Map of civilizations that are not in the game

[KarstHillFort77]

I’ve already got some ideas about the UU of potential Asian civs, let me share them with you.

Khitans: earlier some people proposed their UU should be the crossbow cavalry, but such a unit isn’t historical at all. I’ve searched through historical records and found a more suitable UU, the Pishi Guard. The Pishi Guards started off as the guardsmen around the palace of the Khitan emperors, but later became a fully fledged army. And historically speaking, Khitans liked to use blunt weapons such as maces. I’ve envisioned the non-elite version of the Pishi Guard as a heavy infantry armed with a mace and a shield, and the elite version would be similarly armed except that it would be mounted on a horse and thus becomes a cavalry unit. Such a infantry-cavalry distinction between the non-elite and elite versions would make it rather special unlike any unit so far in the game, and would also fit with the historical Khitan Liao empire as an empire that straddled between agricultural and nomadic zones. And the special ability of the Pishi Guard (both the non-elite and elite versions would have this) is the stunning effect, able to stun/immobilize the enemy unit for 1.5 seconds with its first strike, and after that it would take some time to recharge until it could perform another stunning effect.

Jurchens: their UU would be the Iron Flail, a heavy cavalry that uses a flail to attack the enemy. It would have a range of 2 and its attack effect would be similar to the Scorpion.

Tanguts: their UU would be the Camel Slinger, a camel rider armed with a slingshot, and has a bonus attack against infantry units. Basically an Incan slinger mounted on a camel.

Tibetans: their Castle UU would be the Tibetan Mastiff, a war dog that has a bonus attack against infantry and villagers. It should probably be in an armor class of its own. They have another UU or rather a unique upgrade, and that is the Imperial Steppe Lancer, which is upgraded from the Elite Steppe Lancer. And its stats would be similar to a Paladin. To compensate, this civ wouldn’t have access to Knights, they have to rely entirely on their Hussars and Steppe Lancers.

Dians (Nanzhao): their Castle UU would be the Luojuzi, a fast-footed skirmisher (speed 1.2) that does not have a bonus attack against archers but instead has a bonus against cavalry and camels. They have a secondary UU at their Barracks called the Raeu Tribesman, which is a dual-purpose unit that can transform between an infantry mode and a gatherer mode. In the gatherer mode it can gather all resources just like a villager, but unlike the villager it would drop off the resources at the Barracks.

Chams: their UU would be the Haluwbilau Raider, an infantry unit that has a bonus attack against all civilian units (villagers, trade carts, trade cogs, and fishing ships). It’s both a ranged and melee unit. When the enemy is at a range greater than 2 it would throw spears at him (max range is 4), and the spears would deal melee damage instead of pierce damage. And when the enemy is less than 2 tiles away it would automatically switch to melee mode.

Siamese: their UU would be the Elephant Gunner, a conquistador like unit that rides an elephant instead of a horse. And it would deal bonus damage against siege weapons and defensive structures.

Mons, Javanese, and Visayans I haven’t thought about them. Any ideas about what their UUs might be?

Moluccans: their Castle UU would be the Alifuru Warrior, a very fast infantry unit (speed 1.3) with a large LOS (10 LOS), armed with only a shield and a saber, and with naked upper body just like the Karambits. This civ has the worst stable out of all Old World civs, with only the Scout Cavalry available (cannot upgrade to Light Cavalry), hence this UU serves as a replacement for their Knights and Light Cavalry. Its special ability is that it has a poisonous attack, with affected enemy unit continuing to lose HP for 5 seconds after a battle with the Alifuru Warrior is over. Although it’s not known if the Alifuru people would smear poison on their sabers, applying poison to arrowheads, javelins, spears, and sabers were a quite common practice among the tribal peoples of South China and SE Asia back in the days, so it’s not an over-exaggeration to depict them as such. Their Dock UU is the Cora Cora, an elongated warship with both sails and oars. It fires bullets just like a hand-cannoneer, and has a bonus damage against Fire Ship and Demo Ship. Its a dual-purpose ship, can be used to trade with allies as well, though with a lower gold-carrying capacity than trade cogs.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

Khitans: earlier some people proposed their UU should be the crossbow cavalry, but such a unit isn’t historical at all.

1. In History of Song, it was indeed recorded once that the soldiers of Tielin (Khitan elite troop) fired crossbows. I’ve told you this many times.
2. Both East and West have records of cavalry using crossbows. It was never a mainstream tactic, but it did exist in history.
3. An expensive cavalry archer unit with short range, high attack, high HP or a heavy melee cavalry unit that charges up to fire crossbow would be interesting. The cavalry with crossbows is also attractive in terms of gimmicks.

@KarstHillFort77

I’ve envisioned the non-elite version of the Pishi Guard as a heavy infantry armed with a mace and a shield, and the elite version would be similarly armed except that it would be mounted on a horse and thus becomes a cavalry unit. Such a infantry-cavalry distinction between the non-elite and elite versions would make it rather special unlike any unit so far in the game

Upgrading that would change armor classes would be an undesirable design.
This would mean that the benefits of investing in technologies that benefit it cannot be sustained. You’d force people to try not to upgrade it when its stats are barely acceptable, or force people to upgrade it before starting to use it.

