Ideas for the Split of Khitans

Hello!

We all have learned that the current Khitans are very inaccurate — infantry identity, multiple gimmicks, and Tangut stuff.

Many forum users have explicitly voiced their wish for the next DLC to give proper attention to East Asia, including the long-anticipated split of the Khitans.

Here are some ideas I’ve been considering for the split:

  • The reborn Khitans would retain the Shepherds and Herders bonus, along with bonuses related to the Forging line and Cavalry Archer upgrades, emphasizing their nomadic, mounted unit-focused identity.
  • The Tanguts would inherit all the Tangut-related elements from the current Khitans, including the trash unit bonus, team bonus, regeneration effect, and the iconic Camel Trebuchet.
  • The Tibetans would take on the remaining features of the current Khitans, such as the infantry bleeding mechanic and the damage reflection effect.

(If you’ve read my previous concepts for the Khitan and Tibetan civs, you can regard these as a new version.)

This wasn’t meant to be a super long post, but as I tried to explain my thoughts, it ended up growing a lot, so really thanks a lot for reading.

Hope you find the ideas interesting!


Reborn Khitans

Historical Reference

The reason why the Khitans were a powerful threat to the Song dynasty of China was because they had a great reserve of horses. Almost the entire army could be cavalry, most of whom were lightly armed or even unarmored horse archers as well as a portion equipped heavily in the center. Whether unarmored, lightly armored or heavily armored, tribal horsemen or elite cataphracts, all men can shoot. One of their standard tactics is, the light cavalry would harass the enemy with a massive rain of arrows, confusing the enemy and forcing them to change formation, e.g. moving forward, then the heavy cavalry would charge with lances.

In the early days of the Liao dynasty, horsemen were often sent out to pillage the countryside on the borders of the Song and Goryeo. The threat was so great that there was a term “da cao gu” (打草穀) in Chinese and “tachogok” (타초곡) in Korean, literally threshing grass seeds, to specifically refer to this action of Khitans’ plundering behavior in historical books. Those horsemen were called “da cao gu qi” (打草穀騎) in Chinese and “tachogokgi” (타초곡기) in Korean as well.

Besides the nomad warriors, the Khitans also used spies actively, according to the records of the Song and Jin dynasties. Han people under the Liao rule were loyal to the Khitans, and their Han spies transformed themselves into monks, merchants, old women, beggars and so on, distributed from the border to the capital of Song; After the Jin discovered the activities of Kara-Khitai spies, they forcibly relocated the remaining Khitan people.

As for the foot soldiers, it seemed to have been composed largely of the ruled Han, Balhae and Jurchen peoples, fought with tactics of settled peoples just as themselves, and were used almost only to defend settled cities and major roads. The vast majority of historical records are about the activities of the cavalry. Anyway, it is clearly inaccurate to classify the Khitans as an infantry civ in any case.

Swan hunting with gyrfalcons, mostly obtained from the Jurchen area, became a prestigious tradition among the Khitan nobility. Unlike other medieval cultures where hunting with birds was personal or recreational, the Khitans integrated falconry into their political and military traditions. During seasonal royal expeditions called nabo (捺鉢), trained falcons played a central role in ceremonial hunts, with entire military escorts and imperial guards involved. The court even established specialized “falcon wards” to raise and train birds of prey, making falconry a symbol of imperial power and martial discipline. As demand for gyrfalcons increased, the empire imposed a falconry tribute tax on the Jurchen, with violent enforcement authorized under the last emperor. This exploitation fueled the Jurchen rebellion, leading to the fall of the Liao and the rise of the Jin.

Civ Bonuses

  • Replace Farm and Mill with Pasture.
    (Based on the idea of this post: Ideas for existing Asian civs)
  • Shepherds and Herders generate +10% food.
  • Forging line upgrades and Heavy Cavalry Archer upgrade available one Age earlier and cost -50%.
  • Enemy Castles are revealed.
  • [Team] Castle techs (including Spies/Treason) are cheaper.

Tech Tree

Compared to current Khitans.

  • Gain the Bloodlines, Blast Furnace and Lou Chuan.
  • Lose the Two-handed Swordsman (at least Champion), Squires, Cannon Galleon, Thumb Ring, Ring Archer Armor, Parthian Tactics.
  • Replace the Lamellar Armor with “Threshing Raid” (or directly named “Dacaogu”): Turns the gold cost of Cavalry Archers to (possibly more) food.
  • Ordo Cavalry effect changed to effects that could make Steppe Lancers and Cataphract Archers more heavy to represent the Liao dynasty royal guards and elite private troops, for example gain +1 pierce armor and take -1 damage from all sources.

Unique Units

  • Tamed Gyrfalcon
    (Unnecessary. More like a situational unit for fun and flavor in the Editor.)
    • A typical bird unit that is non-interactable, but only you can control its movement.
    • The train limit is 1. Fast Trainable at the Town Center in 5 seconds starting in the Dark Age, for 100 gold.
    • Gliding Mode (default):
      • Flies low with 1.62 movement speed and 4 LoS.
      • Can fly over water but not obstacles (e.g. buildings, cliffs, forests).
      • Can follow units, and can push Wild Chickens by following with a visible stooping animation, forcing them to move.
    • Soaring Mode:
      • Flies high with 1.32 movement speed and 7 LoS.
      • Can fly over obstacles and water.
      • Can follow units and can auto scout.
    • When stationary, the falcon animates by circling the edge of its current tile.
    • Switching between Soaring and Gliding modes requires a 2-second transition in a visible climbing or descending state.

