looking for you if you take too long to go on the offensive. Mediolanum trains Knights and Archers and has a small navy.
Patavium (5, Purple) also lies to the north and may attack early. Patavium is known for its Archers and siege weapons.
In the northern marshes lies Aquileia (2, Red), which has few soldiers initially, but can eventually field Knights, Spearmen, and Scorpions.
As the Huns advance through Italy, they will eventually come into contact with Verona (4, Orange), whose Knights, Archers, and Throwing Axemen offer the final defense of the Western Roman Empire.
to this
Mediolanum (3, Green) has an aggressive army that may come looking for you if you take too long to go on the offensive. Mediolanum trains Knights and Archers and has a small navy. They use the Teuton tech tree.
Patavium (5, Purple) also lies to the north and may attack early. Patavium is known for its Archers and siege weapons. They use the English tech tree
In the northern marshes lies Aquileia (2, Red), which has few soldiers initially, but can eventually field Knights, Spearmen, and Scorpions. They use the Celt tech tree
As the Huns advance through Italy, they will eventually come into contact with Verona (4, Orange), whose Knights, Archers, and Throwing Axemen offer the final defense of the Western Roman Empire. They use the Frank tech tree
Unrelated, but I think that now that (Western) Romans are a civ on their own, Verona could be Byzantine instead of Franks. Cataphracts with (trigger added) Bloodlines and Blast Furnace are maybe even more dangerous than Throwing Axemen
Spanish and Italians factions in the first three Tariq scenarios should definitely be Romans now.
I donāt have that much of a problem with Spanish, but of we are gonna change Italians even Portuguese would be better than Romans. The cities represented by Italians werenāt Roman independent cities
Well Portuguese is a little too much maybe, same problem of Spanish. What would you make them create from castles? Italians donāt make sense either. I feel Romans is the safest bet since the civ wonāt appear much anywhere else and while they were not independent there were definitely Hispano-Romans still living there even if they were arguably very few by that time, almost totally mixed with goths. Still itās as close as you can get while adding variety imho.
They donāt need to create stuff from castles. In āThe fall of Romeā neither Celts nor Teutons train their UUās.
This is a good point. In that case, change them to Romans, but donāt let them train Legionaries or Centurions. You can make them train Huskarls from the Catle if you absolutely need UUās. Barracks can still train THS and champions, if gameplay-necessary.
This invasion plant the seeds of what Spain will be, so again, I have zero isue with the Spanish. You can make them train Huskarls too. But if you want to swap the Italians for the Romans, be my guest
Iād totally change that in fact. Iād make Aquileia Goths and train huskarls, patavium Italians training either longbows or heavy crossbows and Mediolanum byzantines training cataphracts and dromons. Finally Verona could be Romans and train legionaries and centurions. Even their wonders would make more sense.
True but the invasion still need to happen when you play the campaign so Spain is still a romano barbaric kingdom, even if as I said at that point definitely way more barbaric than Roman.
If you played the reconquista campaign by catscientist or liuvigild by the winged hussar you could have notice that they both put legionaries and centurions in those scenario and rightly so even if Romans werenāt a civ yet (so you had anachronistic Spanish, Italians and Portuguese training them). Now that Romans are there you donāt even need triggers to make it work. Finally! (To all those people who were against having them)
I think our views are too different for each of us to change each others mind, however it is nice talking to you. If it depended on me, I would have every enemy in The Fall of Rome be Romans (Byzantines pre Return of Rome) and add variety throught triggers. Aquilea having better Siege and Halberdiers, Milan having better infantry and a kick donkey navy and so on. Whatās more, in every Atiila and Alaric I would make them train Norseman Warrios instead of Militia-line.
Tariq, the same: every enemy in Iberia Goth, and use triggers to add variety. Make Tariq train Eastern swordsmen