@KarstHillFort77

the special ability of the Pishi Guard (both the non-elite and elite versions would have this) is the stunning effect, able to stun/immobilize the enemy unit for 1.5 seconds with its first strike, and after that it would take some time to recharge until it could perform another stunning effect.

The stun mechanic is acceptable in AoE3, but probably not in AoE2. That would be annoying.

@KarstHillFort77

Tanguts: their UU would be the Camel Slinger, a camel rider armed with a slingshot, and has a bonus attack against infantry units. Basically an Incan slinger mounted on a camel.

A slingshot should not be equal to a sling. Not physically correct, so it will be visually weird.
Also, a slingshot shoots a larger stone or a plurality of small stones, while a sling shoots a single small stone. So they should be more of a unit like camels + mangonels, which is also more interesting.

In East Asia, on the other hand, it is the Tibetans who are famous for their slinging tradition.

@KarstHillFort77

Tibetans: their Castle UU would be the Tibetan Mastiff

Dogs trained at Castles? Is there no human unit more deserving of being the Castle UU of a civilization than the dog?

@KarstHillFort77

Chams: their UU would be the Haluwbilau Raider, an infantry unit that has a bonus attack against all civilian units (villagers, trade carts, trade cogs, and fishing ships). It’s both a ranged and melee unit. When the enemy is at a range greater than 2 it would throw spears at him (max range is 4), and the spears would deal melee damage instead of pierce damage. And when the enemy is less than 2 tiles away it would automatically switch to melee mode.

If the stats of the two modes are different, for example a mode has higher attack, higher armor or faster speed, when I click on such a unit, which mode’s stats should be displayed on the UI? When I want to check another mod’s stats, do I have to check it only while it’s attacking?

If the statistics of the two modes are basically the same and only the range is different, then I think you can just simply make it a melee infantry with a range. After all, the so-called melee combat is just an attack with a range of 0.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

• In History of Song, it was indeed recorded once that the soldiers of Tielin (Khitan elite troop) fired crossbows. I’ve told you this many times.
• Both East and West have records of cavalry using crossbows. It was never a mainstream tactic, but it did exist in history.
• An expensive cavalry archer unit with short range, high attack, high HP or a heavy melee cavalry unit that charges up to fire crossbow would be interesting. The cavalry with crossbows is also attractive in terms of gimmicks.

The primary source you showed me only mentioned that they fired crossbows, but did not mention that they fired them from horseback, I’ve also told you that many times.

Not a fan of what you proposed. We already have quite a few cavalry archer UUs such as the Mangudai, the Camel Archer, and the Kipchak.

@UpmostRook9474

Upgrading that would change armor classes would be an undesirable design.
This would mean that the benefits of investing in technologies that benefit it cannot be sustained. You’d force people to try not to upgrade it when its stats are barely acceptable, or force people to upgrade it before starting to use it.

Well, by upgrading it, the unit would also gain HP and speed, which are desirable traits. Of course the player could choose not to upgrade it, it all depends on which opponent civ the player is facing. Such an unit would give players room to consider their actions and consequences, which would make the gameplay more interesting. And it also has a surprise element. Suppose that you’ve trained 20 Pishi Guards from the Castle, and by upgrading them to Elite Pishi Guards you’d get 20 heavy cavalry.

@UpmostRook9474

The stun mechanic is acceptable in AoE3, but probably not in AoE2. That would be annoying.

I see no reason why such a mechanic cannot be applied to AoE2.

@UpmostRook9474

A slingshot should not be equal to a sling. Not physically correct, so it will be visually weird.
Also, a slingshot shoots a larger stone or a plurality of small stones, while a sling shoots a single small stone. So they should be more of a unit like camels + mangonels, which is also more interesting.

In East Asia, on the other hand, it is the Tibetans who are famous for their slinging tradition.

A mangonel mounted on a camel would be extremely weird and is unrealistic. A camel rider using a slingshot is much more realistic. Yes it’s not equal to a sling, but the effect is similar.

Tanguts were also from Western China and were related to Tibetans, so them having slings or slingshots is not something out of the blue. And plus I’ve searched for Tibetan military history online and found that the Tang people who fought the Tibetans were most impressed by their lances and did not mention anything about their slings, which is why I choose to emphasize on their Steppe Lancers and give them the Imperial Steppe Lancer upgrade.

@UpmostRook9474

Dogs trained at Castles? Is there no human unit more deserving of being the Castle UU of a civilization than the dog?

We have War Elephants trained from Castles, so why not War Dogs trained from Castles? And the Tibetans indeed used war dogs, they even developed a suit of armor for their dogs. I’ve searched for the military history of Tibet and found that the war dog was their most unique unit.

