No, they are still different. Even both of them are archer civ, the bonus can still be different.
Ethiopian can play the archers, siege and infantry UU but I guess Nubian will go the extreme archers with archer UU like Bri.
It doesn’t mean that Netherlanders were not exist in the Middle Age. They had provided a lot of money for the dynasties that ruled them through the ages. In the other hand, They started the independence war before than Japanese invaded Koreans in late 16th century.
Come on, it just a hope, don’t be such a serious guy.
for Low countries in AoE2, Flemish could work. Very distinct culture, famous pikemen, maybe transition to Renaissance-era Dutch w/Reiters ala Turkish transition?
The problem is that the game is called Age of Empires. The Dutch were never very impressive until the colonial age, making them much better suited to Age of Empires III. The Portuguese made it into II because they were one of the earliest civs to explore the world, putting them more broadly into the AoE2 timeline.
It’s for similar reasons that I think the Siamese would be a much better fit for Age of Empies III than II. During the Middle Ages, Thailand was mostly just a series of kingdoms that were conquered by greater powers like the Khmer and Toungoo. During the few centuries after AoE2’s timeframe, however, they came to control a majority of continental Southeast Asia, reaching the height of their power in the 19th Century.
Siamese had Sukhothai Kingdom, Ayutthaya Kingdom and an important hero Naresuan the Great. Being conquered is not a problem since Vietnamese had been conquered by Han Chinese for almost a thousand year.
Historical accuracy is a major part of what make the series great imo. Also, I’m not a guy.
It’s possible to factor those in, but I think the devs wanted to focus more on civilizations with impressive medieval empires like the Burmese, Malay, and Khmer. The Vietnamese made it into the game largely because Age of Empires II has an especially large Vietnamese fanbase.
Welp, historical flavour is, however accuracy, isn’t the focus. For instance, besides the fact common units are European, some bonuses have no root in history whatsoever (ie.Frank Cav archers, Khmer farmers…)
In my opinion, both historic accuracy and balance are important as same.
Oops, because I could not figure out the users’ gender, I am willing to apologize if I offended you.
This sentence conflicts with what you typed before. As the logic of this sentence, some current civ like Vietnamese and Koreans are not worth introduced if there are few fans in Korea and Vietnam, right?
So how to balance this…
Saracens have to lose something major in exchange for this. I think BBC, HCA and Hand cannoneer perhaps… Or if you leave HCA you can get rid of arbalest. Losing arbalest is worse than losing HCA, but could actually get rid of both. Parthian tactics must go either way.
For Indians, the civilization becomes nothing combined with good eco, so buffing them you’ve to be careful. I’d imagine giving them arbalest, siege ram and cavalier. Then they should be good to go… Shouldn’t be too strong, but might still end up that way.
edit: Actually Indians can’t have cavalier even perhaps, just knights and that’s it. If you give them arba and SR. If you give Cavalier you’ve to get rid of +4 armor for cavalry and that makes the camels again useless, even with the extra PA.
Umm, I don’t support to remove the cavalry archer since it has Parthian and siege bonus, but the siege archers bonus can be nerfed slightly. In the other hand, Saracen knights can be removed since camels would take their jobs better, especially when Imperial camels be added.
Do you have heard about Rajput people? They were famous by their strong cavalry.
Indians can have some solutions to keep the balance after getting the cavalier and elephants and removing the Imperial camels. One is removing the hussar, or the another one is removing the halberdier, and it still keeps useful camels by the bonus that camels +1 pierce armor no matter which solutions. Then, since Indians have full-upgraded cavalry archer, it does not need the arbalester in my opinion.
Issue is not with the historic stuff, it’s with the game balance. If you start coming up with Rajput and what not, that literally does not matter. What matters is, if the civ is broken or not.
Exactly, not my issue with the suggestion being “give Saracens imp camel and remove it from Indians”.
You can’t aim toward historic accuracy, by neglecting whole damned game balance. These are just some fair options to balance the civs out.
You can’t give everything to civ, they can’t have amazing cavalry, good archer options and amazing siege, you’ve to get rid of something always. Strong economy bonus makes it even harder because you’ve to cut the options even harder (this is the case with Indians, amazingly strong eco bonus.)
Edit: The point of going the arbalest route with Indians is to force them more along the road of HC and Elephant archers, siege ram is necessary for civs of this manner. So they’d be another archer/gunpowder civilization. So in short, civ with amazing eco and amazing ranged units.
For Saracens, give them superior amazing cavalry at the cost of losing the arbalest and HCA, giving them imp camel literally makes their cavalry one of the most amazing things for late game, especially if they keep unique techs also. If you wanna keep Arba or HCA with FU, then you’ve to cut the siege down, no SO, no SR, no BBC. So in short amazing cavalry civ, but lacks eco bonuses, but the perks out weigh the cons in post-imp.
