I have nothing against them, but I feel a lot of the times you care more about the recognizability of stuff over anything about themselves.
Croats could be a heavy cav and naval civ which is something the game is really lacking, but tbh I dont care much about them either. Vandals I think could be really fun as a siege and naval civ with good cav and infantry and Moors are just very special and could really have a lot of diferent focuses but would probably be a defensive civ
Ok now, everyone stated why they think that the venetians should be in the game, an why not.
Can we call it, and agree to disagree. I already stated why I think that the venetians should be in the game way past in the topic.
Now the argument is not getting out of topic, it already has, so please stop.
Also, those archers have a bit too much
For venice rather than having a uu ship why not have a unique upgrade to a ship like the imperial camel or skirmisher. Maybe even an unique replacement unit for a ship like the winged hussar.
I suggested it in a later post something similar. A unique upgrade for the CG, the galeass.
3 units per one age seems a bit too much dont you think?maybe cg in castle age and other 2 in imperial?
Initial idea I got was to replace the galleon ship with venitian galleys and allies can train them too.
No sorry, maybe I wasnât clear, the galeass replace the elite cannon galleon, and the standard CG now it requires just chemistry, not the upgrade.
Its not a game of historical super accuracy. Its just a history based strategy game. Almost all bonuses like +150w, +150g, docks 50% faster & 50% less build time and support pop, archer 5% faster per age are ridiculously OP for their respective maps. This civ would be unmatchable on water and have incredibly efficient crossbow raids. On top of that a civ with condos and a fully upgrade Magyar Huszar uu as well. FU on infantry, fast moving archers with extra attack and a gold free powerful cav unique unit, siege ram and bombard canon. Or in other words a civ on steroids.
Except for potential historical accuracy, nothing about this civ proposal makes any sense. Sounds even more ridiculous than any OP civ that ever came during its release. And some bonuses are redundant with other civs like dock work rate, university tech discount, condos, stradiot (which is basically according to u a Magyar Huszar which doesnât need any upgrade and still has about 5 melee and 6 p.armor LOL).
I think this is actually an ok bonus. We can say that it is OP if combined with the others, but I do not see this huge issue with just faster archers.
The bonus is good, but archers are still much slower and more expensive than plumes.
Archers would be indeed capable of avoiding other archers and skyrms even with ballistics, this is very good. The other advantages, like more mobility are good as well, but I really think that the bonus per se is not op if compared with, say, extra range or more dps
10% faster crossbows in castle age is much more easier to maneuver than regular. Easier to run away or split-regroup vs mangonel, pick or run away from skirms.
Its very good for that civ and extremely bad for others. You can dictate when you want to take the fight and opponent canât punish any risk you take to attack with some small group of crossbows. And also, youâre crossbows can chase and hunt down opponentâs. Plumed or rattan are unique archers requiring castle and more wood than generic crossbows which can be trained from ranges, so a speed bonus for generic crossbows is actually quite powerful.
Its not OP maybe if its available for a civ that otherwise has almost no bonus or strong weaknesses in other areas. But the civ he describes just has ridiculously powerful starting bonuses and strong units in all military types.
Yeah this is exactly what I mean. The idea is actually solid, and the bonus is fine.
Thinking of the existing civs, it would be unbalanced for Britons (good military bonus) or Chinese (excellent eco). It would be more or less fine for Byzantines, Italians, or Sicilians having a bad eco and no military bonuses.
I like the bonus for a new civ, I would reduce the other things he is proposing (like less starting resources).
Not really, not just for Chinese, Britons. Even for Sicilians, Italians and Byzantines it would be quite powerful. Sicilians now have great cavalry and a great infantry uu. Italians do great vs cav and gunpowder civs as such. Fast moving arbalests is a very big addition. Maybe its fine for Byzantines but even for them 15% in imp is way too much. You can raid a lot in early imp.
This type of bonus would only make sense for a civ thatâs otherwise quite weak, like no halbs, no last armor for cav, no thumb ring or bracer for archers like Malians or civs without Arbs like Cumans. The bonus is something like extra hp or p.armor for cavalry. Can only accompany with a flaw to maintain balance.
So maybe if this civ starts with +50w, no other eco bonus, a different unique tech instead of +1 attack for archers, a different or much more fragile cavalry unique unit, missing plate barding armor and something like 200 gold per relic second unique tech, then yes its a good bonus for land maps.
Maybe for Incas it could work, but it may be still a bit too much
They do have terrible cavalry. No hussar, no paladin, no bloodlines or husbandry. They have the blacksmith upgrades, but thatâs all, and Iâm tempted to remove the last cav armor too.
In general, they are strong in the early game, but way weaker in the late game.
Best archers in the game (BY FAR) is nowhere near weak 11
And yeah the early game is broken. Particularly with water. Thats without mentioning the overlaps too
If they have all cav armor upgrades, theyâre not weak in the late game. With the civ description, more often than not there wonât be a late game.
No archer civ has Paladin, so thatâs not really a drawback. And no hussar is also something common with a lot of strong archer civs.
Thatâs all that matters.
And to top that, youâve proposed a unique unit with stats similar to FU cavalier without needing any blacksmith upgrades and free of gold. That itself is broken enough for late game.
What? It cost only gold, and more than a cavalier.
Just that, itâs about a C tier cavalry, with no imp upgrade but the cav armor, which as I said, Iâm not sure sure if it stays or not.
Ok, even at 80-100g, having stats similar to that of cavalier without any upgrades is quite powerful and could be used as a good support unit in late castle/early imp.
Anyways even without last cav armor, this is still a ridiculously OP civ on water/hybrid. Even for land maps, the extra wood and gold would just translate into ridiculously fast drush-fc or straight fc xbow builds. Something like âdocks work 15% faster, start with +50 wood +25g, archers move 5% faster starting from castle age, university techs donât cost gold, 2nd ut - relics give 200g each and team bonus docks support 5 popâ sounds more reasonable. (with a rework of uu ofcourse)
Mmm I think that you got an early version of the civâŠ
Unfortunately the civ have gone through a lot of changes, and at a certain point the forum didnât allow me to change the original post, so you need to search for all the others.
For example, the extra starting resources was +150w and +150g at some point, but it was changed to just the wood some time ago. The archer bonus too was nerfed down to just 5% from feudal. The uni discount was completely removed since the Italians got basically the same thing, and so onâŠ
Would recomend you to edit the originsl post then because that way is way less confusing imo