Kurts: cavalry archer civ
Start with +100 stone
Bloodlines ,Ballistics free
Cavalry archers + 3 attack vs building starting in castle age
Unique unit: kurt archer (70 hp 6 attack 0/2 armor strong vs buildings and infantries weak vs halbs camels skirmishers )
Unique techs:
1 (when kurt archers fall, they still fight on the ground ;like konniks)
2 (cavalry recevies 2p armor)
Team bonus: stables and archery ranges cost -%15
Architecture : middle east
Have accses to paladin heavy camel rider but no hussar
Have accses to thumb ring
No redeption and some monastery techs
No elite cannon galleon but have bombard cannon and hand cannoner
No two man saw
No ring archer armor no plate mail armor
No champion
No supplies
No arson
No guilds
No siege ram siege onager and heavy scorpion
1 Like
The English spelling is Kurds. 
Kurt is a Germanic given name.
1 Like
I would imagine that the attack would have to be quite low for this unit.
I mean, we kinda have a lot of cav archer civ already, and they can somewhat be represented as the Persians since they are ethnically Iranian
But that being said it could be cool as part of a Caucasus-based expansion (since some Kurds ruled Azerbaijan and part of Armenia in the middle ages) which would also include Armenians and Georgians, mabybe even the Scythians or Alans, but those are pretty early civs, but so are Huns (both of those even appear in the Attila campaign) so idk
Aswell as I like the addition, the devs can’t add them to the game.
The kurdish conflict is too present, so the addition would cause most surely a huge conflict with and inside the turkish community. It’s a bit of pity, but why should the devs take such a risk?
Well, this is just imposible. All archer counters have high pierce armor. Ignoring that armor would make the unit either OP as hell in comp with a archer counter or trash if the dps is so low, it absolutely just tickles everything. It just doesn’t fit the design of the game.
And how an archer pierces armor if even siege can’t?
What about a konniks Calvary archer that after dying becomes an archer? Feels unique, goes with an archer and Calvary civ, and it still can be countered with skirmishers so it is not that op
1 Like
The was a thread that made this very suggestion
I know. I thought it could fit this civ, specially if the original proposal of ignoring pierce armor could break the balance of the game.
An archer civ with an archer Calvary unit that ignores pierce armor… You can not get to them, and you can not tank them. They have no counters. Goths can not do anything against them, huskarles and champions would die so easily
Saladin is a Kurd so they fall under the Saracen umbrella.
arent they Persian ? and persians are represented in game…
to be possitive to this idea :If we look at Huns,Tatars,Cumans,Turks…All of them came from same root then why not ?
to be negative to this idea: There aren’t much wars/battles made by Kurts in medieval times.Also they didn’t have any independed state as far as i know.Kurts have been ruled by Persians and Turks from time to time.They can only be in game as mercenary i think.
And i cant imagine Kurdish heavy armored cavarly (paladins) it just bleeds my imagination 
Onestly? I think they are OP.
Bloodlines and ballistics are both techs that given alone for free would be too much. Give them both as aging up is definitely OP.
Then you also generally give cavalry 20% more attack, siege CA and A CA UU that is super strong.
But there are also some other inconsistencies, like they have no eco bonus, and the extra starting stone isn’t that helpful for a civ that most likely won’t Trush or build stone walls.
Maybe try to think of just one of those bonuses that you think is really important for the civ identity, and then try to make is half powerful of your first try, then build the civ from there?
What metĂ such civ should follow?
I’d love to see one civilization from the Saracen umbrella, either Yemenis, Omanis or Kurds.
Topic closed per request of the original poster.