Why do you want to hurt me like that? 
Before that, the Elephant Archer has to become the reginonal unit not only for SA but also SEA.
Personally it just seems good to give Chams Elephant Skirmishers that can be anti-skirmisher skirmishers to counterback the Vietnamese Rattan Archers and especially Imperial Skirmishers. Given that your idea of Elephant Crossbowman is just an upgrade on a generic line, I think it’s not a problem to have all of the in-Castle UU, Elephant Crossbowman and Elephant Skirmishers.
Or they can be a regional unit for SEA civs, so that there would be Armored and Siege Elephants for SA, Elephant Skirmishers for SEA, and Battle Elephants and Elephant Archers for both. (For sure there would be exceptions, for example the Malay cannot have Elite upgrade for their cheap Elephant Archers/Skirmishers. while the Vietnamese only have Battle Elephant line.)
But I won’t really mind it. I’m fine even if Elephant Skirmishers would not be introduced or would be introduced for another civ.
Incidentally, I think people would like to see a new female military unit, while Chams UUs might be suitable as a military unit to have a female version after the Gbeto and Flemish Militia.
The guns that Mughals had mounted on the backs of elephants were small ones, such as swivel guns, not bombard cannons. If there were to be such a unit in AoE2, maybe it would just be a cannon unit with about 10 range, 200 HP, and the elephant armor class, better at dealing with units than dealing damage to structures.
I mean, it would act just like an Elephant (Hand) Cannoneer, the potential in-Castle UU of Siamese/Tais.
Yet the only civ suitable to access such a swivel gun elephant is the Hindustanis, as they represent the Mughals.
I think this could happen with a new SE Asian DLC. In fact I think only the Vietnamese and maybe the Burmese can keep Cavalry Archers due to them being closer to East Asia, whereas Khmers, Malays, as well as the potential new civs Chams, Mons, and Siamese should all have Ele Archers instead.
Well this would make the Chams kind of a Vietnamese 2.0, since the Vietnamese is already an anti anti-archer civ with their Rattan Archer and Imperial Skirm.
From both gameplay and historical perspectives, it would be fitting to make their UU an amphibious raiding unit.
I’m not against such an idea, though there’s no conclusive historical evidence that they ever used female military units. AFAIK none of the historical records and nor the mural depictions in Angkor Wat about them ever mentioned or showed that they had female soldiers.
I did design an unit with both the male and female versions the Raeuz Tribesman, though this unit belongs to my Bo / Baipu civ craft (representing Nanzhao/Dali as well as other Non-Sinitic tribes and chiefdoms of medieval South China) and not the Chams. I’m basing this unit on the 12th century first-hand account of the tribal peoples of Guangxi entitled Lingwai Daida where it was mentioned that women had a rather prominent role in those tribes and sometimes took on male duties and that tribal raiders from 12th century Guangxi wore leather armors made out of bear skin.
It was for the Burmese that people initially advocated for Elephant Archers to replace Cavalry Archers.
I agree that the Vietnamese can keep Cavalry Archers, but because of their history of use and not just because of their proximity to East Asia.
People are not going to easily say the Hindustanis are Goth 2.0 since their in-Castle UUs are all anti-archer infantry, or say the Berbers are Vietnamese 2.0 since their all provide anti-archer units to the team. The “anti-skirmisher skirmisher” is a fresh concept, even not really euquivalent to purely stronger anti-archer units like the Rattan Archer and Imperial Skirmisher, not to mention the Elephant Skirmisher is a mounted unit.
I said the Elephant Skirmisher can be in Archery Ranges, which do not cancel your UU concept.
May we get the following things for existing civs with the release of the new DLC?
- Central Asian architecture for Persians.
- Central European architecture for Bohemians.
- New Byzantine architecture for Byzantines, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians.
- New Nomadic architecture for Huns, Mongols, Cumans.
- Change the dialog voice of Italians and Byzantines. (Just reuse the voice files of AoE3 Italians and AoE4 Byzantines.)
