My concept of Tibetan civilization

Tibetan are a monk civilization

Relic are very important for Tibetan because they increase monk conversion range and Dob dob armor.
Gompa is a fortified monastery who fire arrow and train monk and dob dob an unique unit who are weak but cheap and resistant to conversion and have an attack bonus against eagle warrior and light cavalry

Tibetan also have a regular unique unit the Rtakhrab Pai’dpung, a steppe lancer like cavalry

Tibetan have an economic start with a yak and in the castle age their monk cost less gold.

Tibetans lack many imperial age blacksmith upgrade (they wore only chainmail and wood are scarce for metallurgy on the Tibetan plateau) but have an unique tech who give them +1 armor in imperial age.

Civ bonus:

Start with one Yak
Monk available at the feudal age (monk convert much more slowly in the Feudal Age)
Monastery replaced by Gompa
Relic give 1 range to conversion for monk (max 5, but they lack Block Printing technology)
Loom apply for monk and Dob dob
Conscription apply for monk (lore : there is a tradition to send one children per family to the monastery and ancient Tibet have a very high proportion of monk in the population)

Team Bonus: Relics generate stone in addition to gold

Gompa : a fortified monastery, like a krepost but with monastery technology and can trained monk and Dob dob. They give +10 population (+20 with UT : Butter tea). Unit can be garrisoned in (10 units, 20 units with UT : Butter tea). Monk and Dob dob garrisoned in Gompa can fire arrow. Like the Dungeon of the Sicilian it’s armor, attack and HP increase with the age. Cannot be converted.
Cost 300 stone and 100 wood
Available at the feudal age.

UU :
Dob dob : A warring monk trained at the Gompa. This is an infantry unit like a cheap unit like the karambit warrior, also they are very resistant to conversion. They don’t benefit from armor upgrade but instead they gain +1 armor by relic garrisoned in a gompa (max 5) Also Loom, fervor and Sanctity apply to them.
Technology than can apply to them : Forging, Iron Casting, Blast Furnace, Loom, Sanctity, Fervor, Conscription, Squire, Arson
Available at the castle age. Can be upgraded to elite at the imperial age

Population : 1
Cost : 25 food, 15 gold
Training time : 8 seconds
Hit point : 30, 40 (Elite)
Attack : 7, 8 (Elite)
Attack bonus : +2 vs eagle warrior, +2 vs light cavalry
Melee armor : 0, 1 (Elite)
Pierce armor : 1
Armor class : Infantry, Unique
Speed : 1 (unlike the karambit warrior they benefit also of fervor)

Upgrade 900 food, 900 gold

UU: Rtakhrab Pai’dpung: Steppe Lancer-like unit but as pierce-armored medium cavalry. These Tibetan lancers have a small attack bonus vs infantry and archer units.

Appearance :

UT : Butter tea. Replace a part of the gold cost of monk by a cost of food. Now the monk cost 50 gold and 50 food. Gompa can now garrison 20 units instead of 10. Gompa now give +20 pop instead of 10.
Available at the castle age.
Lore : Butter tea are beverage very popular in the Tibetans monastery

UT : Golden arrow : Rtakhrab Pai’dpung are trained 10% faster, also give them +2/2 armor and +1 attack. Other military unit (except siege and naval unit) gain +1/1 armor (but the tibetans lack imperial armor tech)
Available at the imperial age.

Tech tree:

Monastery : all except Block Printing

Blacksmith : Forging, Iron Casting, Scale Mail Armor, Chain Mail Armor, Scale Barding Armor, [Chain Barding Armor, Padded Archer Armor, Leather Archer Armor, Ring Archer Armor

University : They lack : Heated shoot, bombard tower, siege engineer, arrowslits, treadmill crane

Barrack : All except Halberdier and eagle warrior
Stable : All except steppe lancer, camel, elephant. They lack paladin
Archery range : They lack hand cannoneer, elephant archer and arbalester
Dock : They lack imperial age technology
Siege Workshop : They lack : Bombard Cannon, siege elephant, heavy onager
Castle : They lack : Hoardings

Lumber camp : They lack Two man saw
MIll : They lack crop rotation


Looking through this there are a lot of ideas I like in a hypothetical vacuum but together kinda feel a bit too much to really gel.

For instance you mention well… every last civ bonus except the TB affects monks in some way and the Gino’s building is terrible because you’re paying 300s for a monastery. This is your cornerstone unit and making it cuts into your ability to use towers both offensively and Defensively.

I like some of these bonuses. Monks benefits Loom is cool a sorta half way between Aztec and Dravidian but with everything else all nullified by needing half a castle worth of stone kinda hurts potential.

And other than the UUs, what are you training? You have no real economy or bonus to get around another civ no matter how strong feudal monks are.

The UT is wordy and overloaded with effects that just makes it feel unfocused and the problem is this civ is supposed to be focused around a unit that isn’t necessarily weak but hard to long term rely on. It’s like the goths of monks but at least infantry can fight and goths are considered low tier for now.

This isn’t a Viking or Aztec eco where you can afford to fall off a cliff power wise in Imperial and probably hear your enemy say GG.

There are cool parts here. A 1 ranged high PA cav seems nice and pretty important for a monk civ that caves to archery but it just doesn’t offer enough.

The non holy military is kinda poor too. The special UU is cheap but pretty meager. If you don’t have relics (and enemies will send scouts to thrash you) then the +2 vs light cav isn’t enough.

Even in Arena just not having an eco bonus means enemies can put early pressure on you and no the fact you NEED to early mine stone for a feudal monk means you aren’t getting too heavy a start on relic snags.

I could be completely wrong though.