  • Cataphract Archer
    • Has distinctive stats that expensive, slow, but powerful, without any gimmicky abilities.
      For example: 100 HP, 8 attack, 1/1 armor, 100% accuracy, 1.35 movement speed, 2.5 reload time, and cost at least 60 wood and 75 gold.
    • Replaces the Liao Dao.
    • The original Liao Dao unit module could first remain in the Scenario Editor, renamed as a type of Chinese sword—e.g., Podao Swordsman, Zhanmadao Swordsman, or a more general Dadao Swordsman. It could be modified to only cause massive bleeding against mounted units.

Note about the Replacement for Liao Dao.

The Liao warriors indeed used dao (single-edged swords), though along with bows, crossbows, lances, maces, trebuchets, etc. However, there’s nothing particularly distinctive about the dao they used, nor were their infantry famed for swordsmanship. In fact, contemporary Chinese records describe the Liao as “skilled with bows but weak with swords and halberds.”

“Liao Dao” literally means “the dao sword of the Liao Dynasty.” The most well-known reference to “Liao Dao” online is a replica crafted by the modern swordsmith LK Chen, based on a Liao dynasty sword displayed in a museum. Aside from that, there appear to be no sources indicating that the Liao heavy infantry ever used swords to achieve notable military successes. In contrast, the Chinese armies throughout various dynasties employed Zhanmadao, two-handed great swords specifically to counter cavalry.

Regarding the Liao swords themselves, there was nothing truly unique compared to those of the Jin and Song dynasties. At most, the Khitans and Jurchens tended to make their blades slightly more curved than the Chinese ones, as they were more likely to be wielded on horseback. For the same reason, both groups primarily used single-handed swords with short hilts. Only since the Jin ruled over the former territory of the Song, the Jurchens occasionally used two-handed swords in some cases.

Interestingly, the sword featured in the current “Liao Dao” module closely resembles the podao, a two-handed curved broadsword popular during the Song dynasty. Ironically, this module might fit better as a regional unit or a Chinese unique unit (though less likely), replacing the Two-handed Swordsman and Champion. Even if the devs were uninspired, they could at least use the Mounted Trebuchet as the unique unit at the Castle for this unusual civilization currently mixed with the Tanguts. There’s really no need to create a specific “Liao Dao” unit unless they were misled by that modern replica.

Personally, I’d love to see a new cavalry archer unique unit. The Cataphract Archer could carry either a bow or even better a crossbow in visual, inspired by a rare mention in the History of Song, which notes that soldiers of Tie Lin (鐵林, lit. “Iron Forest”), a heavy cavalry unit of the Liao, had used crossbows. Paintings from the same period also show Song cavalry using crossbows, so depicting Liao cavalry unit with a crossbow wouldn’t be unrealistic.

This kind of unit would help give the Khitans a rich cavalry archer identity. In the Castle Age, they could get a strong, cheaper Heavy Cavalry Archer upgrade. Later on, they could transition to even stronger Cataphract Archers as their main force, while the Heavy Cavalry Archers—now effectively trash units—could be used for harassment and raiding.


Tanguts

Historical Reference

The Tangut people began to break away from Chinese control since the chaos of the late Tang and became officially independent during the Song. Their warlike nature, combined with the highly militarized national policies instituted under Emperor Yuanhao, enabled Xi Xia—despite being a relatively small empire—to devote nearly all of its resources to military development. At its peak, the state could field up to 370,000 cavalry, including an elite corps of 3,000 heavy guards, posing a serious threat to both the Song and Liao dynasties.

This warlike spirit is partly embodied by those elite heavy units known as the “Iron Sparrowhawk”, or simply “Iron Hawks”. They were described in records as having the riders’ weapons and armor shackled to the horses so that they would not fall off even if they died, so that the horses would keep charging forward.

Their strength was built not only on their martial spirit and warlike nature, but more importantly on their emphasis on resource management. All adult males were required to serve in the military, making full use of the population. Pastoralism was the main industry, with official regulation of livestock, horses and camels. Military innovation was actively invested in, including the development of the “Divine Arm Crossbow” (a type of strong crossbow with a stirrup), the mobile trebuchet mounted on camels, and possibly even… the earliest form of bronze cannon!

Their geographical location also conferred some advantages. Located along a vital Silk Road corridor, they prospered from transcontinental trade and religious exchange. This prosperity supported the flourishing of Tantric Buddhism, exemplified by monumental projects like the One Hundred and Eight Stupas. The Alxa region, as the most important Bactrian camel producing area in China, provided robust camels. Men from the Hengshan area were very good at trekking through mountains and valleys so that they were levied as light infantry, to carry out sudden pursuit of panicked enemies after cavalry charge, or to attack in harsh terrain where cavalry were hard be utilized.

However, as powerful as they are, they also have challenges that they cannot overcome. After the Song army saw through their tactical style, they built a large number of fortresses on the border. Although the warriors of Xi Xia were strong in the open field, they were no match for these fortresses. After expending a lot of resources to support the warriors to advance deep into the Song territory, they could only plunder and leave, so they often only won pyrrhic victories. In addition, they self-assessed that the Song army’s crossbows were a major threat to them. The warriors had difficulty against the crossbowmen’s volleys especially after the Song army started to adopt the Divine Arm Crossbow too.

Civ Bonuses

  • Replace Farm and Mill with Pasture.
  • Free Pasture upgrades.
  • Trash units trained and upgraded +25% faster.
  • Arbalester upgrade and Heavy Camel upgrade can be researched from the Castle Age at -50% cost.
    (Heavy Camel upgrade only increases the attack bonus vs cavalry [from +9 to +11] among attack bonuses, until the Imperial Age.)
  • Free Bombard Tower (tech).
    (The Koreans now only free archery Tower line upgrades.)
  • [Team] Infantry +2 attack vs ranged soldiers.