6 Likes
I have come bearing new investigations!
For this I had to go back…back to the past DLC files.
Checking the updates, I was left scratching my head as to the order of the language files that were updated. Recently they have been in this exact order:
- Traditional Chinese
- Portuguese - Brazil
- German
- Spanish - Spain
- French
- Italian
- Korean
- Spanish - Latin America
- Simplified Chinese
But I thought “this order does not have much sense to it, was it always like that?” So I went back…back to V&V, and then to Mountain Royals. Looking at the order of the language files updated, and lo and behold…they were different. But not different from each other; the “older” DLCs were all the same as each other, but different from this one.
And that difference is…both the Chinese ones were situated second from bottom, next to each other.
What does this mean? Not 100% sure, but it feels like the file for the Traditional Chinese language gets updated first now, and Simplified Chinese last. Instead of previously when they would get updated one after the other.
7 Likes
This is indeed a detail worth exploring and observing.
Traditional Chinese is my first language
I can also provide information when necessary
3 Likes
While that would normally be very useful, sadly I cannot access the Traditional Chinese being added in-question. If I could, it would answer everything very quickly.
2 Likes
I believe these weeks
In-file messages from past campaigns
there will be changes
Interesting…
Do you have sources on that?
Because of the community I’m in
Some enthusiastic friends will check details for changes from time to time.
It’s a pity that there have been no actual changes recently
1 Like
This is what I mean, the Vietnamese had cavalry archers historically and they were more influenced by the East Asian military tradition (which focused more on archery).
For the Burmese, I think they could go both ways. I’m not really against the idea of giving them Ele Archers.
I still don’t think that the Ele Skirm is historically grounded enough to be considered the UU of the Chams. I understand gameplay is important but so does historical accuracy. My opinion is that either don’t introduce this unit at all and if you do want to introduce it then it should be a regional unit for SE Asian civs.
You’re free to have your concept, you can make your own civ proposal of the Chams if you want, but stop trying to tell me what I should do cause I’m free to make my own concept. Really just stop picking on me.
I take historical accuracy rather seriously, and I don’t think such an unit is historically grounded enough to be considered one of the UUs of the Chams (I have no problem if it were a regional unit though). On the other hand the Chams were quite good with crossbows and this statement is historically grounded, so I chose to give them the Ele Crossbowman as an unique upgrade of the Ele Archer.
You cannot have a civ have both CAs and EAs. That’s the way this devs design.
What? At the beginning, it’s you that replied my ideas with your opposition in this thread. I explained my thoughts and even indicated that they are compatible with some of your opinions, then now you think my thoughts are offending you and picking on you? This thread isn’t even your proposal. You say I am free to have my own ideas, but it’s actually you who is picking on me.
There are already some experiences in the past that you have suddenly interpreted my mere opinion of an idea as hostile like I am forcing you, and this time isn’t the first time you’ve acted like a victim to embarrass me. This is why I do not take and have not taken the initiative to reply to any of your posts and topics for a long while unless sometimes you reply my post first, if you have noticed. Never fun to discuss with you, always brings pressure.
May it mean that the text of this DLC was initially completed in Traditional Chinese?
Just an unfounded guess.
That’s the number one reason I can think of.
Please, devs, give us something, anything… at this point I’ll take anything, even a meme.
Am I going crazy?
4 Likes
Well, it is what it is…
Yes, that sounds good to me…
What I really meant was that the Burmese could either have CA or EA, and I don’t have strong opinions for or against either option.
And nothing suggests that established rules cannot be broken. For instance they could have EA and elite EA but only CA without the Heavy CA upgrade. This would make their CA pretty weak.
What? I was merely providing my suggestion, I didn’t force you to accept or to follow my proposal, and I specifically mentioned that if you really wanna add the Ele Skirm as the UU of the Chams then you’re free to create your own civ build about them, but please stop lecturing me about how I should add this unit to my civ proposal cause I have my own ideas about how this civ should look like. That’s all I said nothing more nothing less, yet somehow you interpreted this as I’m deliberately opposing you. Dude you really need to chill.
