I agree with give some love to AoK civs, but honestly, don’t like your ideas.
I’d make individual changes to each civs.
For example:
Britons: archer-line and Longbows overlap too much… Maybe change imp ut to let LB be trained in archery and remove the free range for crossbow line.
Japanese: remaking Samurai to make it more relevant unit for them (again, UU overlap with generic unit). Idk, there are several ideas just in this forum to make it.
Vikings: just a boring meta archer civ far away from the aggresive looters that most of us have in the imaginary. Give them plunder mechanic, or affordable feudal siege.
etc…
2 Likes
That’s also a good idea, my idea of shared features is based on currently released patches. That’s how devs add new contents for old civs now.
That will be even better than my own idea.
The problem may be that there seems no new unreleased branch civs for those 12 civs.
Like they have released Burgendy and Sicilian before, without add anything to Franks or Italians, but I couldn’t think of another branch civ to do such jobs.
And which new Asian civs could be added? Jurchens? Tanguts? They are include in Chinese now.
To middle east, the answer could be easier. We could add Afghans civ. Masri is also a good choice but they are included in Saracens currently.
Don’t we have ghilmen already in the game?
Also don’t really be with your design, as it is imo too much stuff. We already have the issue with rathas being alone a ranged + melee unit.
Don’t think we need an upgrade for the halbs. But I would like to see the spearman line split in billmen or glaivemen and halberdiers. One with lower atk but range and the other as it is currently.
I actually have already designed some kind of that unit already: here
The Doppelsoeldner is a Inf/Monk symbiosis. A very strong infantry unit that has the downside of being countered by anti-monk units such as the scout.
Those units I come up with are not carefully designed indeed. I just want to show which kind of new features I am eager to see in old civs. And also, compared to game balance, I prefer some historical flavors, to inflict more historical impressions of all civs.
eeehm polemical… To say the least.
Who are those? Can’t find them on google (I guess you’re not refering to these Marsi)
I can’t tell if you’re here to troll or not.
This will obviously cause problems for players.
So, this is not what DLC is supposed to be like.
1 Like
Sorry, I’m not mean to troll, but I really can’t think of a new civ of Asian except these sub-Chinese ones.
Sorry. As a native Chinese, my English is not so good so I have misspell many words before.
What I do mean is “Masri”.
In ancient/medieval times they would be different people groups unlike now,so yes they are the best option to have ingame but will the current situation allow it?
1 Like
I have to admit, the fact that modern politics has any capacity to influence a video game set hundreds of years ago is, quite frankly, extremely stupid. I can get maybe some things, but turning down civs based on modern countries isn’t one of them. Of course, I’m very selective about this, it totally depends on whether or not I want to see the civ ingame. Teuton splits for example? Germany is only one country, it doesn’t need a split. Tibetans? Unified China is a much more modern thing, Tibet can be a civ.
9 Likes
After a long time thinking, I find an acceptable choice, the Balhae.
As nowadays research, it’s a civ that could be an independent one from Chinese or Korean. I think it won’t cause many problems if devs pick it as a new civ in Asian group.
Yep it is stupid, totally agreed.
I dont want a teuton Split, but too be fair a unified Germany is also a modern Thing (The HRE wasnt really a unified country)
1 Like
Tibetans may be acceptable, but devs need take a risk, then create a new architecture style and many new features for them, and to be honest, it differs too much from other Asian civs like Chinese or Japanese.
The Balhae may be a good choice, since it’s a civ fit much better with current Asian set, and could be seen as an independent civ.
Balhae (Korean: 발해, Chinese: 渤海; pinyin: Bóhǎi , Russian: Бохай, romanized: Bokhay, Manchu: ᡦᡠᡥᠠᡳ), also rendered as Bohai ,[7] was a multi-ethnic kingdom whose land extends to what is today Northeast China, the Korean Peninsula and the Russian Far East.[8] It was established in 698 by Dae Joyeong (Da Zuorong) and originally known as the Kingdom of Jin (Zhen) until 713 when its name was changed to Balhae.
That’s how wikipedia describe the Balhae, hope devs treasure such a good choice. Except that, I truly cant find a civ in Asia that aren’t included in China, Japan, Korea or Mongol.
Never heard of them before. No-one has ever brought them up. The most probably Asian civs include Thai, Jurchen, Khitans, Tibetans, Tanguts, and several other South Asian ones maybe.
it’s a famous medieval civ in NE Asia. You could wiki it and see whom they were.
It’s a mixture of Jurchen，Han and Korean.
This would cause a whole wide issue of balance changes even to my standards. Certain civs should not have regional units. The Franks and Britons for example are great noobs civs they have very normalish units.
3 Likes
They have added steppe lancer to mongols and caused no balance issue. I think this time things would be the same.