@UpmostRook9474

If the stats of the two modes are different, for example a mode has higher attack, higher armor or faster speed, when I click on such a unit, which mode’s stats should be displayed on the UI? When I want to check another mod’s stats, do I have to check it only while it’s attacking?

If the statistics of the two modes are basically the same and only the range is different, then I think you can just simply make it a melee infantry with a range. After all, the so-called melee combat is just an attack with a range of 0.

I did not mention it being a two-mode unit. I’ve already ditched my previous idea of making it a two-mode unit. It’s a single mode unit with a ranged melee attack.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

The primary source you showed me only mentioned that they fired crossbows, but did not mention that they fired them from horseback, I’ve also told you that many times.

I had stated that the record doesn’t show whether they fire on foot or from horseback so it does not prove that they definitely not fired from horseback.

Anyway, I never stated that the suggestion of crossbow cavalry was based on that they did have fired crossbows from horseback.
The points of the suggestion are:

1. Tielin was a heavy armored troop mainly composed of cavalry.
2. There was a record of Tielin soldiers firing crossbows.
3. The crossbow cavalry is not unreasonable. It did appear in world history.
4. It is very interesting and full of gimmicks, suitable for marketing.

In the war with the natives, the conquerors used iron weapons for close combat and horses for melee charge, and only a few people used firearms on foot. But in the game, they’re mounted cannoneers, because that makes the theme stronger and makes the unit more fun and gimmicky.
According to the tradition of this game, those have already met the conditions for crossbow cavalry to become UU.

@KarstHillFort77

Not a fan of what you proposed. We already have quite a few cavalry archer UUs such as the Mangudai, the Camel Archer, and the Kipchak.

3/42 ? I guess that obviously doesn’t mean we don’t need another CA UU anymore.
Not to mention that I also stated that it would also be interesting for UU as a melee cavalry unit to have a charging crossbow mechanic.

@KarstHillFort77

Well, by upgrading it, the unit would also gain HP and speed, which are desirable traits. Of course the player could choose not to upgrade it, it all depends on which opponent civ the player is facing.

For unupgraded infantry units to be useful in the Imperial Age, they would necessarily have stats that were too strong in the Castle Age.
In any case, you rarely see RTS games with such a design, and there’s a reason for that.

@KarstHillFort77

I see no reason why such a mechanic cannot be applied to AoE2.

Because they are different games. AoE2 players don’t expect to face an opponent’s effect that will forcefully interfere with their control. Just like you won’t see auras affecting military unit stats in AoE2.

I thought this doesn’t need an explanation.

@KarstHillFort77

And plus I’ve searched for Tibetan military history online and found that the Tang people who fought the Tibetans were most impressed by their lances and did not mention anything about their slings

No reason I can find it on the Internet, but you can’t find it, especially if you can search in Simplified Chinese.

@KarstHillFort77

We have War Elephants trained from Castles, so why not War Dogs trained from Castles? And the Tibetans indeed used war dogs, they even developed a suit of armor for their dogs. I’ve searched for the military history of Tibet and found that the war dog was their most unique unit.

The devs should give the Persian elephant a mahout.

Anyway, it’s a somewhat weird to see the player using the Castles to train a bunch of dogs and controling this bunch of dogs as an army without a single human in the army.
You could have war dogs as TC units as some kind of supplement that can assist in combat. Players can train them when they don’t need more villagers.

@KarstHillFort77

I did not mention it being a two-mode unit. I’ve already ditched my previous idea of making it a two-mode unit. It’s a single mode unit with a ranged melee attack.

These are still technically two modes, since the stats are different, though only the range is different.
The first is a mode with a maximum range of 4 and a minimum range of 2, and the second is a mode with a range of 0.

I mean, don’t have to set up that gimmick that the mode changes at a distance of 2 from the enemy. Simply make it like a Throwing Axeman that has a range of 0 to 4., because they are basically the same except for the animation, and the latter seems to be better because the unit doesn’t have to move forward when the distance is less than 2.

[MatM1996]

@Akoskaaa10

A South American history expert said that on the forum Wari/Tiwanaku were Chanka ancestors and Chankas make more sense because they have more history recorded and they can cover Wari/Tiwanaku. The Anasazi don’t want to be included in video games. Teotihuacan might be too early for the timeframe and Aztecs consider them their predecessors. Thanks for your feedback, more American civs will be considered on my map.

@HoopThrower

Chanka are descended of Wari and Tiwanaku just in the same sense that… everybody else in the region descend of Wari and Tiwanaku, they marked the politics and culture of the region to a degree where everybody else just took after them. If anything you have a stronger case for the Aymara being more directly descended from Tiwanaku or, even more accurately, the uro people.

Same with Teotihuacan, there’s a thousand-year difference between Teotihuacan and the Aztecs, the Aztecs claim descendance from them just as everybody else in the region who are not called Mayans. The people who would become the Aztecs didn’t even live in the region when Teotihuacan existed, and, come on, if Goths and Huns can be civs, then Teotihuacan definitely fits the setting.

