Really you think 45g not cheap, did you watch video on YouTube of Spirit overview??? 1 vs 1 monaspa won , and team combat they + bonus damage and won too. If come with Paladin they cheaper for upgrade and always win in combat, ( it still Paladin of frank) and Savar same thing. @@@ only different is monaspa need castle, but look other civ all need castle for uu. @@
Keshik is 40 gold, Leitis is 50 gold, Coustillier is 55 gold. Do you know how much extra hp those units have compared to monaspa? If any unique unit doesn’t have an insane advantage over its generic variant, in this case the knights, its useless. So if you look at the raw stats of a unit and feel like “Oh my god, so much damage, so much this that”, yes but that’s minimum requirement. Otherwise anybody who plays the civ is going to forget that unit exists, build stables and make regenerating knight/cavalier.
Have you ever seen a Elite Leitis vs Paladin fight? Elite Boyar vs Paladin? Even the most useless urumi swordsmen win against Paladin for same resources. Winning against Paladin is not the criteria for judging a unique unit. Several unique units can do that.
Its about how the unit fits the civ’s gameplay and how strong the civ is otherwise at different stages of the game. Monaspa would be broken if they belonged to Franks, Slavs, Khmer, Malians or Persians because these civs have very good economy and bonuses right from feudal age. But Georgians are dead slow till they get multiple churches covering their entire economy. Its kind of a Poles variant. That’s why civ has 44% winrate across all elo even though its “bugged” or “broken”.
Not sure this will be balanced, but I’m trying to swap the tech trees of the Georgians and Armenians, then add some changes, since I noticed there are people think the Armenians should have decent cavalry and sieges instead of naval forces, and the Georgians Should have excellent infantry to dominate the mountains.
In addition, I also noticed that although Warrior Priests hold an Armenian cross, he is in Georgian clothes. Mule Cart seems to have only references from Georgians.
Again, I do not sure this will be balanced, but I’m just trying.
- Lumber Camps and Mining Camps technologies are 25% more effective.
- Fortified Churches can be the dropping points for resources.
- Villagers drop off +10% resources at Fortified Churches.
- Mounted units regenerate 10/20 HP per minute in the Castle/Imperial Age.
- [Team] Siege units have +2 LoS.
Tech Tree changes
- Lose Mule Carts, so get Lumber Camps and Mining Camps.
- Archery Range: Lose Arbalesters, but get Heavy Cavalry Archer and Parthian Tactics.
- Stables: Get Hussars.
- Siege: Get Siege Rams and Siege Onagers.
- Blacksmith: Get Plate Barding Armor, but lose Ring Archer Armor.
- University: Get Siege Engineers.
- Monastery: Lose Atonement and Illumination.
- Composite Bowman
Elite ugprade provides +1/+2 armor and costs higher.
- Cilician Engineers
Replacing Cilician Fleet, gives Scorpion-line +2 and Galley-line +1 range, and gives Dromons additional projectiles.
Replacing Fereters, make mounted units take 15% less population space.
- Start with a Mule Cart.
- First Fortified Church receives a free Relic.
- Units and buildings receive -20% damage when fighting from higher elevation.
- Long Swordsman and above, and Spearman line available one Age earlier.
- [Team] Repairing buildings costs -25% resources.
Tech Tree changes
- Get Warrioir Priests.
- Mule Cart costs 15 food and 85 wood now.
- Archery Range: Get Arbalesters and Thumb Ring, but lose Heavy Cavalry Archer and Pathian Tactics.
- Stables: Lose Hussars.
- Siege: Lose Siege Rams and Siege Onagers.
- Blacksmith: Get Ring Archer Armor.
- University: Lose Siege Engineers.
- Monastery: Get Atonement and Illumination.
Can get extra attack too when Militia-line units or Warrior Priests nearby.
- Svan Towers
Basically no change.
