I don’t think anything big like swapping Georgian and Armenian tech tree can ever happen.
The problem with labels such as Infantry, Archer of Cavalry civilisation is that almost all armies in the Middle Ages were mostly made up of Infantry and almost all European armies had strong Knight cavalry and also employed Crossbows and Archers.
You could argue that almost every civilisation that doesn’t live in the Steppes could be a strong Infantry civilisation.
Which makes it kinda ironic that Bulgarians are an Infantry (and Cavalry) civilisation.
Why are the Celts an Infantry civilisation?
They were famous for their cavalry in ancient times. Most of the Roman cavalry was a copy of the Celts at first, they only started copying the Persians later.
The Celts were also on of the last civilisations to use Chariots.
The Goths lived in the Steppes of modern Ukraine before they invaded the Roman Empire. A lot of them stayed in Crimea for many centuries though.
They used a lot of cavalry and never really had an Infantry focus.
The Japanese used a lot of cavalry, archers and of course cavalry archers. In AoE1 they are the best cavalry civilisation.
Their bows were basically better longbows. Their bows had an asymmetric design so they could use large bows on horseback.
The Teutones are also called an Infantry civilisation despite the HRE using Knights in a very similar way then the French did.
AoE2 has kind of a history at labelling civilisations wrong, but it also has a history of changing the real focus of civilisations to where it should be.
Teutons have one of the strongest Knight lines in the game and Japanese have fully upgraded Cavalry Archers with +2 attack vs. Archers.
Goths and Celts are still waiting for a rework.
There is a close to 0% chance that we will get a total rework of Armenians but it’s not unlikely that their cavalry will be buffed in the future.
But I think it’s always better to wait a little longer before changing a completely new civilisation. The meta has to evolve first.
They would be similar to Franks in this sense, having a UU in a field where they do not excel but archer instead of infantry.
One thing is to use cavalry, another is to literally live on it like steppe peoples. Yes goths used cavalry but I don’t know where the thing about them being a cav civ comes from. They were Germanic, they excelled in infantry raids. Yes they knew of horses but that’s not their main thing and if it was, it’s probably because of absorbing some Huns and Alans during their migration.
Celts in the game are not those Celts you mention (from ancient pre Roman era). They are a mix of dark ages Picts (pagan woas raiders), pop culture and later Scots. Chariots were gone by then and they went through the influx of Germanic and Nordic people (Saxons and Danes) other than Romans, again infantry people. Yes they all knew of cavalry but they were not known primarily for it (arguably only aoe2 (late) Romans but because of foederati rather than them excelling in cav).
Teutons and Franks well of course heavy cavalry because they’re Christian Europeans (Franks have the UU as a nod to their early Germanic infantry phase) while steppe people relied more on light cav. Yes they knew they could dismount and fight on foot (except Huns maybe lol) but that was not their main thing.
I don’t know much about Armenians but it makes sense for them to rely on both light and heavy cavalry (steppe influx plus European chivalry). Then you could add some infantry to one and archery to the other but I think neither of the two should be their main thing (experts can correct me if I’m wrong).
Don’t think its necessary to swap but the premise of a cavalry and naval civilization is interesting. I think it should be either siege engineers or siege ram + siege onagers but not both for the reworked Armenia.
Anyways while this is interesting to discuss, this level of bonus swapping probably isn’t going to happen. But it fits well.
Exactly. This kind of UU will make up the flaw of the civ.
The problem is the difference between primary and secondary emphasis. The primary emphasis does not need to be the same type as UU, but refers to the most commonly used and most suitable unit type to be used for the civilization. Obviously the Knights are the primary for the Teutons, while infantry, sieges and towers are the secondary.
The medieval Japanese heavy cavalry would appear weak compared with forces outside the Japanese archipelago. One of the main reasons is that the horses native to Japan are not as good as those on the Asian continent. (Also, their naval capabilities did not appear to be superior enough to transport cavalry in large numbers cross the sea.) Any non-Japanese force that has historically taken on the Japanese has been more impressed with their infantry than their cavalry. For example, the army of Ming Dynasty was very impressed by the wokou ronins and their katana swords.
Even if we only focus on medieval Japan, their cavalry was mainly used for archery rather than close combat. As time went by, the scale of warfare had expanded, and the mainstream of their military steadily changed to infantry. In the 14th century, infantry had replaced cavalry as the mainstream. It is completely reasonable for the Japanese to emphasize infantry as the primary emphasis in the game and cavalry archers as the secondary emphasis.
Adding Plate Barding Armor certainly helps improve the Armenian cavalry, but it only brings them to a secondary emphasis level at most, even though we generally believe that cavalry should be the primary emphasis of this civilization.
Yeah the reason why I shared this idea is because I think it would fits rather than the possibility of happening, which makes the whole thing seem even more unfortunate, as if the devs accidentally named the file wrong during the development phase.
Agreed. This is a personal ##### but I think that asking for such radical changes only rest strength from our (at least, my?) request to make armenian cavalry better.
About the whole framework of primary and secondary emphasis, civilizations designed this way would make for my ideal game, but I understand the game need to diversify their civilizations and come up with original ways to achieve that.
Along those lines, I’m satisfied with the historical emphasis of the civ gets represented as either the first or secondary emphasis.
Half of the “Naval Civs” have bad stable - Japanese (Same stable as Armenians), Vikings, Koreans, Malay, Bengalis, Dravidians. While rest half have really good cavalry - Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Berbers, Saracens and Byzantines if you count them as one.