It’s very possible but I think you’re going a bit too all in on the monk focus.

Aztecs have 1 direct monk bonus and it’s a strong holy civ. Franks have 1 cav specific bonus and it uses horses well. Huns only get a discount on horse archer and that’s enough to go big on them.

I’d incentivize more use of other military units since the only smithing with full access is archer armor.

Make no mistake, monks can be fun but this feels like a bit too laser focused upon them.

1 Like

It’s never going to happen because Microsoft can’t afford to have China ban the game


What is the need for it, friend? People make and share their concepts in this forum because it’s fun and everyone here has that right. No need to be nasty.

By the way, do you have any sort of definitive proof for that claim? Many others have claimed this here, but all I’ve seen so far has been speculation.


China has a long history of banning games. E.g. Football Manager 2005 which was banned for recognizing Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet as independent countries. Battlefield 4 was also banned for “discrediting China’s national image”. The Chinese government claimed that the game showed a “cultural invasion”. Hearts of Iron was banned because it depicted disputed territories such as Tibet, Manchuria and Xinjiang as independent nations and because the island of Taiwan is shown to be under Japanese control. Not to mention the Blitzchung controversy.

So there’s the proof; it’s not just scaremongering or speculation. Microsoft are not going to go anywhere near this. I wasn’t being nasty; just stating the facts.


Note that those games take place during modern times. Games like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis depict Tibet during the Middle Ages and early modern period, respectively, and they are not banned, so there is still hope aoe2 wouldn’t be either.

1 Like

Tibet = AOE2 ban in China. Not really worth it.

1 Like

You really think a whole expansion based around Tibetans as a playable civ would not raise eyebrows? Why would Microsoft take such a huge unnecessary risk of losing their 2nd biggest aoe2 market for the sake of one civ with a small modern day population? Sure it’s fun to play fantasy football with hypothetical civs, but unfortunately that’s all Tibetans will ever be, unless there’s a successful violent revolution in China.

They could do a whole expansion centered on China with civs like the Jurchen or Khitans, for example. Similar to the dynasties of India DLC.
Anyway, as I said, as far as I know the other paradox games are not banned in China.

1 Like

We should really be focused less on the name and more on the bonuses. Stay on target would you?

Hearts of Iron is a Paradox game and that was banned.
One of the other games you mentioned was not without controversy either: Potential EU4 ban in China. I do like Paradox’s stance, they seem to be a cool company who don’t pander to the CCP and refuse to change history to pacify them, probably as a reaction to the Hearts of Iron ban. I can’t see Microsoft being so cool though, especially given their links to China through the Bill Gates Foundation which has spent hundreds of millions in China, mainly on public health.

The Aoe series and Microsoft has more brand awareness and $1 billion in sales over the years. Can’t imagine them risking the brand for a Tibetan civ.


Yeah the civ feels too one dimensional

1 Like

If Yak was the equivalent of Cow, then this bonus would just be a purely better Inca Llama bonus.
Starting with 2 Yaks but -100 food may be better.

I question this unit.

I haven’t found any record of this thing having a significant influence or even existing in the Middle Ages. In addition, according to the description on Wikipedia, Dob-dob is not a formal armed organization. They may be equivalent to the security of the monastery, but not the military force on the battlefield.

I always get the feeling that people suggest this unit more out of stereotypes and desires of Asian warrior monks than really based on historical references. If we want warrior monks, both Shaolin monks and Sohei are pretty better choices — even if such kind of unit still only suitable for the scenario editor.

Having said that, Dob-dob might be a suitable native unit for the potential semi civ of the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in AoE3. (Hopefully AoE3 devs will also read the AoE2 thread.)

Literally just “Armoured Horse Cavalry”, not particularly special or specific thing, and its mechanics aren’t interesting either. As a melee cavalry UU, it’s boring. Even if it’s not unacceptable, I’m not a fan.

Incidentally, according to a comment given by a Tang general, the Tibetan army was neither good at cavalry nor cavalry archers. It’s reasonable as the mountainous Tibet is not suitable for the development of cavalry. According to Chinese sources, they were better at infantry (especially heavy infantry) than cavalry, and were better at slings than bows.

Wait, would you use sushi, kimchi, spring rolls, paella or pasta as UT for Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish or Italian?

Provides too much effect as a UT. This could very well be overpowering, or just show that the tech tree itself is likely being overly weakened.

That makes two of us.Everybody making a tibet civi around monks is just modern politics at play,cant blame anyone as thats the most pop culture thing about them.

Being a monk civilization is not unacceptable, but I think the existence of warrior monk unit is really inappropriate for the Tibetans unless there’s a decent historical reference.

Being a monk civ is fine, being EXCLUSIVELY a monk civ is borderline unacceptable for any civ that wants to sound Or pretend to even masquerade as well designed


No more deviating from the topic here. But here’s how I see what you wrote:

These are facts, which everyone here probably already knows, including the OP, as it is repeated so much on the forum.

This is speculation, especially after what @StoreyedPlate74 said. (By the way, the EU4 link you posted is from a year ago; Do you know if this situation continues?)

From what it seems to me, PCC only has a problem with games portraying recent times that could “stain” the party’s image or call into question its legitimacy. Aoe2 is set in the Middle Ages and ends well before that troubled period; I don’t see how it could cause any problems.

But even if I’m wrong about that, my point was just that everyone on this forum has the right to make whatever concept they want, regardless of whether the civ will be added to the game or not. As I said, people do it for fun and your sentence sounded like unnecessary discouragement for the OP. If that wasn’t your intention, I apologize.

As for that sentence, it was a joke with your nickname, don’t take it personally.