Replacing Aznauri Cavalry, gives Militia-line and Warrior Priests +30 HP, Warrior Priests +100% heal speed.
As an Armenian, to think we waited like 20 years only for them to make us a gimmick civ just to money grab.
An infantry civ, huh? Naval? You gotta be kidding me. They couldve done the infantry civ with georgians and gave them warrior monks with faster healing, then you would have an infantry civ that is actually viable.
But what are you supposed to do with Armenians right now exactly? Archer UU that only trains at castles, strong infantry, great the weakest unit in the game is now slightly stronger. Absolutely no heavy cavalry? Are you serious? Its like they just woke up and decided to design them in a hurry, after being done with Georgia.
A quick bandaid would be to revert them to an archer civ and give them a UT that alllows composite bowmen to be trained at archery range. And give them decent siege as well. Or completely redesign them as a cavarly civ with two UU composite bowmen from castle and unique cavarly from stable. As of now Armenians are all over the place with no role.
I am not Armenian, but have wanted them in the game since at least 2020. Having them be a heavy cavalry and siege civilization (like all iterations of my own concept) was such a shoe-in based on history that it is absolutely appalling that they didn’t go for it.
My original, less interesting concept for the Georgians was as an infantry civ. This was before I knew that they were famous for infantry, so that was accidentally correct on my part. I mainly based the civ off the Battle of Didgori, but I later redesigned the civ around towers, reflecting my interest in their mountain villages. A hybrid of the two would’ve been interesting. I even kept my version of Fereters in my final iteration, called Aznauri.
The devs’ decision to essentially swap the Armenians’ and Georgians’ affinities is quite bizarre, and very ahistorical. Not to mention, the Armenians being mainly based on Cilicia and not Armenia proper is just insulting.
I intend on making an early medieval RTS game that is very historically accurate, and my first DLC will be adding multiple Georgian kingdoms and Bagratid Armenia. That way, my own preference for historicity over gameplay gimmicks can result in proper representation for one of my favorite regions of the world.
They currently have way too many weaknesses, which is my problem with the civ design. I don’t think there’s a high chance of them being redesigned them away from infantry though at this point.
There are some civs that we say have trouble with a particular type of army composition (like being weak to strong archer, weak to strong something else etc.). Armenians have no good answers to strong archers, strong gunpowder, strong siege, or heck even strong defense. Not every civ needs to be super flexible, but this is too many weak points.
The only civ that can try to answer everything with some sort of infantry is Goths by design. If that’s the same design aim intended for Armenians, they have failed at doing it.
[quote=“Apocalypso4826, post:47, topic:243018”] I
intend on making an early medieval RTS game that is very historically accurate, and my first DLC will be adding multiple Georgian kingdoms and Bagratid Armenia. That way, my own preference for historicity over gameplay gimmicks can result in proper representation for one of my favorite regions of the world.
I hope your idea for an rts game becomes a reality one day. And I thank you for wanting to include the caucasua region. Hopefully the Vainakh (chechens) and other caucasians get to be featured in a game for once.
Yes, that region is particularly important to me (I want to visit Georgia someday), so I want to include it in an accurate fashion.
Yes, I can include the Chechens and Circassians if they’re relevant to the period of time from 800-1100. They are an interesting culture for sure.
Yeah, the devs won’t remake a civ in monthly updates since they usually don’t admit the foundational fault in the tech tree. See the Dravidians, they are still far from having fixed in my opinion, but they didn’t get anything in the last update.
Also, the devs recently want to encourage infantry gameplay. Therefore my choice is to swap the tech tree of the 2 civ, so this DLC still contains a Cavalry civ and an infantry civ. The Georgians could have the earlier Militia-line, better Warrior Priests, unique Monaspa and unique Mule Carts, and on the other hand the Armenians could have a decent cavalry gameplay, unique Composite Bowmen, very good siege and even a bit stronger (but not such overpowered) Galleons.
