Still much more recent than Sino-Tibetan, which existed around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago somewhere in Northwestern China.
This is not Age of Empires 1 so what you are saying is irrelevant to the discussion.
1 Like
Yes, at most they will give one more UU to the Chinese and then 2 UU for each DLC civ…
Oh boy. I wouldn’t open up THAT can of worms if I were you…
1 Like
Uh oh. I feel a storm brewing.
1 Like
Can we just talk about civ design and bonuses funntech tree uniqueness and balance? Its far less chaos despite the fact an elo chart of participants is like a loop de loop with spikes made by a 5 year old
2 Likes
LMAO you’re the one who started this whole debate, and now you’re accusing me? Really go look into the mirror.
If I consider the Tibetans to be the same as Chinese, then why did I make a proposal about their UU? I actually agree with you that the Tibetans in AoE 2’s timeline shouldn’t be considered a part of China. And the Siamese shouldn’t be either. They’re even more Indianized than the Tibetans, and have had less direct influences from China. And plus unlike the Tibetans they don’t even share the same ethnic origins as the Chinese. I find it rather ironic that you would consider them as part of the Sinosphere. There’s even less incentive or reason to include them in the Sinosphere than the Tibetans.
If the devs want to give a 2nd UU to the Chinese they should have done it a long time ago. My impression is that they don’t really want to touch the original AoK civs unless necessary.
Chinese is one of the civs which has had the least changes over the years, and only recently did they receive a buff to their TC bonus.
Well, they gave the savar to the Persians so maybe the only thing missing is a DLC in that area to buff the Chinese…
I hope so but we’ll see. Perhaps due to political reasons there won’t be any more DLCs for East and SE Asia, I hope I’m wrong but giving the look of things I’m not so optimistic.
Yes, perhaps they decide to focus on other regions in Africa or America and return there with SEA…
So what you’re saying is their Castle UU is the same as the CA. So if I’m playing as this civ why should I waste 650 stone just to get the same unit which I can already get at the Archery Range?
In some sense UUs have to be unique and somewhat gimmicky, otherwise they’ll be the same as generic units.
Well each person has his or her own taste I guess, though the chances of the devs giving the Chinese a 2nd UU or giving East Asian civs a regional unit aren’t that high.
Same thing for crossbow cavalry, it isn’t that special either, the Chinese used it, medieval Europeans used it, and you could argue that the Khmer Ballista Elephant would be a crossbow cavalry as well in real history.
It’s very unlikely that the Alans would be introduced in the game, if the devs would like to introduce them they would have already introduced them in TMR.
Trust me gameplay wise and micro wise my proposed unit would behave differently from two separate units. And plus I don’t intend it to be a zerg rush unit like the Karambit, but rather it would serve as the infantry meatshield for the Tibetans. This coincides with historical records that the Tibetans had quite strong infantry.
To each his/her own taste. I’m not interested in such an idea I feel it isn’t distinct enough, plus it conflicts with my proposed Tangut UU.
I actually said in my description of the Tangut UU that it would use a slingshot, if you bothered to read what I actually wrote.
Sometimes you cannot trust these ancient Sinitic records 100%, since they were mostly written by government officials or civil servants who had no real battlefield experience whatsoever, and often exaggerated what they heard.
Regardless of history this unit would be extremely broken if it was actually present in the game. I’ve watched a video recently where Hera claimed that the Mongol siege onagers after drill are too strong to counter. Now imagine a siege onager on the back of a camel, that would be GG for most players.
You get me wrong.
They will be pure mounted archer unit, which doesn’t mean they will be the same as the Cavalry Archers. The term “pure” just means in my concept they will not become a melee unit like what you want. The Crossbow Cavalry in this way may be with high HP, attack and armor, but also move slowly, fire slowly, cost a bit higher and with a shorter range. Clearly, as a mounted archer UU, they will definitely be different from the generic Cavalry Archers.
Actually quite special. Not so many peoples had used them, particularly in East Asia, I only sure that the Chinese and Khitans had used them. Among the potential UUs of Khitans, the crossbow-using cavalry are also impressive and interesting even by their visual.
On the other hand, the dogs. I pretty sure that every peoples having dogs use them in warfare, from Japan to Africa. They will be special only because there is no military dog units in the game yet. However, for being the Castle UU of Tibetans, I always think there can be other choice that is more special, especially Tibetan mastiffs being UU has no support from medieval records. Picking them is just like telling me that you don’t what kind of things can also be the choice for UU so you just pick the mastiffs since they’re Tibetans’ dogs.
I don’t want to let you think that I hate the mastiffs. Dogs are lovely whether in the real life or in the game! I just think that if the reason is just “it’s not something inconceivable that people use dogs in warfare” and it is fine that no medieval record supports for them, then we could make every civ’s UU their dogs. That is why I said “not special”.
Absolutely Tibetans should have good infantry. I just cannot understand why there need to be 2 in 1.
For the sake of gimmick?
Yes the unit can be not a zerg like Karambits, but the point of my example won’t change even I use Champions, Berserks, Urumis, etc. to make the example. The unit is 2 infantry that move together, attack together, have 2 separate HP bars and stats, which is no difference from just 2 individual infantry units that get command to be together.
What I’ve also said is, if you really want such a combination, a melee unit + a ranged unit might be better. Because, you can train the units that cover each other in same time and without different buildings.
Tibetans have skilled sling-using tradition which is very rare in the East Asia, which is quite special to me.
And I won’t make the Tangut UU a mounted slinger since it supposed to be a more interesting thing. 11
Don’t mind. I’m just saying.
But this doesn’t matter. I mean, if we take something has not been exaggerated from history, then we still may need to exaggerated it for the entertainment of the game. It’s a game, keeping 100 percent truth is not its duty. It’s enough for being such a camel + catapult unit when there is a historical record. You don’t need to trust it, people don’t need to trust it, I do not totally trust it too, but it’s fine to the game.
Making the unit along the record is still better than creating a unit from fiction and imagine, not to mention this time the record can bring a super special unit.
It’s easy. All of this is just about stats. Clearly it don’t need to and won’t be as fast as Mongol Onager.
Assuming the Camel Catapult, or Poxi, is siege-cavalry unit that compared with Onager, it may move a bit faster, has shorter range, less attack and smaller blast radius with smaller projectiles, then surely it won’t be cheap, and it may performance similar to Ballista Elephants, afraid of Onagers, Bombard Cannons, melee units particularly Pikes, and buildings’ firing. I won’t say it is extremely broken.
Imo it would be really cool to give Siameese the imperial battle elephant upgrade and melee infantry as UU