Unique Units

  • Trekker Infantry
    • Trainable at Barracks from the Castle Age.
    • Or called “Bubazi” (步跋子, lit. “Foot-Treader”) in Chinese historical name.
    • Lightly-armored strong-health shock infantry with a jian sword, moving a bit faster than even the Eagle Warrior.
    • Able to snare the target by melee attacks reducing 10% speed of them if a gimmick is needed.
    • No Elite upgrade or has an insignificant Elite upgrade so the player can’t just rely on this unit.

  • Iron Sparrowhawk
    • Trainable at Castles from the Castle Age.
    • Or called “Tieyaozi” (鐵鷂子) in Chinese.
    • Melee Cavalry that is heavier than the Knight but lighter than Iron Pagoda.
    • Can start to rapidly deplete the charge bar when the HP dropped to 0, and can still move, attack, and be attacked until the charge bar is depleted.

  • Camel Trebuchet
    • Trainable at Siege Workshops from the Imperial Age.
    • Renamed from the Mounted Trebuchet. Or called “Poxi” (潑喜) in Chinese historical name.
    • Now can destroy or burn forest.

Unique Technologies

  • Warlike Nature (or Militarization): Horse units regenerate 1.5% HP/s while attacking in melee.
  • Alxa Camels: Effects reflecting the toughness of their Bactrian camels, like camel units take -20% ranged damage.

Tech Tree

  • Barrack: No Elite Fire Lancer, Halberdier, Gambesons.
  • Archery Range: No Thumb Ring, Hand Cannoneer.
  • Stable: No Knight.
  • Blacksmith: Full.
  • Siege: No Capped Ram, Heavy Rocket Cart, Bombard Cannon.
  • Monastery: Good, all Castle Age upgrades are available.
  • Defense: average.
  • Navy: awful, no Lou Chuan/Cannon Galleon.
  • Economy: No Two-Man Saw.

Tibetans

Historical Reference

Tibetans have developed agriculture in the densely populated river valleys, producing crops such as highland barley and wheat. This region, including cities like Lhasa, serves as the political and cultural center of the Tibetan people. Pastoralism is prevalent on the plateau, especially in the sparsely populated and dry north. Yaks are the most important livestock for Tibetans, known as “the boats of the plateau”.

After Songtsen Gampo (སྲོང་བཙན་སྒམ་པོ) established the empire in the 7th century, they became one of the main threats to the Tang dynasty of China. The Tibetan armies were mostly composed of conscripted peasants and herdsmen, led by nobles and officers. While on campaign, the armies carried no provision of grain and lived on plunder. With almost no logistics, they were able to suddenly show up at Chinese border cities with siege weapons, often sacking the cities they captured. Once they retreated to high altitude, it would be difficult for the Tang army to pursue them because Tibetans were skilled at fighting in high elevation, adept at ambushing enemies in mountainous terrain, and able to withstand altitude sickness.

Tibetans were also renowned for their excellent blacksmithing skills. Tang dynasty historian and official Du You (杜佑) described Tibetan armor as strong and resistant to piercing in his book Tongdian (通典). At the time, the Tibetans might have exported their fine armors to the neighboring steppe nomads; for example, Suluk, the Türgesh khagan, survived arrows fired by Umayyad Arabs thanks to Tibetan armor.

Also, after centuries, the armors made by craftsmen from the Tsongkha (aka Qingtang and Gusiluo in Chinese) of Tibetans with cold forging were described in Dream Pool Essays (夢溪筆談) of Song dynasty as bright blue-black, thin, and so tough that strong crossbows could not penetrate them. The craftsmanship was so amazing that it triggered a aesthetic popular among Chinese craftsmen of the time that create warty spots on armor to mimic the feature of the cold-forged armor, even though they were not cold-forged.

The arming longswords, known as “dpa’dam” (དཔའ་དམ) in Tibetan language, typically featured a single-edged, straight blade with an oblique point. These well-forged swords, usually about 70 cm to 1 meter long and designed for single-handed use, often displayed a distinctive “hairpin” pattern forged from alternating layers of iron and steel. These sharp swords were described as always equipped by every warrior of the Tibetan Empire, always carried by men even when not at war, and they are still regarded as exquisite works of art in China.

Notably, heavy infantry, rather than cavalry, were the impressive dominant force in Tibetan armies. Du emphasized the warriors of Tibetan Empire as “when they do battle, they must dismount and array themselves in ranks.” He described them as fully clad in iron armor, exposing only their eyes, and proficient with swords and fighting spears/lances (known as “mdung” མདུང in Tibetan) that were longer and thinner than those used by Tang soldiers. He also remarked that they were weak in archery. Some believe that it was only under Mongol influence that Tibetans began to value mounted archery and shock cavalry tactics.

The Tibetan Empire established diplomatic relations with China and Nepal through political marriages. Songtsen Gampo built the Jokhang Temple for a Chinese princess and a Nepali princess, which caused the formally introduction of Buddhism. A century later, Samye Monastery had built and at there monks had a great debate that shaped the formation of Tibetan Buddhism. Since then, the religion became the most iconic symbol of the region’s culture. People built gompas—monastic complexes—across the plateau for monks to reside, meditate, and study. In a system where politics and religion were closely intertwined, many gompas were fortified into dzongs with tall outer walls and towers. These structures served not only as religious centers but also as administrative offices and military fortresses at cities, key passes and hilltops.

Civ Bonuses

  • Replace Monastery and Castle with Gompa and Dzong.
  • Receive 3 Yaks (cow-type livestock) for every TC when hitting the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
  • Gambesons and Blacksmith armor upgrades are available in one age earlier.
    (The Imperial upgrades only provide +1/+1 until the Imperial Age.)
  • Gambesons and Blacksmith armor upgrades generate 0.2 gold/s after researched.
    (Kind of the Spanish bonus but bringing permanent incomes instead.)
  • Steppe Lancer line and Spearman line units gain actually +0.25 range (to simply allow them to strike first).
  • [Team] Monk units regain Faith +20% faster.

