What you don’t really understand is “Age of Empires 2”. By definition it is a game with civilizations built on symmetric style and only a few differences that make them stand apart from each other.
3 Likes
AoE2 is not the same game as it was 20+ years ago.
Look at the Dynasties of India civilisations and how much unique things they have.
3 regional units and 2+ unique units each.
The American civs should theoretically be more unique but yet they have only one regional unit and besides the Inca only one unique unit each.
1 Like
I really want to highlight this quote. Whoever the original poster was really got it. I’ve heard similar arguments against giving dromon to other civs, about the dromon being “too Mediterranean”.
I’m not sure why but it never occurs to these people that by that same logic, arbalests are too French to be given to meso civs, and hussars are too Eastern European to be given to mongols.
The devs want to fill a unit niche, then the peruse through history to find the name of the most ubiquitous/recognizable example of such a unit. Look at the aforementioned arbalester and hussar. They had no qualms about giving civs those units because the NAME wasn’t the important part. The name only served to communicate to the player what role the unit plays in the game.
Beyond that, even when there really isn’t a historical reason a unit should have a unit, if it is sufficiently important for balance it’s given anyways. Look at the treb. There is a interview with Sandy Peterson around 2000 when AOC was released. Basically he said meso civs could have created something of similar utility had the need arisen and beyond that take a chill pill. Any given unit isn’t meant to be the most literal representation possible. We don’t have an issue with incas having halberdiers. We understand that they had some capable stabby sticky guys and use the halberdier to represent that ability.
If you take issue with the idea of the dromon being added to meso civs because against other ships it’s better than the cannon galleon and you think those civs aren’t naval civs so shouldn’t be that good on water I can appreciate that argument. If you don’t even think a civ needs the ability to deal with coastal fortifications to be a competitive civ, I can see where you’re coming from. If you think it goes against the identity of any of those civs to have a water mangonel type unit, I have no issue with that opinion.
But the “but it’s called a dromon” argument has literally no validity.
2 Likes
And what validity has an argument that states “it’s always been like this so it should always be”?
Yeah Mongol hussar is silly, Malian long swordsman with European look is silly, Japanese monks looking like they came out of an Irish monastery is silly so I miss why dromons to Incas should be less silly…
If the fundaments of a system are incorrect you change the fundaments piece by piece (for example I think adding regional skins would be a good start), it’s not that you try to add other incorrect stuff to make it correctly fit with an incorrect system.
Can’t think of a practical example right now but this sounds like logic to me, no?
Otherwise this is a regressive way of thinking instead of a mindset aiming to improve a 25 years old game (and I assure you I’m a very nostalgic guy, I wouldn’t play aoe2 in 2023 otherwise).
2 Likes
Maybe I’m mis-understanding your point, but it seems like you’re arguing that regional skins are a fundamental aspect of the gameplay and improving them fundamentally improves the game.
If that is indeed your point I have to strongly disagree. Regional skins are nothing but eye candy. And don’t get me wrong, I appreciated when trade carts got regional skins. It’s 100% cool. I drooled over those new assets like a fanboy.
And fundamentally the game was exactly as it had been before. Trade wasn’t more comprehensive, or stronger, or complicated, or sensible, or any other adjective, good or bad, you might want to assign. The game functioned exactly as it always had.
If the devs come out with some more architecture sets, or regional skins, or something like that I’m not going to through a hissy fit and say they’re ruining the game. I do think it has to be done carefully to maintain the readability of the game, but either way I don’t think this is important to the game on a fundamental level.
1 Like
No that wasn’t my point but never mind.
1 Like
Ah, the monthly Dromon thread is back again.
As far as the American civs though, I’d say absolutely not. I’d rather keep their current status as poor naval civs than unnecessarily sacrifice (more) historical flavor to make those civs stronger on unpopular maps. Even relative to their own technology, none of these civs could be considered naval powers, like the Polynesians or possibly Chimu were.
