I don’t know why people dislike the name of Dravidians.
You mean Tie Fu Tu, right? I prefer that give Jurchens the paladins for representing them. That would make Jurchens become the only East Asian civ having the paladins.
Perhaps the castle age UT named “Tie Fu Tu” or “Iron Pagoda” for cavalry or knight bonus.
Btw, the “miŋgan moumukə” could be the name of imperial age UT nicely.
Yeah. Let’s add the Jurchens and Khitans. That can reproduce the 7th-13th century history of East and Inner Asia very well.
Perhaps add the Gokturks too. An important role in the early medieval inner Asia.
Tamils - a nation from the Dravidian group of people speaking the Tamil language, 74 million peoples.
Dravidians - ethnolinguistic group living in South Asia who predominantly speak any of the Dravidian languages. There are around 245 million native speakers of Dravidian languages.
Here is proof why the Dravidians rather than the Tamils would be a better name for the South Indian civ.
Siamese and Congolese are the obvious choice - popular and famous names.
Jurchen is different. I think Manchu would gain more popularity.
Same as above. Wallachians are definitely less popular than Romanians. It is worth noting that Wallachians are only one of the Romanian nations, such as Moldovans and Transylvanians. Apart from the fact that the term Romanians is outside the AoE 3 timeframe, I believe it is the best name for this civ - universal for Romanian nations and the most popular.
BTW: Romanians already have their campaign but they don’t have their civ, LOL.
As far as I know, the European cavalry armor is the heaviest one in the middle age so surely the Jurchen armor is lighter than European one. However it probably is the heaviest one in medieval East Asia. It impressed the Chinese army deeply, which is written in many records. Having paladins is an option to highlight this.
Almost all the East Asian nations had used or been influenced by Chinese characters, especially Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese. Surely them could not be represented by Chinese, right?
The influenced culture can not be an only reason to reject them. Otherwise we could just combine all European civ into one Christian knight civ.
It only proves that Dravidians are an umbrella term, just like Indians, Slavs, etc. I’d rather have separate civs for Tamils, Kannada and maybe Telugu or Malayalam.
(for comparison, this umbrella is so large, it would be like grouping the Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Sicilians and Burgundians into a Romance civ)
Both Jurchen and Romanians ara anchronistics for this time period. During the Medieval Era, Vlachs was not just the name of the inhabitants of the Principality of Wallachia, but also a common name given to all native speakers of Romance languages in the Balkans, including but not limiting to the entirety of the Romanians. The term Romanian gained traction during the Modern Era.
As for Manchu, the term appeared in the XVIIth century and took several decades before being adopted by their rulers. I’d rather have Jurchen in AoE2 and Manchu in AoE3.
Literally comparable to the Persian Cataphracts. They were covered totally in Lamellar Plate Armor, as were their horses. For reference, that is a ton of small iron or steel rectangles all joined together to make up the armor. They had a lance, to help them serve as shock cavalry, a bow and quiver, and a two handed sword. Mobility was ensured by giving each rider two horses, so effectively they would at least match European or Persian/Byzantine cavalry, or even exceed it due to normally significantly outnumbering them. European knights were normally deployed in up to few hundred at a time, whereas the Iron Pagoda would normally be deployed in between 3000 and 6000, with an additional army of other cavalry numbering about 15 thousand, and 40-80 thousand infantry on top of that. That would also often dismount and fight as infantry, so they could have the Konnik mechanic, maybe after a unique tech? Overall though, I think that both giving them Paladin and the Iron Pagoda Cav as a unique unit could be done.
It’s a shame if we just create a second existing UU like Boyars, Konniks or Keshiks.
I prefer to let paladins represent Iron Pagoda well, then design a special mechanic for the UU, maybe the flail cavalries which have 1 or 2 range and able to cause damage to multiple units in a straight line, similar to the scorpions.
They look totally different from European paladins though, so unless we get regional skins like we should, I think they would be better of as a unique unit. Of course, this conversation probably doesn’t matter, because now we are going to be given another 9 really minor European factions, and then we will have reached the cap of 48 .
The key is not making the knight line and the iron pagoda redundanct. What about having it be an unique improvement for the cavalier, replacing the paladin, like Poles and Lithuanians get the WH instead of the regular hussar ?
The question would then be, what would be their unique unit ? What about a heavy horse archer, not as tanky as the korean war wagon but still with a decent armour ?
Nah, you could do Fire Lancer as the Unique Unit. Or if you did Iron Pagoda as the UU, then you could have a tech “Crutched Horse Formation” which allows Iron Pagoda to do low level trample damage as they move. This refers to a tactic that they would use where they would tie a leather thong between every 2-3 horses, in order to mow down enemy infantry as part of their shock charge. You could really do either Fire Lancer or Iron Pagoda as unique units, or even both.
Right, and then you could do the Crutched Horse Formation as a UT, and I’m not sure about the other one. Fire Lancer would be an interesting unit. If would probably be cav with 1-2 range, and it shoots fire (Naturally). So it would have bonus damage against standard buildings, siege, ships, and maybe some other stuff. Infantry maybe? Or possibly cav? The fire attack could be one like the Coustiller, and it charges every 10-20 seconds and then the unit does a melee attack until it recharges maybe?
Such weapons were typically more psychological than really effective by themselves on troops so what about having the fire lance attack be a charged attack (like the coustillier’s charge) inflicting a temporary debuff on enemy units’ attack, armour and/or attack speed over some area of effect, then next attacks being regular lance thrusts ? If the timing is right it would make a powerful one-two-punch attack, first send the fire lancers then the Iron Pagoda.
.