Yes, some civs are better for AoE 1, but some civs from the 400 onwards could fit into AoE 2…

@HoopThrower

As for the Anasazi, that story came from Civilization (as in, the game), what actually happened is not that the Anasazi don’t want to be shown in a videogame (although depending on the group they may say so, these are always touchy subjects among indigenous peoples in North America) the problem was specifically having Popé as the Civ leader, otherwise there shouldn’t be much of a drama in that respect.

The problem with Popé is that it is already from the late seventeenth century (c. 1680), ergo chronology of AoE 3, so it could not fit into AoE 2 as an Anasazi campaign (it would better Xauían and the Tiguex War for that), but it could be used to name some AI of the civ in question, as well as you have the emperor Leopold as AI of the Teutons…

@Temudhun

In every scenario with Venetians (either campaign scenario or historical battle) the devs have chosen not to represent them as Italians. It suggests they think the Venetians should ultimately be outside of the umbrella.
I’m not sure Aragonese should be removed from the list. They have their own language and were a naval and trade power focused on the Mediterranean and especially Italy and the islands during most of the Middle Ages while the Castilians were more busy with fighting the Moors on land. Arguably the Spanish could be split into Castilians and Aragonese.

@WindwardHail620

That is in the end not the case, Filthydelphia the designer of Sforza, the Italian campaign mentioned that is boring to have every scenario an Italian mirror match, so for diversity he made the Venetians Portuguese because he thought the Venetians are an advance Italian city state that also could easily also make Organ Guns and to give the anti gun power Condottiero unit another chance to shine.

@Temudhun

They’re also Byzantines in Barbarossa’s fourth mission “the Lombard League”, despite almost all other Italian factions in this scenario and the previous one, Pope and Antipope, having been turned into Italians with the DE. The only exception are Verona and the River Guard, which are Franks for some reason.
And as previously mentioned, Lepanto should be a Venetian or at least Italian scenario.

Yes, I think that eventually they may include the Venetians in a DLC of the Adriatic or the Balkans along with Serbs, Croats and maybe Albanians too…

@KarstHillFort77

It’s better to name the civ as Siamese since the name “Thai” came rather late.

Mons are definitely a civ relevant for the AoE 2 period, I see no reason why they couldn’t get in.

Another mainland SE Asian civ that I wanna see in the game is the Chams.

Yes, Thai is already a modern term after 1932…I think that Siamese would be good for both AoE 2 and AoE 3 and already in a Southeast Asian dlc also put the Mons and Chams…

@Akoskaaa10

Punjabis
Malayalis
Telugus
Sundanese
Afghans
Azerbaijanis

These civs are already covered by the Mongols, Turks, Gurjaras and Dravidians…

@Akoskaaa10

Sudanese (Umbrella)
Nupe
Borgu
Jolof/Senegalese
Ugandans

I accept you the Sudanese and the Hausa (Jolof although it was a medieval empire, was a tributary state of the Malians, who are already in the game)…

@Akoskaaa10

Next plan is to add more American civilizations, perhaps a second Polynesians civilization if it fits.

Yes, American civilizations and Polynesia would be fine…

@StoreyedPlate74

Well, the Nubians, who are the ancestors of the Sudanese, have thousands of years of recorded History.

Nubians would do better for AoE 1 like Kush or Kushites…

@HoopThrower

There’s no way you can argue for an Aragonese civ separated from the Spanish that already exist and then claim that Shan, Thais and Lao are somehow splitting hairs too thin. We’re not even arguing for the many other kingdoms in the area, such as Lanna, who are just as valid as an inclusion.

@Akoskaaa10

To avoid making 200 more civs, I will remove Aragonese, but not Venetians, since many people want them.

Yes, we don’t have to put civs just because yes…We don’t even know if there is that limit of 48 civs that the Genie engine allows or not…

@AllegedSpy95956

For Central America, south of the Maya I would include the Chorotega or Chibcha groups in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The Chorotega were a latter group who migrated from Mexico and there are languanges still spoken you can use for voicelines, figurines to model warriors off of. Shamaness and warriors figure frequently in the art. Campaigns would be a bit harder, but you can do something from the Spanish contact period.

As long as the campaigns are between 1500 and 1600 they would fit perfectly…

@AllegedSpy95956

In the Amazon you could show Kuhikugu, made by the Kuikuro in the medieval period. Would be a good way to showcase an area beyond the Andes of South America.

The Kuikuro are Caribs, so they can put the Caribs in and voila…

@AllegedSpy95956

Teotihuacan could be fun to make since it was a cosmopolitan city and would have a direct campaign with Spear Thrower Owl connecting with the Early Classic Maya kingdoms of the 400s. Aztecs were totally different from Teotihuacan, they admired it cause of its legendary grandness of its time. They said the same of the Toltecs. It’s like how many people claim to be successors of Rome in Europe. While we don’t know who the exact locals were we do know Mayan and Zapotec were spoken there, possibly Nahua and Otomi. So you can use either a mix of these which would reflect its multiethnic inhabitants or maybe use Otomi?