Yes. The conventional wisdom is that they didn’t make widespread use of the wheel due to lack of draft animals and generally unfavorable terrain (although the Mayas in particular did make impressive road systems). Although in my opinion, the more important factors were likely material considerations, such as lack of ironworking, which put a low ceiling on the durability of the axles and other moving parts. The practice of slavery, as in other areas of the world, also likely dampened the incentives of emphasizing labor-saving devices. It’s plausible that some Mexican cultures made limited use of wooden carts, but that the practice was rare and eventually abandoned due to higher effort and lower returns than in most other parts of the world.
I agree with your point in the sense that “Dromons” could be generic units that fill a role for any civ according to the standards set in AoK/C. The bigger issue as I see it is that very few generic units have been added to the game since AoC, (Siege Tower, Fire galley, Demo Raft), and the emphasis since then has been much more on adding regional units, which do have an implied restriction, even if under previous standards they could have been universal/generic units. I see the Dromon as a regional unit that fills a less essential role than a universal unit like the trebuchet, and partly on that basis resist the idea of giving them to civs that were not Roman/Byzantine adjacent. Although it’s more a matter of not thinking that all civs need to be strong on water in lategame, and that the American civs’ comparatively bad navies are justified in terms of their other strengths, and in terms of historical flavor.
7 Likes
The Vikings sailed to the Mediterranean and provided the Byzantine Imperial Vanguard. Maybe that could be a strong enough cultural connection to justify Vikings getting the Dromon? I think they could then shed Chemistry and instead have the new Imperial UT Bogsveigar give +2 attack and apply to defensive buildings too. There must have been “bogsveigarar” (“bow swayers”, a.k.a. archers) manning the towers and castles too, after all.
No. Every civ should have Chemistry.
Bogsveigar didn’t man anything. They didn’t exist. The word is made up.
I feel like you CAN shed Chemistry if there’s a good thematic precedent to do so such as being way out of touch with gunpowder and arrows it can work.
After all they’re taking away Caslt Age smith techs so… nothing is immune but that civ should NOT be Vikings
1 Like
If anyone should miss it its the meso civis.
Possibly but Mayan Viability gonna fall off a cliff in Imp without it. Aztecs COULD be okay unless you’re forced to go Archers against say a Cataphract all in byz player.
If you’re gonna take from Inca then Andean sling better give +1 more damage at least
There is this: Áns saga bogsveigis - Wikipedia
Yeah, but it only refers to a legendary archer, not general archers. There is no plural.
They already made an untrainable ship Canoe - a boat designed for Mesoamerica and Africa campaigns & scenarios, it appears in El Dorado campaign back in The Forgotten, and the Portuguese campaign when the location is in Africa. Why don’t just adjust/reskin it and make it regional combat/siege ship, or both for Mesoamerica civs?
Imagine something like “Capped Canoe”, a Canoe covered in leather, high hp, throwing short-ranged and low-damage torches at buildings that do anti-building damage, having extra ship-type armor to offset anti-ship damage, basically a water ram but overall weaker and situational, as the Mesoamerica civs are supposed to be weak on water.
I agree with someone who said that giving Dromons to them is just lazy and lacks creativity. Also like others said, Dromons is better than Cannon Galleon in combat so why give it to the civs that are supposed to be weak on water?
2 Likes
Names from occupations are a widespread tradition. In English, there are names like Fisher, Smith, and Taylor. Of course the occupations have plural forms. In the case of Án Bogsveigi (a.k.a. Ån Bogsveige in Norwegian), maybe the proper Norse plural form was “bogsveigir” (like the AoM unit), not “bogsveigar” or “bogsveigarar”, but that does not make “bogsveigar” a made-up word, really. In more modern Norwegian dialects, “bogsveigar” would be a natural plural form of “bogsveige”, and “bogsveigarar” would be a natural plural if the singular were “bogsveigar”.
PS: Honestly, I am not sure whether a “bogsveige” is a maker of bows or a user of bows. But my main point remains the same: that a technology (or “technology”) that makes bows/bowmen more powerful should also apply to towers and castles. At least to their main projectiles, since it is conceivable that garrisoned villagers do not benefit from the same upgrade.