Unique Buildings

  • Gompa
    • Replace the Monastery. (So they have no “Monastery”.)
    • Buildable by Villagers, Lamas and Rinpoches from the Feudal Age, with a size of 3x3 tiles.
    • Have a range to heal units one bye one as if it were an immovable monk.
    • Can train Monks from the Castle Age and upgrade them.
    • Gompa refers to a sacred Tibetan Buddhist spiritual compound, practically their temple and monastery.

  • Dzong
    • Replace the Castle. (So they have no “Castle”.)
    • Buildable by Villagers and Rinpoches from the Castle Age, with a size of 4x4 tiles.
    • Can train Monks and upgrade them (as if the Monk line units were the Castle UU of the civ).
    • Can be garrisoned and fire more arrows when garrisoned by monk units and Relics.
    • The range is for not only firing arrows but also healing units one bye one like Gompa.
    • Dzong is a subset of gompa design that basically a fortified mixture of gompa monasteries, education places, administrative hub and military fortress.
    • In the game, it should act as a fortress that is able to provide some Gompa-like function.

Unique Units

  • Dpa’dam Swordsman
    • Replaces the Longswordsman at Barracks in the Castle Age and has the Elite upgrade in the Imperial Age.
    • Heavy Tibetan warrior, equipped with a shield and wielding a sharp dpa’dam that can cause enemy, not only mounted but also foot units, bleeding a little.
    • Being a UU for rationalizing the bleeding mechanic. If people accept that the mechanic can directly be given to the regular units of Longswordsman and Two-handed Swordsman, we don’t actually require this unit.

  • Urrdo Slinger
    • Similar to the Incan Slinger, trainable at Archery Ranges from the Castle Age, but no Elite upgrade in the Imperial Age.
    • Expensive, but comes with bonus against infantry and good health.
    • Can deal a minimum of 2 damage in the Castle Age and 3 in the Imperial Age.
    • The Tibetan sling is a traditional tool of herdsmen, known as 'ur rdo (འུར་རྡོ), pronounced roughly as “urrdo”, usually woven from yak fiber. On the battlefield, it was the most convenient and skilled weapon for the conscripted herdsmen warriors.
    • Since the herdsmen often served as horsemen in battle, this unit can uniquely be a mounted slinger instead of a foot slinger if you want something fancy.

  • LamaRinpoche
    • The Unique upgrade for the Monk in the Castle Age and in the Imperial Age.
      (There would be Monk → Lama → Rinpoche. The Rinpoche is just essencially Elite Lama under a flavorful name.)
    • Trainable at Gompa and Dzong from the Castle Age.
    • Lama can build Gompa.
    • Rinpoche can build not only Gompa but also Dzong.
    • Being a UU for rationalizing the constuction ability. If people accept that the ability can directly be given to the regular Monk, maybe we don’t actually require these upgrades.

Unique Technologies

  • Mdung Formation: Barrack units reflect 25% non-projectile damage at attackers.
  • Cold-Forged Armor: Militia-line and Steppe Lancer units take a maximum of 3 damage from each non-siege, non-gunpowder projectile.

Tech Tree

  • Barrack: No Fire Lancer line.
  • Archery Range: No Arbalester and Hand Cannoneer.
  • Stable: No Hussar, Knight.
  • Blacksmith: No Bracer.
  • Siege: Full except Bombard Cannon. Have Mangonel line instead of Rocket Cart line.
  • Gompa: Full except Heresy.
  • Defense: Good while no Bombard Tower.
  • Navy: awful, no Lou Chuan/Cannon Galleon.
  • Economy: No Two-Man Saw.

For the Future

Bai

  • Have weak cavalry. Have access to the Battle Elephant but lacking many upgrades especially the Elite Battle Elephant. Although elephants lived in the region, historical records show that people rarely used elephants in military operations.
  • Have “Luojuzi” (羅苴子) as UU. They were the elite vanguard of the Nanzhao Kingdom, described as being equipped with scarlet helmets, rhino leather armor and bronze shields, and able to run barefoot on treacherous terrain at high speeds. Perhaps they can be a shock infantry unit throwing spears as there was indeed a tradition of javelin throwing at the region.

Chams

  • Features about crossbows, like replacing (Elite) Elephant Archer with (Elite) Elephant Crossbowman. (While the Elephant Archer line replace Cavalry Archer line for Southeast Asian civs, except for the Vietnamese.)
  • A crossbow-wielding soldier that is cheap, quick to train, and requires only 0.5 population space, as if it were a ranged version of Karambit Warrior.
  • Very good navy.
  • The team bonus could be about farming, such as the first Farm is free, to reflect the introduction of Champa rice during the Song dynasty significantly boosted agricultural productivity in China.

Siamese

  • Bonuses for Battle Elephant. It could be Imperial Battle Elephant, but the Elite upgrade is fairly powerful and expensive enough, so maybe it could have the Elite upgrade cheaper instead.
  • The UU could be Elephant Cannoneer, if we want a cool new elephant unit. Siam adopted Portuguese gunpowder weapons in the early 16th century. According to Wikipedia, there are three persons on a Siamese war elephant: a polearm warrior on the neck, a signaler under chatras, and a steerer on the back, with the steerer probably carrying a musket and sword. At the Battle of Nong Sarai in 1593, it is recorded that a man on the Siamese side (although it is uncertain whether he was a Portuguese mercenary or a Siamese officer) fired musket from the back of an elephant, striking and mortally wounding the Burmese prince.
  • A unique monk unit to reflect people’s devotion to Buddhism. Maybe an elephant-riding monk. The Chronicles of Ayutthaya show that monks were invited to important occasions riding on elephants.