For the Mayans I would prefer a campaign of Lady Six Sky (who is also Mayan leader in CIV6) in the seventh and eighth century, so you have a campaign with another female protagonist and also there are no campaigns of the seventh century…

@KarstHillFort77

I see no reason why such a mechanic cannot be applied to AoE2.

@UpmostRook9474

Because they are different games. AoE2 players don’t expect to face an opponent’s effect that will forcefully interfere with their control. Just like you won’t see auras affecting military unit stats in AoE2.

I thought this doesn’t need an explanation.

Of course, AoE 2 players would start complaining if the devs start to put more AoE 3 mechanics (Portuguese feitorias, Flemish revolution and a long etc) plus that the stun mechanics of AoE 3 prevents you from moving the troops for a few seconds and many pro players would complain about that and end up leaving the game…it doesn’t bother me because I play both games but maybe people who only play AoE 2 would feel annoyed…

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

I had stated that the record doesn’t show whether they fire on foot or from horseback so it does not prove that they definitely not fired from horseback.

Anyway, I never stated that the suggestion of crossbow cavalry was based on that they did have fired crossbows from horseback.
The points of the suggestion are:

1. Tielin was a heavy armored troop mainly composed of cavalry.
2. There was a record of Tielin soldiers firing crossbows.
3. The crossbow cavalry is not unreasonable. It did appear in world history.
4. It is very interesting and full of gimmicks, suitable for marketing.

If it did not mention that they fired the crossbow from horseback, then chances are high that they fired it on foot, since that was the normal way to fire a crossbow and hence doesn’t need any specific mentions. And nothing suggests that the Tielin soldiers were all or mainly cavalry without any infantry or archers.

It may not be entirely unreasonable for another civ, just not for the Khitans.

And I don’t find it interesting either. Everyone has a different opinion.

@UpmostRook9474

3/42 ? I guess that obviously doesn’t mean we don’t need another CA UU anymore.
Not to mention that I also stated that it would also be interesting for UU as a melee cavalry unit to have a charging crossbow mechanic.

Not a fan of such a unit. Again, everyone has a different opinion, so please stop forcing your opinion onto others.

@UpmostRook9474

In any case, you rarely see RTS games with such a design, and there’s a reason for that.

Doesn’t mean that we cannot try this design and try to balance things out. Your thinking is too rigid.

@UpmostRook9474

No reason I can find it on the Internet, but you can’t find it, especially if you can search in Simplified Chinese.

I searched in both English and simplified Chinese, and their war dog was the only thing that I found unique. None of their other weapons or units seemed unique or interesting.

@UpmostRook9474

Anyway, it’s a somewhat weird to see the player using the Castles to train a bunch of dogs and controling this bunch of dogs as an army without a single human in the army.
You could have war dogs as TC units as some kind of supplement that can assist in combat. Players can train them when they don’t need more villagers.

I don’t think war dogs trained from Castles are weird. We can train a bunch of war elephants without any mahout and another group of elephants carrying a crossbow on their back without any mahout either from Castles, so why not war dogs? Don’t really understand your rigid thinking.

@UpmostRook9474

I mean, don’t have to set up that gimmick that the mode changes at a distance of 2 from the enemy. Simply make it like a Throwing Axeman that has a range of 0 to 4., because they are basically the same except for the animation, and the latter seems to be better because the unit doesn’t have to move forward when the distance is less than 2.

It could work that way too, but still it’ll be way cooler to have a unit that can both throw a spear and fight with a spear in melee.

[StoreyedPlate74]

@MatM1996

Nubians would do better for AoE 1 like Kush or Kushites

I think they would still be perfectly valid for aoe2. They successfully repelled Arab invasions for almost a 1000 years and the kingdom of Makuria was quite relevant for several centuries in that region.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

If it did not mention that they fired the crossbow from horseback, then chances are high that they fired it on foot, since that was the normal way to fire a crossbow and hence doesn’t need any specific mentions.

To put it bluntly, there is no way to prove it. You can only speculate, there is no evidence to refute it.

Not to mention, I say that this record can be used as a historical reference for the crossbow cavalry in the game, not because it clearly records how to use the crossbow, but because the revelation of the cavalry troop equipped with crossbows already meets the needs of UU design. I have cited the conqueror as an example.

Your insistence is just that you personally don’t like it, not that it is invalid for the game.
Of cource you can say you don’t like it, but you can’t accuse it of being invalid.

@KarstHillFort77

And nothing suggests that the Tielin soldiers were all or mainly cavalry without any infantry or archers.

A lot of Chinese information on the Internet show that “Tie Lin” was a commonly used name for heavy cavalry troop at that time. Not only the Liao Dynasty, but the Song Dynasty also had their own Tielin.

@KarstHillFort77

everyone has a different opinion, so please stop forcing your opinion onto others.