Well it may be fresh, but an amphibious raiding unit is an even fresher concept and one that is fitting to be given to the Chams. The only thing that may prevent this unit from existing is I’m not sure if the AoE 2 engine could handle or allow such a unit.
Well speaking of past experiences, my past interactions with you have been rather difficult. You sounded way too adamant, defensive, and passive aggressive when you interacted with me.
Our past contentions mainly revolved around these 3 points:
-
You mentioned that South Chinese have always been Han, I said that this was not the case the medieval Sinitic people did not consider the inhabitants of Far South China (Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Yunnan, etc.) as Han and I provided Lingwai Daida and other first-hand accounts, yet for some reason you got completely defensive over this. I highly recommend you read Lingwai Daida if you have the chance (it was written in Classical Chinese though), the author was Zhou Qufei (a Song era Sinitic official stationed in Guangxi in the 1170’s) and he used the term “southern barbarians” numerous times when referring to the native inhabitants of Guangxi, reminiscent of how Julius Caesar viewed the native inhabitants of Gaul and of Germania in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Although I dislike his usage of this term, Zhou did provide a rather faithful description of the natives in Guangdong and Guangxi in the mid 12th century at the time he wrote this book.
-
The naming of the civ representing Nanzhao/Dali. You insisted that they should be called Yi or Nuosu, while I suggested that there’s no conclusive evidence whatsoever to prove that the elites of these kingdoms were of Yi origin or spoke Yi and that it’s better to use a more historical or a more encompassing term as the name for this civ, but somehow you went defensive again over this.
-
The in-game East Asian architecture, particularly with regards to the castle. I’ve seen many pictures of ancient and medieval Chinese fortifications ranging from the ancient rammed earth watch towers of the Han era preserved in the deserts of Xinjiang to the medieval Song and Ming era stone and later brick hill forts of Southern China, and I can tell you with great certainty that the in-game East Asian castle doesn’t even remotely resemble them, but instead it bears a much stronger resemblance to the Sengoku era Japanese castles (albeit not a perfect match), and yet again you went overly defensive and passive aggressive against me for saying this.
And I remember that once you even went political against me saying that “you mainlanders should stop interfering with Taiwan” or something along the lines of that, despite the subject that we were discussing was completely historical and had nothing to do with modern political conflicts between China and Taiwan. But even then I kept my composure and explained to you that despite being a mainlander I actually wish Taiwan to remain independent and that not all mainlanders think alike.
Look I totally understand that you guys have your grudges against us mainlanders, but this isn’t the right place to discuss such things, and nor I’m the right person to discuss such things since I actually hope for greater autonomy for Taiwan and even for certain regions of South China.
Of course you’ve been gradually improving and aren’t as disputatious as you were before, but still I feel that your tone is a bit condescending and dictatorial. Look I’m not intentionally picking fights with you, all I’m asking is that if you could be a bit more tolerant and respectful of my opinions, and if you could do that then we could have a civilized discussion. Peace.
1 Like
And speaking of Lingwai Daida (for those who haven’t heard about this book written in the 1170’s you can think of it as a Song Dynasty version of Commentarii de Bello Gallico though the subject wasn’t the Gaulois but the native inhabitants of South China and kingdoms in SE Asia) and other Song Dynasty records I’ve read, there’re some interesting descriptions that I’m not sure how to implement in the game.