Göktürks

  • Represent the pre-Islamic and pre-Mongol Turkic peoples of Central and East Asia, including not only the Göktürks themselves but also the Tiele, Xueyantuo, Türgesh, Toquz Oghuz, Karluks, Uyghurs, and other groups hostile to the Göktürks.
  • Use Pasture, have no Knights, and have “Böri” (lit. wolf), their heavy cavalry and royal guard, as UU at Castle.
  • Since they basically have no stationary strongholds, the team bonus can be to allow UTs to be researched in TCs as well.
  • They valued scouting so much that they can have a simple and cheap UT to their scouts and Outposts to have a cap of 20 LoS. Tang dynasty records show that the Göktürks would send out scout cavalry before going to war, and the scale of these scout cavalry was extremely large, with a group of hundreds, thousands, or even more than a thousand tents.
  • The defense is awful, maybe no walls, so it is even more necessary to use the wide LoS to help attack or alert the enemy to raid.

Sogdians

  • Representing the oasis city-states of pre-Islamic Eastern Iranians and Tocharians, while the Persians were Western Iranians.
  • Have excellent monks, defense, and economy, but poor navy, siege, and infantry.
  • Have no Ring Archer Armor but Parthian Tactics have double effects, so their (Heavy) Cavalry Archers can counter spearmen more well.
  • “Cakar”, personal soldier-retainer of the nobility in pre-Islamic Central Asia. It can be UU at Castle, good vs cavalry as if it were a mounted version of Genoese Crossbowman. But it is weaker vs infantry and archers than general Cavalry Archer, for example it has decent default stats but it won’t be affected by any Blacksmith and Archery Range techs so that it won’t gain the attack bonus vs spearmen from Parthian Tactics.
  • Can enable Sogdian Cataphract in Stable after a UT is researched, as if it were a mounted version of Huskarl.
  • Use Cavalry Archers to counter infantry, Cakars to counter cavalry, and Sogdian Cataphract to counter archers, forming a triangle combination that can cover each other.
8 Likes

I dont like many of your ideas

I feel like you are playing with fire in terms of balance and just giving away way too many Unique stuff

I agree on the general idea of the rework, just not the execution

1 Like

I gotta agree. Simpler is better.

Think this over and improve if you can

2 Likes

Thank your dislike. :upside_down_face:

As you didn’t pick some for discussion, then I’ll just keep believe they are not quite bad, with balance, accuracy and uniqueness.

Interestingly, if you are talking about the trash cavalry archer, the revealing of enemy Castles, the Tibetan armor bonuses, and the monk unit that can build, they are from the previous version of my concepts for Khitans and Tibetans that you have clicked like. They are just merged with the current Khitan gimmicks and slit into 3 civs.

Hes not saying that. The issue is do the 3 civs you posted REALLY need 3 unique units? Is it necessary to those poor artists/model/spriters for work that might not be needed to over complicate things!?

3 Likes

Look, I feel like its hard to get into the nitty gritty whenever someone posts 3 civs at once, but I can try to point at some issues if you want

Your Tibet civ has 5 unique units and 2 unique buildings. Are you so blind that you don’t see how wrong and awful that is!? Are you… Im not gonna even say my true dark thoughts of this imperfect design? Just know this over designing makes people angry

Khitans only have 1 UU, the Cataphract Archer. I’ve stated that the falcon is unnecessary and optional.

One of the three UUs for Tanguts is already in the game, while the other two are fairly iconic to their history that I don’t feel they can be ignored.

Tibetans do have 3, but 2 of them are unique upgrades instead of pure UUs. You can also think we don’t need the Dpa’dam swordsman but just making the bleeding a civ bonus for the Militia line units, or think we don’t need Lama/Rinpoche but having the regular Monks able to build. However, that would make regular units too fancy, therefore I choose to replace them with unique things.

Look at the latest civs, look at the Three Kingdoms, how many new units have brought in with the DLC.
That not a big deal if they are willing to do so. Guess why the later civs averagely have more unique things.

You can, and I may try to explain the reason I choose so.
Or if you got the original intention, like I’m trying to reflecting something historical, thoughts for how to make it better will be welcome and absolutely appreciated.

First, you can roughly say 4 UUs, not 5. There is no a 5th.
The Lama and Rinpoche are just unique upgrades for Monk, and you can just regard the Rinpoche as kind of Elite Lama, so strictly speaking, that’s 3, not 4.

And the (Elite) Dpa’dam swordsman is the unique upgrade instead of a pure UU too, so they are not even 3 pure UUs as I said above.

The Dzong is indeed not too necessary, as long as people can accept the Castle is training Monk line rather than a pure UU line. I just show what the most fine-crafted way could be like for this civ.

Your text strikes me as rude, and makes me feel like you start picking on me before you have actually tired to read it.

@TungstenBoar I think it might help to explain a bit more about the thinking behind those concepts, so it’s clear that I’m not just “cramming unique stuff into them” for the sake of being different.

Khitans

We know the civ needs to keep something for the Forging line upgrades and needs to retain their early HCA bonus as a core part of their identity.

To avoid a sudden and extreme power spike, I adjusted the Forging line bonus to require costs. This helps maintain a smoother, more stable power curve. The economy should support affording those upgrades without overwhelming opponents too easy. In return, the civ trades the harder-to-access Thumb Ring for the easier-to-access Bloodlinese, giving their HCAs a lower threshold for use in Castle Age.