Don’t try to discredit me. I only give feedback on your suggestions from beginning to end.
3/42 is low to me, nowhere near the numbers of other types of UU.
That’s my personal opinion, I’m just expressing it. Your consent was never forced.

@KarstHillFort77

Your thinking is too rigid.

I’m only making suggestions for your opinion, but you’re attacking me personally?
You can’t explain other people’s doubts about your ideas, just say it’s a problem with other people’s thinking?

@KarstHillFort77

I searched in both English and simplified Chinese, and their war dog was the only thing that I found unique. None of their other weapons or units seemed unique or interesting.

Try searching for “吐蕃 投石索”?

It seems that due to mythological reasons, Tibetans prefer to use slings rather than bows and arrows. It is not only a tool for animal husbandry, but also a handy weapon in times of war. In particular, I’ve read that, in times of war, the nobles conscripted peasants as infantry and herdsmen as cavalry. Those herdsmen were probably a group of warriors skilled in using slings.

In addition, although the spear is also a favorite weapon of the Tibetans, the Tibetans are good at infantry, especially goot at heavy infantry, better than cavalry, especially better than cavalry archers. History books once recorded a general of the Tang Dynasty commenting on the Tibetan army, saying that the Tibetan cavalry was not outstanding, but the infantry was impressive. The Chinese would rather agree on a meeting place in an open plain than in a mountainous area or an urban area, in order to avoid being attacked by Tibetan infantry. This seems to be contrary to the way they interacted with the northern nomads, because the latter have better cavalry and have an advantage in the plains.

You’re giving them an advantage on Lancers that doesn’t seem to fit their actual military traditions. Moreover, the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau does not belong to Steppes. That is, they cannot have Steppe Lancers at all.

@KarstHillFort77

It could work that way too, but still it’ll be way cooler to have a unit that can both throw a spear and fight with a spear in melee.

You just crave different combat animations, not the mechanics themselves.
Then it’s better just simply make them change to melee animation when the distance is 0. The modes are unnecessary.
Honestly, it would be nice if Throwing Axemen and Gbeto could have this too.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

To put it bluntly, there is no way to prove it. You can only speculate, there is no evidence to refute it.

Not to mention, I say that this record can be used as a historical reference for the crossbow cavalry in the game, not because it clearly records how to use the crossbow, but because the revelation of the cavalry troop equipped with crossbows already meets the needs of UU design. I have cited the conqueror as an example.

Your insistence is just that you personally don’t like it, not that it is invalid for the game.
Of cource you can say you don’t like it, but you can’t accuse it of being invalid.

Sure I don’t have enough evidence to prove that they did not fire crossbows on horseback, but you don’t have enough evidence to prove that they fired them on horseback either. So that’s a draw.

I’m not against the appearance of the crossbow cavalry in the game, as long as you could show me a firm evidence (not ambiguous ones like the one you provided) which proves that the Khitans indeed had crossbow cavalry.

@UpmostRook9474

A lot of Chinese information on the Internet show that “Tie Lin” was a commonly used name for heavy cavalry troop at that time. Not only the Liao Dynasty, but the Song Dynasty also had their own Tielin.

Then show me a primary source which indicates that the Tielin army was all cavalry and did not have any accompanying infantry or foot archers, or that they never dismount to fight.

@UpmostRook9474

Don’t try to discredit me. I only give feedback on your suggestions from beginning to end.
3/42 is low to me, nowhere near the numbers of other types of UU.
That’s my personal opinion, I’m just expressing it. Your consent was never forced.

If you already know that I don’t share some of your opinions, then why bother replying to me? You may not intend to force your opinion onto me, but you really act like you’re forcing it.

With all due respect to your personal opinions, please stop replying to me as I don’t share some of your opinions. And I don’t want the debate to drag on forever.

@UpmostRook9474

Try searching for “吐蕃 投石索”?

Why should I search for it? I have my own opinions regarding how this civ should be like, and you have yours. Please don’t force me to do anything.

@UpmostRook9474

In addition, although the spear is also a favorite weapon of the Tibetans, the Tibetans are good at infantry, especially goot at heavy infantry, better than cavalry, especially better than cavalry archers.

We have enough infantry UU in the game, it’s hard to make this one unique. The only thing I could think of is a slow heavy infantry with bonus attack against Cavalry and Camels.

Plus the primary source (a Tang commentary on the wars with Tibetans) I’ve read suggests that Tibetans had longer and sharper lances than the Tang. Hence the reason why I’m giving them Imperial Steppe Lancers.

@UpmostRook9474

You’re giving them an advantage on Lancers that doesn’t seem to fit their actual military traditions. Moreover, the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau does not belong to Steppes. That is, they cannot have Steppe Lancers at all.

The primary source I’ve read indicates that their archery was mediocre but their lances were top-notch.

Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau has a lot of grasslands and the environment is similar to the steppe. And the Tibetans indeed had their own ###se breeds.

@UpmostRook9474

You just crave different combat animations, not the mechanics themselves.
Then it’s better just simply make them change to melee animation when the distance is 0. The modes are unnecessary.
Honestly, it would be nice if Throwing Axemen and Gbeto could have this too.

