Yeah, I noticed that. The only difference was that I had more actual events tied to Nezak. So it felt more like I could theoretically create a campaign out of that information.
If you can find Hunas that are named and have some decent info, let me know. I designed the Hephthalites to cover them as well.
As others have mentioned, this has some problems.
I feel like this civ is too focused on mounted units.
Looks like just an worse version of the one of the Cumans.
That bonus of the Cumans is literally free Husbandry (but plus).
Werenât they Sasanian Persians?
And too similar to Ratha, isnât it?
What does this name refer to? Had the archery any special in Bactria?
Should they have access to Elephant Archers when they arenât a South Asian civilization?
Also, wonât their cavalry archers just become stronger and better Kipchaks?
Probably not a good idea. Honestly, this is too strong.
The range of 2 also doesnât fit their visual graphic.
Even the Romans, Goths, and Huns have crossbows, so maybe going a little too far without them. This makes them not worth investing in archers in Feudal.
In general, this civilization seems to has an Mongols-like economic advantage in the early stage and tends to use feudal scouts, has no special advantages (and extremely weak since no Knight) in the middle stage, and has nothing to use except too strong Steppe Lancers in the late stage. However according to Wikipedia, their main weapon was the bow, the mace or the sword, with no emphasis on spears and lances.
If this civilization is to be an umbrella for the Eastern Iranians, Tocharians and Bactrians, then I would say let this civilization be dominated by the Sogdians, the major group at the Crossroad, and include the military features of the White Huns. The history of Sogdian city-states in Central Asia can bring many design references, such as their agriculture, Silk Road trade, religious beliefs, cultural influence, and active timeline (to about 11th century).
So it may look like:
Sogdians â Central Asian civ
Bland early game, good late game, with probably a power peak in the early imperial.
Bonus
UU
UT
Missing techs
It was a problem when combined with another bonus, which I have removed.
Not sure what the problem is with a Steppe civ having a focus on mounted units.
The civ has differences to Cumans. I donât see a problem with a slightly worse bonus.
Grivpanvar are older than that, originating in the nomadic east of Persia. This civ has Persian, Indian and Steppe elements.
And yes it is supposed to be similar to the Ratha. But it is slightly different in the lower damage but higher range, to make it easier to use. Plus plenty of units in history could switch between bow and lance.
Itâs mostly just referencing the civs powerbase being in Bactria. I wanted an archery bonus, but couldnât find any specific name.
Mentioned before, the civ had strong ties with Western India. Also there are records of them using elephants in battle.
That depends on the strength of the second projectile. Kipchaks fire 3.
The civ does need a power unit, as they lack the knight line completely.
Kind of the idea.
Every mounted civilisation used lances once they were invented.
Bit of thread hijacking thereâŠ
This would actually fit a trading power like venice more than a horse culture people.
You can focus on mounted units. But I mean, you too much focus on mounted units, almost abandoning others.
Not creative?
Regardless of the history, in the game, cavalry with melee and ranged is the identity of Ratha.
This seems to make them a good fit to be represented by the Gurjaras rather than a new civilization.
Anyway, the elephants are regional units, and with EA there is no CA.
so why not keep the Knight? I would even keep the Cavalier.
Consider that the literature places more emphasis on their swords than their spears.
There should still be an other way to nicely give Lancers their own niche.
You could say the same about swords and bows.
Mainly to give you some reference. It would be nice to give you some inspiration or help.
They controlled the Silk Road and created the rich culture on the Silk Road.
They are a horse culture civilization, and definitely a trade civilization too.
The Buddhist traditions in East Asia come from them, so they are definitely suitable to have good monks as well.
Well âmounted unitsâ covers combat, ranged and siege. So I donât think itâs awful to focus on mounted stuff specifically.
Not everything has to be super unique. Especially when there already are multiple cavalry-focused civs to compete with for design space.
Several UU share qualities. Throwing Axemen and Gbeto for example are the same concept, just slightly different execution.
So far. There is no technical reason why a civ canât have both, so long as something else is sacrificed for space in the Archery Range.
Because honestly I am sick of every cavalry civ devolving into becoming a knight civ, itâs boring. I wanted this civs power to be elsewhere.
Yes, but you canât have a combat cavalry unit without a lance, that was my point.
Well, yours was for a slightly different concept.
Maybe this needs actual practices to have an answer, but my experience tells me that such a civilization is very bland. Fully focused on cavalry, but no knights, very weak in the castle age.
So although I also think that stable and archery range are 10% faster is not very creative, I did not say anything.
But donât be a simple inferior version. Think more. If you really need such a cavalry bonus, perhaps Armored Cavalry or Bow Riders could be trained in feudal age, the previous unit of knights and cavalry archers respectively.
Personally I donât think the Ratha itself is a very well designed unit, so Ratha-like units donât have enough niche to be split into multiple versions, unlike Ranged Infantry which can be split into slow but high HP Throwing Axemen and fast but low HP Gbeto. Also, does the community really enjoy playing such multi-mode units and want more, especially as same cavalry-type unit?
I think EA is aimed to replace CA in the region.
And you saw a DLC including 4 civ without Knight
So I gave them an upgrade bonus in my concept. Additionally, the transaction fee bonus can be quite powerful for the classic early castle age SL rush. I still reserve them in the tech tree, trying to keep them pretty useful and important, but I donât over buff them just for 0 Knight. If it doesnât make sense without a lance, it doesnât make sense without the heavy-armored sword cavalry they must have traditionally either.
It would be very helpful to read and refer to other Eastern Iranians, as long as the civilization has to be an umbrella.
Honestly, this Eastern Iranian civ (I name it Sogdians) would be a perfect fit for a Central Asian themed DLC along with the Gokturks, and the hunting and scouting bonus and buffed Lancers and Cavalry Archers are pretty suitable for the Gokturks who should be good at aggressive play.
I think Sogdians are a different thing than hepthalithes. The latter were more of an occupier for the former. Itâs like Longobards and Goths are not Italians, Spanish or Romans, they just occupied them for a while and eventually mix. So I think you would need another civ for proper Sogdian area but Iâm not an expert on this.