As they should be, hehehehehehe.
In game screenshot from one of those streams. In fact everything I got and wrote here is from that stream
Neither of the civs being heavy cavalry based or paladinal feels wrong and lacking camel and lancers when all their neighbors have is as wel
1 Like
But it seems like all the videos are not being released now?
It seems that The Manko got something wrong and was not actually allowed to show the new stuff until 1 hour from now. He took down the stream suddenly. He may have realised halfway through
2 Likes
That’s why we need to remove summer/winter time changes!
1 Like
That one listed to be released at 12:00 was indeed released (although earlier than they intended i guess, he just removed the stream and it’s not available anymore)
Is this for real? Holy fucking hell.
This civ might actually get me to stop playing this game. Or quit instantly when I see this.
Why do they keep introducing overpowered cavalry civs with insane bonuses?
Don’t worry, it will be nerfed down the line. It always is.
Incidentally, if my vision were implemented, not only would the civ be balanced, but far less aggressive. AKA a more healthy civ.
Money. They need to convince people to buy the DLC.
HA I had previously suggested this exact same mechanism for the Persians with a new monastry like building called “shrine”. Well the Persians didn’t get it but clsoe enough I guess haha…
These are all great changes! But I would have still loved to have seen something to make Cav Archers viable in Imperial Age as well.
Holy shit! That was literally out of nowhere! Who would have guessed something like this???
Massive dissapointment! 
7 Likes
Doesn’t matter, the design of the civ itself is A S S. A cavalry civ, with a bonus that’s stronger than yasma towers, with a bonus comparable to slavs and celts, who can use more of insanely pop-efficient units?
Having 15% more infantry is one thing. 15% more cavalry? Whoever desinged this needs to be fired.
True. I hope they fix it wayy before release though.
Yeah, it sucks. My design was focused greatly on making towers viable in the late game, which is not only more interesting, but uncommon and not broken.
2 Likes
The Armenian Imperial Age UT has the same effect as my Aznauri tech for the Georgians in the Imperial Age, but for all infantry. The devs definitely took ideas from me.
You’re welcome.
Did you see the other one? This one is nothing compared to the next one. 11
I honestly don’t think Georgians is OP. They will be around 53% - 54% W/R in Arabia.
1 Like
They made pierce armour ignoring unit a thing. The thing about the Armenians is that they mostly counter cavalry. And since I don’t play cavalry, I don’t care 
Yeah, whoever approved this needs to be fired. This will be impossible to balance. Once these civs are out, I’ll be taking a break from AoE2 for a while, it seems 11
Armenians is everything Dravidians wished to be.
Is that though? It is better Briton UT that’s for sure.
1 Like
kinda worried about the fortified monastery. costs 200w. 10atk, 6 range.
it’s kinda like the malay harbour, but i feel like the harbour is situational, only being able to build on a coats.
fortified monasteries are basically trash castles. cool concept. probably OP.
EDIT - apparently it only fires arrows when villagers are garrisoned. so more like a TC. that’s good IMO. sprinkle a few of these in your town and it should be basically unraidable, w/o the stone cost normally associated with putting a few castles in your base.
2 Likes
Another thing that really pisses me off tbh. They have completely neglected Dravidians and then comes out with this broken civ? like wtf man.
Not a cool concept. They nerfed malay harbours to the ground for a reason. Then they come up with this garbage? If the range is fixed at 6 during all ages in the game, this might be workable. Even then, I don’t like it at all.
- Video was set to private while I watch it