Well, I definitely think different combat animations are needed for certain units, and yes it would be better if Throwing Axemen and Gbeto could have them.

@UpmostRook9474

I’m only making suggestions for your opinion, but you’re attacking me personally?
You can’t explain other people’s doubts about your ideas, just say it’s a problem with other people’s thinking?

I don’t really need your suggestions, nor did I force you to provide any suggestions. And plus you’re having a condescending attitude.

The game already has self-moving self-attacking siege weapons, self-attacking war elephants and ballista elephants, so why not a war dog unit? I apologize if my “rigid thinking” comment sounds a bit harsh, but really I don’t see any reason for your objection against a self-attacking war dog unit.

Again, I thank you for providing suggestions, but really our opinions differ significantly. If you don’t want this argument to drag on forever, then please stop replying to me and open your own thread about how a potential Tibetan civ should be like, and I promise that I won’t comment in your thread.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

as long as you could show me a firm evidence

This is unnecessary. I’ve already said that’s not the point, because what we have already meets the conditions of the design.

@KarstHillFort77

Then show me a primary source which indicates that the Tielin army was all cavalry and did not have any accompanying infantry or foot archers, or that they never dismount to fight.

Not all conquerors rode to war. The same goes for knights, samurai, boyars, etc. In the game, they only have one type.

In an army there are always retinues, there are corporals, there are combat assistants.
Even in cavalry units, it is not uncommon for not all of them to ride horses, and this is the same everywhere in the world. Even with these people, the whole organization is still called as a cavalry troop, which is normal.

Are you serious about splitting hairs on something like this?

@KarstHillFort77

With all due respect to your personal opinions, please stop replying to me as I don’t share some of your opinions.

Want to post an idea but don’t want others to reply with their thoughts on the idea? Why did you come to the forum? For what?

@KarstHillFort77

Why should I search for it? Please don’t force me to do anything.

Hey, you said you couldn’t find it, and I was just pointing in a direction.
If anyone else who sees is interested, they can also search for these foreign language terms.
It is all your business, no one can make the decision for you, but now you are still discrediting me by saying that I am forcing you?

@KarstHillFort77

Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau has a lot of grasslands and the environment is similar to the steppe. And the Tibetans indeed had their own ##### breeds.

Eurasian steppe is a defined term.
In all fairness, having the own breed is nothing special.

@KarstHillFort77

I don’t really need your suggestions, nor did I force you to provide any suggestions.

Replying to posts to give feedback is the right of every user.
Forums are places where ideas are exchanged.
I just gave my feedback, didn’t force you to buy it.

@KarstHillFort77

plus you’re having a condescending attitude.

No I don’t.

Here can only communicate through text mainly, without tone or expression, which is easy to appear blunt. Plus once English is not the mother tongue.

My posts are also very often questioned or contradicted by others, but I wouldn’t consider them all “condescending”. Sorry for your feelings, but I hope you don’t have such thoughts.

@KarstHillFort77

really I don’t see any reason for your objection against a self-attacking war dog unit.

There is still a difference between feeling weird and objecting.

[LKAOE4]

Excellent job ! It is complicated to make ONE map of civilisations as it would need several maps according to the time.

In your map I see a big hole in the current Central Asia. We miss nomads civilizations that come from Siberia (In game we have only Cumans).

[MatM1996]

Yes, that’s why I called them Sudanese in AoE 2…the civ would go from 350 to 1504, the campaign would deal with the foundation of the Sennar Sultanate by Amara Dunqas in 1504 and would have to fight on the side of the Mamluks against the Christian kingdoms of Nubia, which will be supported by the Ethiopians to the south…

[StoreyedPlate74]

In my opinion, I would just name them Nubians and design them based on the Christian Kingdoms of Makuria, Nobadia and Alodia.

The Sudanese as a culture originated from the 16th Century onwards, in the time frame of aoe3. The campaign you suggested is actually the fall of the Nubian civilization that led to its subsequent islamization and arabization.

[MatM1996]

Yes, it wouldn’t be weird…remember that the Hindustani campaign of Babur is about the foundation of the Mughal Empire, empire that comes out in all its fullness in AoE 3…I am also reading that nothing very relevant happened during the medieval Makuria, except to stop the Abbasid expansion in the ninth century and a battle against Baibars in 1276, then a disastrous civil war in 1365 that led to a decline until it was conquered by Amara Dunqas in 1504 to found the Sultanate of Sennar…

[StoreyedPlate74]

@MatM1996

Yes, it wouldn’t be weird…remember that the Hindustani campaign of Babur is about the foundation of the Mughal Empire, empire that comes out in all its fullness in AoE 3…

What’s really weird is not that it takes place in the aoe3 time period. Rather that the Nubian campaign would be about the fall of the Nubians civilization and you would play as the invaders.

@MatM1996

I am also reading that nothing very relevant happened

I have to disagree. Even if we have lost a lot of knowledge about those kingdoms, we still have a lot of information. More than enough for them to have a wonder, a campaign and any other civ requirement that we can think of.