I really hope they have, at least, a slight intention to do this. These are just released civilizations, it’s not like they would be touching civs that “have played that way for 25 years”. Unfortunately, I doubt they bother going through the efforts of swapping tech tree with all the rebalance it implies… It’s so sad. Another irreparable damage to the game.
Armenians could just lose one of their current bonus (navy?) and get paladins and last cav armour. And yeah Georgians getting their infantry while retaining monaspa instead sounds ok.
Not much hope for Armenian UU swapped with a cav one if not in a very distant future. Composite bowman could become regional or something instead.
Make Cataphracts a regional unit and give them to Armenia too.
From what someone said here the Armenians were very skilled Bowmen so composite Bowmen seems fine to me.
Composite bowman is fine. What annoys me about Armenians is the below serviceable cavalry.
I honesty believe this wouldn’t be as strong as it seems at first. Castle age keeps being the same. It’s an imperial age change. Their army composition there is either infantry or archers. By letting them have also strong heavy cavalry, their other options are are not affected at all. Infantry and Bowmen are still as strong as before. The player still would have to pick, as much, two gold units to base their composition on.
Yes, now they are much more versatile, but that’s not strong enough to take them to the “broken” zone.
############# given how expensive the Paladin upgrade is and how late in the game it come into play, and without direct bonus towards cavalry play, I’d say as much it would need a few tweaks for being balanced.
Edit: Censored word is
I guess the devs do not like to add more Paladin civs recently, so in my concept of swapping the tech trees, I gave the Plate Barding Armor but didn’t give Paladins to the Armenians. I also hesitate about whether the combination of regeneration and less population make Paladins broken.
I don’t know to me it seems we always tend to rationalize what we cannot change anymore.
Composite bows were generic weapons and yeah Armenians could have been skilled in that but I doubt that’s what they were known for.
To prevent arguments like “but also throwing axemen were common” I’m gonna say yes indeed two wrongs don’t make a right.
They could leave regeneration to Georgians (stuck with cavaliers) and less pop space to Armenians since it seems they lack in the late game and that’s perfect without being broken (you can make more paladins than other players but it’s still expensive).
I think one of the two Caucasian civs should get paladins regardless.
As mule cart is not as good as we supposed to be, maybe increase their mule cart discount to 50%. After all that’s a weaker Japanese bonus in early game as Japanese mill is also cheaper and they don’t need food to build any drop off point. Also Armenians share Stable and SW tech tree with Japanese. So it will make them a surprisingly parallel with Infantry, good archer and good monk.
Can be 40% if Japanese become too weak and boring.
Now I think the Armenian Paladins may be fine if they regenerate 20 HP per minutes and use -10% populations. I notice that the less population benefits Hussars’ games more than Paladins’, since its effect is pointless until the population cap is hit, and spawning Hussars may be easier than spawning Paladins to hit the cap (though Hussars die soon).
Problem is I think they should be an heavy cavalry civ if I’m not wrong rather than light cav.
Yeah they are to be a heavy cavalry civ, even I give them Hussars too due to swapping the tech tree from the Georgians to them.
I mean, the influence of the less population is less on the Paladins than on the Hussars, so having the regenerable Paladins have the less populaton may not be such terrible. The less population only show its advantage when you have about 200 units, which is usually in a pretty late and non-behind game.
Comparing the less population and the regeneration, the former is more important than the latter to Hussars because they are easier to be spawned and harder to survive, while the latter is more important than the former to Paladins because they are harder to spawned but can live longer.
In any case, I think it’s fine to let Armenians have both these types of cavalry with both of the effects, as long as the rates are controlled. The extra HP (Franks), extra armor (Teutons), extra speed (Cumans), extra attack (Lithuanians) and faster train speed (Franks and Huns) are stiil more solid bonus to Paladins.
I’d like to pick 20 HP per min for the regeneration in the Imperial age and -10% for the less population, just saying.