I asked for exactly this for almost 2 years ago. But I think this will still be very underwhelming.
I think all nomad civs should be max pop without houses like Huns.
Cumans, Mongols and Huns are all from Central Asia and nomads so why not giving them a regional bonus.
It is very different if it is a UT. You must lose time and ressources building houses till Castle age. Then spend ressources again to click the tech.
Kind of pretty useless tech, because you don’t care to build house at Castle age and it will change almost nothing in your economy to build house.
For Hunds it’s equivalent of a bonus of 100 - 125 wood at dark age + villagers can directly start to gather ressources (so let’s tell approximately a bonus of +20 or 30 food) which is a nice bonus at early game.
I like it, a buff that makes sense and doesnt actually buff the civ that much. Still won’t be a great tech but it doesnt need to be.
Having all stepp civs be max pop would mean huns need a new identity. And it doesnt really fit ?idk. Aoe2 doesnt have any regional civ bonuses like that. If u did that, lots of other regions would also need things and that’d be…
1 Like
Since we are discussing completely new tech now here is my idea.
Rework Mongols HP bonus for LC and Lancers just like Saracens camel HP bonus was reworked.
So 15% HP bonus Mongols will have by default and other 15% HP they will get with techs (like Saracens with Zelotes).
It will definitely debuff civ in early castles but keep it same strength in late game. I understand somebody want to have you favorite civ even more powerful but we already know how strong can be steppe lancers or mangudais and how imbalanced they were some years ago
1 Like
I have a new idea:
-Remove bonus: “Light Cavalry, Hussars, and Steppe Lancers have +30% HP”
-Add civ bonus: Deleting buildings return 25% / 50% / 75% of wood cost in Feudal / Castle / Imperial.
-New Castle age UT “Whatever Fancy name”: Light Cavalry Line and Steppe Lancers have +30% HP
2 Likes
I’d extend Nomad just from houses to all buildings that give population room.
That way it would be kind of a convenience tech to avoid getting housed when you lose, e.g., some forward castles, which is a situation you generally can recover from (whereas losing houses generally happens when the game is nearly decided – at least in 1v1).
1 Like
I still don’t think people would get it. The problem is, it’s a fundamentally reactive technology, and by the time you think about getting it, you probably should have spent your resources on something else to stop you from getting into that position in the first place.
That’s why it needs some other immediate benefit, something to make it worth getting now. Even if that benefit is fairly small.
1 Like
That might be so, but I would give it a try and see if it’s used in some niche situations after all. At least at my ELO, everything that has the potential to save APM in the late game is kind of beneficial. And at the end of the day, such a change certainly wouldn’t have any immediate downsides as far as I can tell.
1 Like
Yes! I agree with you a lot!
And btw quick and small improvement is better than full replacement. I think devs already busy with bugs no and not ready for full tech rework
The thing is, if you lose something like a forward castle, something that can be fairly easily replaced back home, then the tech isn’t worth it. It’s much cheaper to throw down five houses than it is to get the tech.
I’m trying to imagine when I would possibly want this Tech; at what point in the game would I be willing to pay more for population space? Especially since there is inherent value in putting down houses, for defense. If I lose my aggressive buildings, chances are I’m already preparing for a counter-attack, which means I’m already back there, and already building the houses. Why would I pay more just to lose some of the value of making defenses?
The only reason I would get this technology would be if it were cheaper than building the houses I am going to lose, but at the price point it’s at, I would only be losing that many houses if I am getting completely crushed.
I will agree with you that it probably would be useful at extremely low elos, but I don’t think that they are a part of the community that should be particularly balanced around.
I think you underestimate the effect a bit. The point is not that building houses manually is too expensive.
It’s the issue that between realizing getting housed (falling under 200 pop space) and fixing the issue (building additional houses), you have a delay of let’s say 20 seconds at least, possibly longer. That’s a time when the opponent can get a larger army, get slightly better engagements due to that, etc., all of that could easily cost you more than the 300/150 price for the Nomad tech.
On top of that, you have to make these houses, re-assign the villagers afterwards, all that takes attention span away from the actual fights.
To sum it up: I see it as kind of an insurance tech. Not needed if everything goes according to plan or if you react perfectly, but it can limit a bit the damage in the other cases.
I get that it’s insurance; but it’s bad insurance. This tech basically means you pay 3x as much now, for the potential of a lesser payback later. And resources early on are way more valuable than resources later, so in reality it’s probably more like 5x as much now for 1x later.
The problem is, if you play correctly, you don’t need insurance, and by paying for insurance, you increase the odds of needing it. If you can buy it and still win, you didn’t need it; the only time you’ll need it is if you can’t afford it.
The correct move is always going to be to not buy it and just win the game without it.
1 Like
Why not turn it into a civ bonus and replace it with something else as an UT (not that I have any idea)?
2 Likes
Y’all have either missed my point from earlier or are ignoring it.
Nomads is a deliberately bad tech, most likely. The Mongols are already incredibly strong, but they needed a second unique tech. What’s something that fills out the mandatory Castle Age UT slot, but isn’t too strong and doesn’t affect the Mongols’ identity, and also references history? Nomads.
Check my idea:
This bonus is flexible and thematically coherent with a nomad civ. It has a multiple possibilities:
- Cheaper Relocation of lumbercamps (rewards eco micro)
- You can relocate military buildings (specially siege workshops) with less costing to push from different places.
- In late game you can obtain a little boost in wood by deleting obsolete buildings.
- Less punishing at re-booming.
Regarding of the Light cav and lancers bonus could be a nerf but whis wouldn’t hurt them because offsets the new eco civ bonus.
My proposal is that mounted and siege units lose line of sight x seconds after being killed instead of immediately. Meaning that when a mounted or siege unit gets killed, the mongol player still has vision over the line of sight for this unit for x seconds. My idea is not pretty good, but I definitely agree that nomads has to be changed somehow.
ngl this wouldn’t see much use either. It does sound fun but i feel competitively they wouldnt use it much. Also it’d need to be prety long to matter and then i feel like it’d be op. Not a terrible tech, but not really something u put in to replace another one.
I like it. Good suggestion
And for the guy who said its similar to huns bonus, its okay. As both are thematically similar nomadic civs
There are other similar bonuses in the game like persians and poles team bonus
And magyar and berbers getting cheaper scouts
1 Like
Well, I also had similar idea. But this will nerf Mongols.
I agree that was the case in 2013. But now devs gave them SL. And with +30% HP. So that argument won’t work in 2023.