It’s a perfect candidate for a new civ, probably even better than some civs that are already in the game.

[MatM1996]

@StoreyedPlate74

What’s really weird is not that it takes place in the aoe3 time period. Rather that the Nubian campaign would be about the fall of the Nubians civilization and you would play as the invaders.

Yeah, it doesn’t change much from the historical battle of “the fall of the Hausa” in AoE 3 DE, where you play as Hausa with Usman Dan Fodio conquering the Hausa kingdoms in 1804…

@StoreyedPlate74

I have to disagree. Even if we have lost a lot of knowledge about those kingdoms, we still have a lot of information. More than enough for them to have a wonder, a campaign and any other civ requirement that we can think of.

It’s a perfect candidate for a new civ, probably even better than some civs that are already in the game.

Yes, I still base myself on what I read on Wikipedia only, I guess in specialized books there is more information about that…

[StoreyedPlate74]

@MatM1996

Yeah, it doesn’t change much from the historical battle of “the fall of the Hausa” in AoE 3 DE, where you play as Hausa with Usman Dan Fodio conquering the Hausa kingdoms in 1804…

There are several key differences. First of all, that’s just a Battle, not a entire campaign. Second Usman was a fulani, which are supposed to be covered by the Hausa civ (the fulani archer is one of their unique units).
Third, the Sokoto caliphate retained more of the Hausa culture than the Sennar sultanate did of the Nubian one.
The Sennar was an arab muslim state while the Nubians kingdoms were christians, like Ethiopia,and had a lot of influence from the Greek culture. That’s why sometimes their culture is described as “afro-byzantine”

Besides, I don’t think commiting a “mistake” in a different game is a valid to reason to did that again, but in an even greater scale.
This would be like making a Byzantine campaign based on Mehmed II

@MatM1996

, I still base myself on what I read on Wikipedia only, I guess in specialized books there is more information about that…

The wikipedia article already contains a lot of information about the medieval Nubians anyway, more than enough.

I think the Nubians are at least one of the top 5 civs to add to Africa. They have a lot of recorded History and meet all the unofficial criteria for new civs

[MatM1996]

@StoreyedPlate74

There are several key differences. First of all, that’s just a Battle, not a entire campaign. Second Usman was a fulani, which are supposed to be covered by the Hausa civ (the fulani archer is one of their unique units).
Third, the Sokoto caliphate retained more of the Hausa culture than the Sennar sultanate did of the Nubian one.
The Sennar was an arab muslim state while the Nubians kingdoms were christians, like Ethiopia,and had a lot of influence from the Greek culture. That’s why sometimes their culture is described as “afro-byzantine”

Besides, I don’t think commiting a “mistake” in a different game is a valid to reason to did that again, but in an even greater scale.
This would be like making a Byzantine campaign based on Mehmed II

@StoreyedPlate74

The wikipedia article already contains a lot of information about the medieval Nubians anyway, more than enough.

I think the Nubians are at least one of the top 5 civs to add to Africa. They have a lot of recorded History and meet all the unofficial criteria for new civs

True, just like the African civs have a lot of fabric to cut; so interesting expansions can come out…

[StoreyedPlate74]

I find the Horn of Africa probably the most interesting region , the Nubians, Somali and Swahili had a lot of interactions between each other and with civs already present in the game (Saracens, Ethiopians, Portuguese, Turks, etc.) and, most importantly, a lot of recorded History.

West Africa also has several potential new civs, although they were a bit more isolated.

[MatM1996]

True, in fact in AoE 3 you have the expedition of Christopher Da Gama in the Horn of Africa in 1542 against the Somalis of Al-Ghazi and well in AoE 2 you have the custom campaign of the Kings of West Africa:

While a Battles-style campaign, Kings of West Africa has a cohesive narrative stretching from 1076 to 1492 and tells the stories of various West African peoples such as the Hausa, Igbo, Fulani, and Songhai. The gameplay design is in 3 chapters of 3 scenarios each, representing the achievements of their respective kings: The Faithful, The Builders, and The Conquerors. It is great to shed some light on what is a not very well-known period of history!

Kings featured in the campaign:

• Tenkamenin (1076), last ruler of Wagadu in modern Mauritania
• Dunama (1240), ruler of the Kanembu people along Lake Chad
• Omalo (1260), priest-king of the Igbo of modern Nigeria
• Musa (1330), the richest king in history
• Ewuare (1440), ruler of Benin in modern Nigeria
• Rumfa (1463), ruler of the Hausa city of Kano in modern Nigeria
• Sunni Ali (1475), founder of the Songhai Empire
• Tengella (1490), warlord of the Fulani nomads
• Askia (1492), the greatest ruler of the Songhai Empire

Here you have content to get 3 or 4 campaigns in West Africa…Ewuare (1440-1473),Rumfa (1463-1499) and Sunni Ali-Askia (1464-1528)…