I’d rather just recreate the entire Lakota unit roster as a clean slate than do these strange unit swaps that assume some roles are being kept, because it’s more difficult to keep track of which unit does what doing this and it’s more probable you end up leaving a hole behind anyways.
1 Like
I want to, but it’s hard to understand how to do that. A Crow Owner could just as easily be fitted with a lance as they could with a stone warclub or a repeating carbine. There’s absolutely nothing keeping the Warpath Badger from wielding a lance, a warclub, or a bow.
Lances did have specific patterns on them:
(From top to bottom, left to right: Tokala Lance, White Marked, Crow Owners (B), Strongheart, Miwatani (the closest translation to this is "Owl Soldiers), and Water Boy’s Lance.)
The Lakota had a sense of humor, even in this book. The Crow Owners did not usually take a lance, hence B is empty, and the Water Boy did, in fact, have his own lance. The Water Boy is exactly what he sounds like.
However, lances were as much a way to distinguish each other as they were used as weapons. No warrior was bound to use their lance more than any other weapon they had.
I believe it may be smarter to figure out what type of units the Lakota need to make a functional, clear-cut military, comprised largely of cavalry, then assign designs and names to them as seems most interesting.
3 Likes
I’m bored and I’m home sick, so let’s make a potential layout of the military.
- Cavalry Archer. Strongest unit of the Lakota, reflective of the cavalry archer position in Lakota culture. Many upgrades available. Has a strong melee attack good against both infantry and cavalry, but loses resists in melee. Gains both ranged and melee resists in ranged. Only available from the Home City, though may be enabled to retrain what you have lost.
- Owns Alone
- Heavy cavalry with short range pistol attack. Most generic unit of the Lakota, using a stone, then horn club for a small AoE (changes with upgrades). No multipliers. (Think a range of 8, with a minimum range of 4 before they auto-swap to melee.)
- Warpath Badger
- Lancer cavalry. Specialist, good against infantry. Small range advantage in melee.
- Kitfox Soldier
- Lancer cavalry. Specialist, good against cavalry. Small range advantage in melee.
- Cavalry rifler. Generic cavalry armed with a repeating rifle that fires at a high rate. Exceptional against artillery and moves fast, but lacks many home city upgrades available to it. Gains range with each upgrade (10 → 16).
- Crow Owner
- Melee AoE cavalry. Specialist, with a build limit, good against buildings. Siege trooper.
- Blotahunka Prowler / Itkunyan Prowler
- Weak, cheap, cavalry archer that benefits from many upgrades, as well as promotions. Higher rate of fire than normal, but also paired with a low attack. Gains damage and speed from promotions.
- Bare Bow (“bare” being the same here as we use “green,” as in “green soldiers”)
- Weak, cheap spearman that runs faster than most. Benefits from promotions. Gains damage and speed from promotions.
- Bare Lance
- Cheap, cost-efficient skirmisher that trades range for speed and damage. High ranged resist. Benefits from promotions. Gains damage and speed from promotions.
- Bare Rifle
The units named “bare” do not come from any warrior society, but are instead those who are training to become part of an Akicita. If possible, separate cards for all three to allow Bare Bows to become Owns Alone on reaching 4 kills, Bare Lance to become either Kitfox Soldiers or Pale Horses (depending on which card is sent), and for Bare Rifles to become Crow Owners.
This creates a setup of 9 units - 7 cavalry and 2 infantry - for the Lakota to mess with. Every general role in a military is filled by a cavalry unit, and the Lakota cavalry has more specialized cavalry units than other civs. Owns Alone and Bare Bows would be capable of sieging at the full extent of their range with a card, but Mercenaries must be hired to fully fill the void that a lack of artillery gives.
However - the Itkunyan Prowler is a dedicated siege trooper, and would throw explosives at buildings, despite using warclubs in melee from horseback, and the range given from Bare Bows and Owns Alone would be sufficient for most cases needing siege.
4 Likes
Impressive work, I hope the dev will do some facelift on the First Nations soon and take your messages into consideration.
That being said, I think we need some new minor and major Native civs (possibly some minors upgraded to majors), but I’m not sure which one would be a better fit. The Nʉmʉnʉʉ/Comanches would probably be a strong candidate for a major civ, but there are so many possibilities I guess we could end up with more First Nations than European states.
Take care of yourself and rest well, but also have fun.
1 Like
That’s a really great unit rundown.
My only concern is that we would need access to a foot archer or equivalent from Age II or for their Bare Bow cav to be similarly cheap.
Don’t get me wrong though - I’m not a fan of trying to push through completely unique military systems through ‘standard’ holes, however from a gameplay perspective I guess we would need super accessable light infantry or ranged cav that would fulfil the roles of Crossbow/Longbow/‘archaic’ archer, though if Bare Rifles can fill that ‘slot’ with being OP as they are gunpowder units then that could work
1 Like
As a Romanian whose people aren’t fully represented. Don’t speak for me.