In Imperial Age, the Forging line bonus no longer gives additional attack, and HCAs can’t be fully upgraded anyway. This causes a drop-off in military power. To address that, I introduced the Cataphract Archer, a superior cavalry archer unit you can transition into, as well as the new Ordo Cavalry effect, which improves the viability of both Steppe Lancers and Cataphract Archers in the late game.

Lastly, the another UT allows the underpowered HCAs to be turned into trash units, making them more worthwhile in the late game, especially in the post-Imperial trash wars that their foot soldiers (spearmen and skirmishers) are reasonably bad. The identity of cavalry archers would be more distinct.

The Tamed Gyrfalcon is more of a fun/flavor try—totally fine if it’s untrainable in standard gameplay as I stated.

Tanguts:

Similarly, the Tanguts must inherit the Mounted Trebuchet (renamed to Camel Trebuchet) and take over most of the foot soldier-related bonuses from the original Khitan civ.

This civ is intentionally designed around careful resource planning, echoing their historical background. The lack of long-term advantages will force you to pay extra attention to resource management in exchange for temporary advantages in each Age. The wood savings from free Pasture upgrades don’t show strong benefits immediately, and there’s little early-game advantage. Faster training of trash units helps with defense but should not significantly aid offensive pushes, except for Scout/Hussar rushes in Feudal/post-Imperial.

Once you reach Castle Age, the civ opens up with a few viable options. With good resource management, you can try a temporary power spike with Arbalesters (despite lacking Thumb Ring) or Heavy Camels. However, you’ll still need an anti-archer unit from standard buildings since the Iron Sparrowhawk (heavy cavalry) is locked behind Castles. That’s where the Trekker Infantry (shock infantry) comes in.

To avoid having the civ play like a pure infantry civ, the Trekker Infantry doesn’t have an Elite upgrade on purpose. In Imperial Age, its power spike, along with Arbalesters and Heavy Camels, starts to fade. At that point, you should be able to get ready to transition into a combination of Iron Sparrowhawks, Heavy Camels, Camel Trebuchets, and Skirmishers, using the Alxa Camel effect to further boost your two camels.

If you’ve researched Chemistry for some ranged unit support, Bombard Towers become easier to access, giving you a small but useful defensive edge.

Tibetans:

With the legacy of bleeding and reflection mechanics, at least one infantry UU is needed, so the gimmicky effect won’t be imposed on the regular units if people care about. This led to the creation of the Dpa’dam Swordsman, which replaces the Longswordsman and causes bleeding with sharp Tibetan swords. Their historical use of long spear (“mdung”) formations also fits the reflection mechanic.

Like other Chinese neighboring civs, the Tibetans don’t get access to Knights too. A civ focusing only on infantry would be far too weak, so I added bonuses to make infantry more viable while also supporting other options. Early access to Gambesons and Blacksmith armor techs gives your units, especially infantry, a chance for more durability during their weakest phases. The yaks and the gold generation bonus based on the armor export act as small incentives and rewards to experiment the early armor researches.

To avoid being countered too easily by strong infantry civs (like Aztecs, Japanese, Teutons, Sicilians), the civ needs a unit like the Slinger, especially with no strong archers and no Knights. However, sharing the Incan Slinger wouldn’t be suitable, so the Urrdo Slinger was born, based on Tibetan culture and history. As a UU, it includes something special to distinguish it from the Inca Slinger, such as minimum guaranteed damage.

As for facing archer civ, in the later game skirmishers will be difficult due to lack of upgrades, so the Imperial UT will help Steppe Lancers and Dpa’dam Swordsman to be more decent when facing arrows.

You can’t ignore the people’s expectation and make a Tibetan civ without featuring monks. Ignoring them would be missing a huge part of their identity and appeal. But simply giving a generic Monk bonus would feel underwhelming, and then the civ would just feel like the majority of its features are inheriting the leftovers from original Khitans.

In my previous concept, the Gompa was similar to Fortified Churches but didn’t replace the Monastery and could train Militia-line units. However, with the release of the Caucasian civs, that kind of building between a standard Monastery and a defensive fortress no longer feels fresh and eye-catching. So I redesigned Gompa as a Monastery replacement available in Feudal Age, and introduced the Dzong, a Castle replacement that also provides Gompa-like functions. If I can’t find one special point between two normal endpoints for them, I can make both two endpoints more special.

Also, in the previous concept, letting Monk units construct buildings was a unique highlight of the civ. Giving Monks access to unique upgrades helps rationalize this construction ability and avoids making it seem too fancy for a regular unit—just like how the Dpa’dam Swordsman justifies the bleeding mechanic.

All of these design choices were made thoughtfully, not just to stack uniqueness because I wanted as many as possible.

I agree that Khitans should be split and simplified – their design is overloaded with bonuses and unique features, making them overpowered, convoluted, and thematically incoherent. There are some details I disagree with here, though.

I don’t understand why. I think the shepherds bonus should go, since their eco bonus should come from pastures, not from herdables, plus it mixes aspects of the Britons’ and Tatars’ bonuses. As for the herders bonus, it doesn’t make sense to me that this exists – herders are unique to Khitans anyway (except for other civs using stolen pastures) so whatever work rate herders should have should be part of their base rate, not a bonus.

So I would remove this bonus completely, and I think this is the most important change to make to them. Currently their eco bonus is like a combination of Britons, Tatars, Khmer, Slavs and Teutons – it has too many benefits, and some of them should be removed.

I think my changes would be the following:

  • Remove the shepherds and herders bonus.
  • Remove the trash unit training bonus and give it to another civ, probably Tanguts.
  • Remove the mounted trebuchet and give it to Tanguts, probably reworked into their castle unique unit.
  • Remove at least two of the unique mechanics (bleeding, life steal, damage reflection). One unique mechanic per civ is more than enough.