Well, you worry that Indians will be OP. Since Indians has weak foot archers, it should not lose the plate barding armor, or the cavalry will become weak too and Indians can play nothing.
Having both the full-upgraded cavalier and the full-upgraded heavy camels is not a problem at all, like Chinese, Berbers and Turks. Even it gets the elephant line, it still can have the weakness in the late game by removing the halberdier since Indians has so many gold eaters.
And it can not be deny that the elephant archer is useless, no matter in the game or in the history. I will ignore it until it got useful.
That’s trading +10 HP for +2 attack. It’s not worth butchering any tech tree for. And anyway the easiest fix is to make zealotry rename camels, and change the Indian tech to Rajput Camels if the innacuracy is that bothering.
And not of the Sarracens
Welp, Indians had Arbs until patch 5.7, and it didn’t made them build more elephant archers.
Hmmm, why? They have siege engineer and bombard cannon already, their siege tree is already way above average.
They already have good camels, flawless light cav and a serviceable knight rush. Also, historically they relied on fast and light troops so FU HCA is perfectly fine. And everyone here agrees that stacking Zealotry and Imp camel is a big no.
Seriously, Saracen having the same CAs as Italian makes 0 sense.
Welp, if I want good camels+siege then I will just play Berbers then since with these changes they would have better siege 11. Even Malian would be better cuz they have a better eco and can get the SO, chemistry and Farimba easier.
Civs wtih really heavy cav need halbs. So if you give BEs to Indian you give one more reason for them to keep halbs (the other reason being the Elephant archer)
You realize the current Saracen deathball with mamelukes + SO is really deadly, really strong. Rightfully keeping any eco bonus away from them. If you give them Paladin level or better unit (Imperial camel literally is that) you can’t just let them keep amazing archery range techs as well as amazing siege, you’ve to cut something. Imp camel + mameluke combo already alone becomes nearly impossible to stop, especially with the UT bonuses.
What comes to Indians, Arbalest is a waypoint tech, allows you to keep going with archery ranges even from flank position all the way until imp. Sure it might not result in elephant archers, but HC at the very least due to the extra range.
Due to them not being as amazing as Britons still (cutting down cavalry tree) this allows them to have the siege ram. Which is kind of a key part of the archer civs (ethio, mayans etc.) If you don’t give them siege ram, then arguably you can expand their cavalry options a bit, but that seems pointless and less useful.
I hope it makes sense, but if you lot insist on not applying logic at all, let’s just forget whole ordeal and not start changing civs for historical accuracy.
Welp, I’m pretty much not fond of all of this noise, because basically it’s just wanting to reskin otherwise fine units. So if historical accuracy is that much of a problem, then make zealotry rename camels to imperial, and make Indian have Rajput camel, and it’s all done.
Cost to upgrade SO: 2250 food, 1500 gold
Cost of Elite Mameluke+Zealotry: 1350 food 1400 gold
That’s just so obscenely expensive. And that’s not accounting for Siege engineers and all cav upgrades. Also, giving Imp camels to Saracens as it is (ie.not just a reskin or whatever) implies removing zealotry so Mamelukes would be nerfed. So you would have a worse deathball of camels +SO.
Imperial camel are still primarily an anti-cav unit. They are less bulky than paladins and deal less damage. Besides fighting cav they are worse at everything else.
As far as I know when Indians had arbs, they weren’t producing more or less HC as today.
They would merely have a full archery range tech tree.
Britons don’t have it. Italians have better cav and still don’t get it. Same for Vietnamese. Berbers have camel archers and don’t get it. Korean, Portuguese, Malay, Magyars can go arbs just fine and don’t get it.
Cavalry without plate armor will be easily broken like cookies. Since it have no arbalester, Indians would die when the enemy upgrades to Imperail age, can cheaper villagers reverse this situation? I respect and understand your concerns, so I agree that you can nerf the other things but removing the plate armor may not be a good solution, and you have to learn to respect the other people’s opinions as well as phantasy too.
In my opinion, it have camels at least so there is no problem to counter the cavalry when it lose the halberdiers. Anyway, the civ that have good gold units and be strong in the middle game should have weakness in the late game.
In my observation, I am sorry to say that the elephant archer is still rare even in the team games and the closed maps. The frequency that It has been used is just a little more than or even same as Teutonic knights.
It is acceptable to adjust Zealotry after Saracens gets the imperial camels.
Maybe keep Mamelukes +30 HP but camels +15 HP only. Maybe get extra armor instead of HP. Maybe make camel be trained faster. Whatever.
I always welcome any opinion even the hated one, it is a principle of the forum too, and I also agree that the game will be changed nothing by the topics like this.
However, it seems that I implied you in the other topic before that some kind of topics are based on historical accuracy, so one of the reactions people like you can do is just leave then keep up the good mood, don’t need to force yourself to be a wet blanket.