4 Likes
The goal is for the Bare Rifle to fulfil that role. With some general stat adjustments, they can be a viable Age 2 skirm without being OP - increasing their speed and damage while lowering their range and RoF can help them be more fair in At 2 while also giving them a unique, middling slot as a unique skirm.
1 Like
The native tribes who no longer dance or mining have lost their fun to play. These features supposed to show how close they’re to the nature and their spirit. I guess I will just never get their political justifications. I wonder about those so-called counselors. Did they ever play the game? Or did they have to make a point to worth the tea time?
This list is easier to be implemented, compared to others like remove the Plaza.
7 is too much in a building. I would say it’s better 5, and don’t let it over 6.
I don’t sure changing the generic names is a nice move, since it may be a problem to the localization, but reskining is good.
Since you make it have to be obtained from HC, the max number you can hold would be quite limited, and the age 2 bow rider raiding could no longer work pretty.
Suggest: 7 or 8 train limit for bow riders by default, and extra bow riders could be shipped with each shipments like how Germans ship Uhlans. Recieve X bow riders from a shipment, the limit have could get +X. If their status is noble, maybe let them be trained by Warchief rather than at Stables.
This kind of club rider seems to go to replace the in-game axe rider.
The pistol should be locked by default and unlocked by a tech (like a big button) or a card.
Reply to these few first.
This was removed because it’s a racist stereotype and entirely inaccurate. We’re a spiritual people, but dear god, we’re not petting wild animals.
The mining, on the other hand, needs to be updated. I made it clear here that the same beliefs that prevented the Lakota from mining had no bearing on the Haudenosaunee, and that those same beliefs in Lakota culture also prevent farming.
I didn’t go into that part, but the idea would also require adjustments to how the Warhut/Corral units are organized. It wouldn’t be by cavalry/infantry anymore, but more by “Bare-” units here/Named units here.
Bare Bow, Bare Lance, Bare Rifle would be in one building
Crow Rider, Kitfox, Pale Horse, Warpath Badger in one building
Prowler available from somewhere else, possibly enabled by a BBT in the Corral that improves the siege range of the Bare Bow and Owns Alone.
How are Voltigeur, Needle Gunner, and Tercio handled in localizations? If a Lakota name is required, I can get those, but translation is better if it’s done literally to each language. That’s why Lakota names are always things like Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull rather than being recorded in history as Tashunke Witko or Tathanka Iyotake.
IE Whatever “Owns Alone” is in German would be the name of the unit in the German translation.
1 Like
I think that works then!
Would you envisage their Elite > Champion > Legendary upgrades display a change in firearm? For example, the Bare Rifles hold rifled muskets before ending up with later 19th century (proper) rifles.
You could even potentially have them switch to repeating rifles in the Industrial Age via a HC shipment to keep them relevent later on.
On a different subject altogether - economy. Now there was talk about Furs (I’m all for a unique, North American Native People-focused resource) which I really like, however is there any room for an abstracted eco trait for the Lakota?
In another RTS, Rise of Nations, the Lakota are portrayed by not being able to build eco buildings such as Farms and Granaries (so Farms and Estates here) and in lieu would gain the Food resource as a trickle, per unit. Whilst RoN is certainly not a bastion of historical accuracy, would a food trickle (much like AD civs and their Export) per unit in play, abstractly justified as your civ pursuing hunting as the primary form of food acquisition work? Or would that be seen as a little insensitive? (Their cav archers also gain resources via raiding however I think this probably doesn’t sit well?)
Buffalo Pounds have been suggested before and have always seen as sensible food production building.
note - just to add, could this also be a Coin production building (selecting Food or Coin like a Rice Paddy/Factory)? Bison hides (‘Robes’) were traded, especially when in surplus to Europeans and other tribe, so it seems an other avenue to abstractly present fur trade?
Wild Rice/Chokeberry patches I had read that before their horse culture, Lakota did harvest Wild Rice before moving into the plain - maybe we can start with a nearby Wild Rice pond/marsh patch to harvest from, or additional Berry Bushes (Chokeberry in this case). Would also act as a nice tip of the hat to show a little pre-contact/pre-horse Lakota, as the currrent viewpoint seems very 19th century.
I think we should make different topics about:
- Lakota economy rework
- Haudenosaunee economy rework
- Lakota units rework/rename
- Lakota and Haudenosauneee Community Plaza replacement
- Aztec and Inca Community Plaza replacement
- All Native Mercenary rework
- Aztec and Inca gunpowder access
Some of those topics already exist.
5 Likes
From an economic standpoint, my personal preference is this:
Buffalo Pounds produce bison over time, with 1 available in Commerce Age, with a +1 build limit per age. Bison from these have a reduced food amount in them, and Market/Card upgrades for the Lakota focus heavier on Yield improvements over Speed of Gathering improvements. This would be further balanced by the Lakota having a unique villager, the Khuwa, that starts with a higher-than-normal hunting rate.