So we seem to agree on most of that.

I’m not keen on this. It seems a bit overcomplicated with its two modes and training limit, plus it doesn’t make much sense. How does the gyrfalcon communicate scouting information to the people who tamed it? (I have the same issue with the Hunnic Horse.)

A small but unnecessary nerf to Koreans. The only change Koreans need is for the recent turtle ship changes to be fixed.

I don’t know what you mean by this phrase, but it feels derogatory to me. It’s a game about armies fighting each other – every civ has a warlike nature. As a unique tech name, this is worse than stirrups.

You’ve listed four unique units, but none of them is a castle unique unit, so there must be five.

I agree that your proposals for Tanguts and (especially) Tibetans have too many unique things. Unique monks in particular are problematic, now that monks have regional skins. It wouldn’t be obvious that Lama and Rinpoche were unique units rather than just monks with different skins. Also, why do they need two unique monks and two unique monasteries?

I think that with the split, Tanguts will also use Pasture reasonably.
I also feel that the movement in community to promote Cumans, Huns, Mongols, and Tatars to share Pasture will continue in the future.

Then a new eco bonus would be needed, right?

As for your question, I can only say that I had designed a more complex version, the Falconer.

Simply put, it is a hunter on horseback who can “throw” its falcon as the projectile. But this would require more complex design, such as automatically spawning another falcon projectile to shoot at the Falconer immediately after the projectile hits or lands, to make it appear that the falcon was released and flew back. Also, once we want to get the falcon high up for scouting, that means another mode is needed.

I wanted the falcon to be specifically able to push Wild Chickens to reflect their specialization in hunting small animals (like the Khitans hunting swans), and I couldn’t figure out a way to have a unit that was actually a ranged unit exist in Dark Age without being a balance risk. Therefore, I choose a simple bird unit.

Absolutely, neither the Falconer nor the Tamed Gyrfalcon are required, and even if trainable they are likely to be situational units.

Well, it is not aimed to nerf the Koreans from the beginning, honestly. In fact the Koreans won’t feel getting nerfed. Free Bombard Tower tech isn’t important at all to the Koreans so I choose to give another civ.

“Warlike Nature” is also a term used to describe them in some academic articles discussing Tanguts. I don’t particularly think that’s derogatory, but I don’t mind a new name for this UT as well. In fact, I had hesitated between “Warlike Nature” and “Militarization”. As long as the new name can reflect the effect that the horse units being able to regenerate during melee attacking, that is, capability of gaining strength for fighting through fighting.

Please check it again. I stated that the Dzong replaces the Castle, and what the Dzong trains is the Monk line, not so-called castle unique unit.

Dpa’dam Swordsman at Barrack, Urrdo Slinger at Archery Range, and Monk line (Lama/Rinpoche) at Gompa and Dzong, that’s all.

They are beling to the Monk line: Monk → Lama → Rinpoche.
Every elite unique unit has own skin now, so having Rinpoche basiacally is equal to having the Elite Lama. It’s just for a name of flavor. Essentially there is only one unique monk. The reason I give Monks access to unique upgrades is to help rationalize this construction ability and avoids making it seem too fancy for a regular unit.

They are not simply two unique monasteries. The Gompa is the Monastery replacement that can be built in Feudal; the Dzong is the Castle replacement that can provide some Gompa-like functions when it is a fortress.

@DynasticPlanet5 @TommoChocolate I see you are all mistaken about my concept of Tibetans having 5 UUs. I guess my original layout may have caused misunderstandings when you read it so I edited the original post, hoping it will be more clear and understandable. Wonder what you think of it.

Having pastures is their eco bonus. (Looks like the devs agree, since they’ve removed this bonus completely in the latest patch.)

In terms of flavour, it’s a nice idea, but I find it hard to see how it could fit into the game. Maybe it could work as a starting scout that can also hunt? Not for Khitans, though, since they already have a good economy. It shouldn’t attack enemies with the falcon though – leave that for fantasy games.

To me it sounds similar to accusing groups of people of being “savages” or “barbarians” in a derogatory way. I may be misjudging, but it seems quite problematic.

Good point. But in that case, I think the design deviates too far from the usual civ design conventions. Call me conservative or whatever, but I think every civ should have a castle unique unit with a single elite upgrade in Imperial Age.

Both can train monks and garrison relics, right? And both represent specific types of monastery? Sounds like two unique monasteries to me.

The devs would eventually have to find a way to make owning the Pasture itself not particularly advantageous, because people would expect other nomadic civs to share the Pasture as well.
At the time, the Khitans might be able to regain the bonus.

I had set the Falconer that can only throw the falcon to gaia animals, but that brought another problem like they can’t fight back against enemy scouts, and more seriously the range can be utilized to lure boars. So that’s why I eventually gave up on the Falconer and moved on to the Tamed Gyrfalcon that is a more simple bird unit.

I edited the original post to let “Militarization” be another option for the name. Suitable suggestions for the name is welcome.

After you upgrade the Monk, the Lama as well as Rinpoche are unique with stronger stats and the special construction abilities. Also, the Lama upgrade is in the Castle Age, so only the Rinpoche upgrade is in the Imperial Age.

If we let the Monk automatically upgraded to Lama once a Dzong is built, you may completely feel it unique since you can’t no longer see the regular Monk at Dzong.

Although as upgrades they probably won’t have the unique unit class, but that’s easy to tweak. Simply assigning UU class after upgrading is a very direct way, or the Lama can just replace the Monk as a Monk-type unique unit so the line would be just Lama → Rinpoche/Elite Lama but the construction abilities would be enabled directly with no cost for upgrade.