Tradehouses can be built anywhere, and convert a % of food gathered from huntables near them into coin. When built on Mines, they convert a % and all Khuwa nearby gain a gold trickle while they hunt. Tradehouses also operate as the building to recruit Mercenaries from.
Tipis are a purely economic building, providing a boost to Khuwa in attack and gather rates. They do nothing for military units.
Farms and Estates would be replaced for the Tortuamerican civs by Three Sisters Gardens, a building that can contain 5 villagers at a time, and can gather all 3 resources, but cannot gather furs.
Furs (placeholder name) are a fourth resource that each “region” of the Tortuamerican civs collect from natural resources; Prairie nations, such as the Lakota, collect Furs while hunting. Woodland nations, such as the Haudenosaunee, collect Furs while chopping wood. PNW nations, such as the Haida, collect Furs while mining.
Each of the three regions would have a unique building to them to give them some sort of indefinite way to collect their region’s resource, and the Three Sisters Garden would give them a way to collect the other two indefinitely as well.
That’s the quick summation.
2 Likes
if you are going to rework a faction you might as well include all aspects so that those aspects are balanced as a whole rather than working from separate balance points.
1 Like
In the game, units that use lances = anti-infantry. Using lances but anti-cavalry is against the rules of the game.
You could try and have the anti-cavalry ones use other weapons instead (eg maces, swords, clubs, axes) and work like Berber camels as melee light cavalry units.
Or, bare bow riders, cheaper and weaker, unlike those noble ones from HC. Maybe you just need either them nor need melee anti-cavalry units. Including the stronger bow riders and the rifle rider, 3 type of cavalry unit against cavalry is pretty enough.
This is a bad design. A clear example of the fact that games have to be different from reality.
Regardless of your culture, in the game, infantry and cavalry are different after all, and have their own jobs. I definitely don’t want to see that when I need to train these infantry to counter the opposing units, I can’t maintain the required number because the infantry keeps becoming to cavalry units that I don’t need.
Maybe the cards are costly and infinite, and you can simply turn them into cavalry, but anyway, don’t don’t don’t activate the automatic turning to other type of unit. I even think that there is no need to deliberately reflect the culture of being a cavalry in the game, because the game is really not suitable for presenting it.
Bare bowmen (foot), bare spearmen, bare riflemen, these three could be shared with Haud in Warhuts.
Club riders, lancers, cheaper bow riders, rifle riders, siege cavalry (I don’t think the civ need this one) → Corral.
Stronger bow riders → Lakota Warchief.
(Maybe forest prowler → Haud Warchief.)
Probably the civ need a kind of scout cavalry to counter outlaws and mercenaries? Not sure since there is scout men in TCs.
i play natives since they came out to this day and i gotta say i agree with you. i loved the idea of the firepit and really dislike the community plaza. if it was so racist maybe they should’ve changed the way it was portrayed (maybe not make them dance) or only allow priests in the firepit and make them pray. But i would really love them to put it back.
3 Likes
I don’t know about that… - if you’ve got the Definitive Edition making that a change straight away and then people on here with native ties telling you it was very much offensive, then removing it entirely was obviously the best course of action.
I have always loved playing native civs from the original iteration however thought the whole ‘dancing around the fire’ to incite magic was always awkward - did Ensemble Studios really think that’s how all the native civs needed to be portrayed.
I do however agree (and many on here will also agree) that the Community Plaza is not the way to deal with it. I get there should be perhaps a way of showing a council/councilors/elders’ decision to focus on a certain element/strategy for the benefit for your settlement, but the Plaza is such a broad sweeping ‘catch-all’ answer to it which is probably offensive - I’d rather see unique buildings for each Native civ which allows strategy choice (such as Temples for Aztec and ########
1 Like
I always think it would be better to split the Native American civ group further. They are too different to be covered by a single civ group, and several icons/names don’t fit for some of them.
The Asian civs all have their “unique” religion-related mechanics (Japanese shrine, Indian sacred field, not much for Chinese but they have a system around disciples), and the African civs have their unique influence system (Ethiopian monastery and Hausa university). So the “vs-for-bonus” system for Native Americans could also be more diverse both aesthetics-wise and gameplay-wise, as opposed to one same “community plaza”.
And it is implemented with low-efforts, along with the tribal marketplace which is another story. Both only have the workers standing/sitting there doing nothing.
1 Like
yea i was ignorant it was offensive i tought of it as a religious thing more than magic, but i totally understand the decision.
I just hate how bland the community plaza is. nothing visually exciting. I would be down with the temple tho.
2 Likes
Yes, that irks me too!
Even on the absolute base-level it’s called a Tribal Marketplace - why have something so similar to the existing Market - not particuarly user friendly.
Delving just a tiny bit into it, it was mean to be an inoffensive way of those civs who wouldn’t be mining (which is inaccurate as the Haudenosaunee mined Copper and were thought to be execellent silversmiths) however it’s odd as it needs to be built next a Mine anyway…
There’s so many better alternatives that have been suggested!
1 Like