This doesn’t deviate too much from the norm in my opinion, at least compared with the Three Kingdoms. 11

In the real world, Dzongs are also important in administrative and military fields, and obviously not just for religious purposes. In many contexts, they have been directly translated as “fort” in English. In modern Tibet, “dzong” is also the word for “county” in Tibetan.

Essentially, the dzong is the castle in the Tibetan and Bhutanese culture. The dzong itself also serves a role similar to that of a gompa monastery due to their inseparability of religion from politics and rule. Imagine a theocracy, it is only natural that their fortress and governor’s office is also a temple.

As for in the game, like the Armenians and Georgians have a fortification-like motastery, I give the Tibetans a more motastery-like fortification in reverse. That’s exactly full of distinctive Tibetan flavor in my opinion.

With the Dzong as a unique Castle, there is still a need for a normal monastery-type building that does not cost stone, which is the Gompa. The Gompa can be built in the Feudal Age as its biggest feature, in order to encourage players to actively use monk units for this civ, and to train Monks immediately for rush when just hit the Castle Age.

After upgrading, Lama can build Gompa, and Rinpoche can even build Dzong, which are like monk versions of Serjeants and Donjons. This should give players a strong reason to actively engage in monk gameplay.

Sure, this is obviously a matter of opinion. Three Kingdoms deviate too much from the norm in my opinion, and probably so do Gurjaras and Khitans.

Yes, I understand that, but it doesn’t contradict my objection, and neither does anything else you wrote.

I think this is the most convincing part of your argument, but it still doesn’t address the problem with the overlap, or the deviation from the standard civ-design format. Also, if this is the motivation, why do they have gompa rather than standard monasteries?

From the devs’ perspective, it might be increasingly difficult to create a sense of freshness within the existing framework. Take the Gurjaras, for example — allowing livestock to garrison in Mills to generate a steady food income is quite a bold, out-of-the-box innovation. I like the idea of deriving food passively from livestock through milk, eggs or wool, but personally, I would have preferred to see a unique building replacing the Mill for the Gurjaras, rather than giving the general bilding such a civ-specific, unconventional function. Just like, they didn’t have the Mill gather food for the Poles. In that sense, maybe I could even be seen as somewhat conservative too.

That’s also one of the reasons I chose to have two unique buildings replace the Monastery and the Castle.

Because I treat their Monk line as unique things. It’s kind of like how the Serjeant and Konnik, besides being trainable at the Castle, can also be trained at another unique building (Donjon and Krepost), rather than at the Barrack or Stable. The Donjon replaces the regular archery tower line, so I made the Gompa replace the regular Monastery.

A building that’s potentially cheaper and available in the Feudal Age for healing units — and that lets you train Monks immediately upon hitting the Castle Age — adds an interesting addition to monk rush strategies. You can use the Gompa to execute an aggressive monk rush even quickly. Through upgrades, the monk units can in turn build more Gompas on the front lines —and even build Dzongs in the Imperial Age — and these unique buildings can also train monk units. It’s somewhat similar to the Serjeant and Donjon, but as a religious version that includes a Castle-equivalent building.

I’m sure that’s true – for a DLC they need to add something conspicuously new and that tends to mean civs that are more different from the existing ones. But I don’t think that’s a good direction to go in – the more civs the game has, the more important it is that their designs conform to a similar framework (or, perhaps, a small number of similar frameworks). Wildly different playable factions are only sensible when you have a small number of them, e.g. in StarCraft.

Of course, this is all opinion and you’re welcome to disagree with me – but I think we will need to agree to disagree on this.

1 Like

Your argument is clear and fair.

Let me start again with the example we mentioned. Normally, a Mill isn’t supposed to let units garrison inside and generate resources, and it’s not supposed to let you directly collect part of the food from nearby Farms either. These unique mechanics were introduced to keep the gameplay fresh. To stick to the original framework, there should be a UB to replace the Mill—like the Poles’ Folwark—so the Mill stays a Mill. Otherwise, the design ends up implemented through one or more civ bonuses, making the Mill feel like something else—like what they did with the Gurjaras.

In short, it’s either UU/UB or civ bonus. Personally, I think the former does a better job of preserving the original framework of the game, since it keeps the unique mechanics separate from the existing standard buildings or units. That’s why I’ve said personally I’d prefer the Gurjaras to have a UB replacing their Mill. Similarly, that’s also why the Sicilians have the Donjon, instead of just making their towers both train UUs and be built by UUs.

I agree with the importance of trying to preserve the framework—that’s exactly why I tend to have the UUs and UBs for the civ concepts. At the beginning of the conception, those were not there. I did not deliberately want to cram something unique, but as the conception developed, I felt the potential needs for UU or UB for this reason.

Of course, we can still consider whether these things are acceptable:

  • To inherit the Liao Dao gimmick, the standard Militia-line units are able to cause enemy bleeding.
  • To form an early-game monk play, making the standard Monastery available earlier, and optionally giving it range so it can heal units one by one.
  • To form a late-game monk play, allowing the standard Castle to train Monks instead, and even giving it some Monastery-like functions.
  • To make the entire monk gameplay more complete and coherent, allowing Monks to build Monasteries and Castles.

(Except the Urrdo Slinger since the Tibetans should not share the Inca slinger for sure.)

If we find these acceptable—or even believe that such mechanics don’t need to be unlocked though some upgrades—then sure, I agree that these ideas don’t necessarily have to be implemented through the introductions of Dpa’dam Swordsman, Lama/Rinpoche, Gompa, or Dzong, as I said before. Either way, the number of UUs and UBs isn’t really all of the point to me; they’re just means to deliver one or two unique gameplays that define a civ’s identity.