First there’s the poisoned crossbow. Song records mentioned that this weapon was almost ubiquitous among the natives of South China and SE Asia. Hence the Poisoned Crossbowman, an unit akin to the Jungle Bowman in AoE 3 with a poisoned attack, could serve as a regional unit for the Bo / Baipu, the Vietnamese, the Chams, the Khmers, the Malays, and maybe the Siamese. However I’m wondering if having such a regional unit would make them too powerful since they already have elephants. Plus I’m hoping to reserve the poison effect to a civ in the Philippines, in Africa, or in the Americas. For instance the Visayans could have the Poisoned Blowgunner as their UU and the Timawa Warrior as their Eagle equivalent (they wouldn’t have cavalry). Or maybe the Congolese could have the Poisoned Crossbowman as their UU (yep they did have crossbows believe it or not). Or perhaps the Tupi-Guarani or the Taino could have the Poisoned Blowgunner or the Poisoned Bowman as their UU (though they aren’t of high priority on my civ list). There’re many potential civs that could have this effect, and it’s hard for me to pick which one to give it to.
Second is the prevalence of leather and paper armors in this region. According to Song era records paper armors were frequently used by pirates active in the southern seas (the South China Sea, at that time called the Sea of Champa), and there’s a high chance that the Chams may have had access to such armor. And also according to Song records leather armors made out of bear hide (LOL South Chinese Berserker was actually a thing back then no pun intended) were frequently used by the natives of Guangxi while raiding, however the finest leather armors came from Dali and were made out of elephant hide.
Really 12th century South China was completely different from today’s South China, and after reading such historical records I’d hope that it has never been sinicized.
2 Likes
看完您的介紹與資訊
我有感而發
我們都是有緣相見喜愛這款遊戲來到此交流
不分政治立場與彼此
我們都是愛帝國時代的人(我這邊翻譯為世紀帝國)
我在台灣管理的社群也難免會遇上立場不盡相同理念衝突的人
但我選擇能規勸大家就盡量避免
英語不是我的強項
我甚至不太會說
但我盡量用翻譯軟體去修飾我想表達的給大家參考
今日您介紹的資訊
都是我從未去詳細理解的
獲益良多 謝謝你
Here it was you first against my thoughts with yours in your replies to me, well so far it’s fine, but later after I explained that my thoughts would be compatible with some of your opinions, then you said I’m “lecturing you about how you should do”? I just explained my thoughts! I didn’t force you and have never forced you to accept any of my thoughts, but it seems you view my mere interpretation of my thoughts as hostility to your suggestions. You did not force me to accept your suggestions but what you did was suddenly taking a offensive stance and falsely accusing me.
On the other hand, again, here is not your civ proposal. At the beginning, some people were discussing about potential elephant units in this thread, I replied one of them and then you replied to me. Here is not your thread, not your topic. I knew there are your civ proposals in the other topic, and I haven’t reply anything there because I don’t want to give you any of my thoughts to avoid you always interpreting my feedback as forcing.
I remember my opinion at the time was that southern China was already highly Sinicized in the timeline of AoE2 like the Tang Dynasty. I was not talking about places as farther south as Yunnan or Guanxi, but Jiangxi or Zhejiang along the Yangtze River. The purpose of this opinion of mine is that the Chinese civ covering the place of the Sinicized southern China can be renamed to Han if needed after the “Chinese split”, and the farther south may have a chance to become another civ representing Nanzhao Kingdom.
I had not really objected your statement, especially your wish about a Nanzhao civ, at all, but you just kept repeating that as long as it is southern China it is not Han Chinese at all, didn’t understand me and even falsely accused my at that time and at this time.
At the time my opinion was, the reason why they can be named Nuosu or Lolos is because it fits the classic tradition of this game. Goths currently represent almost all Germanic tribes (including the Goths themselves) who cannot be represented by other civs, which does not mean that all tribes were Goths or speak Gothic. Nuosu can have a similar effect to the Goths on this civ, that’s it.
You kept repeating “They were not Nuosu or did not speak Nuosu” but this is essentially different thing from my opinion. Yeah you absolutely don’t have to accept my point of view, but this opinion of mine does not conflict with your historical statement, and you continue to use this statement of yours to oppose my opinion, and go even further by accusing me of forcing it on you.
Btw, in Wikipedia page about Nanzhao, there is stated that “Some historians believe that the elite spoke a variant of Nuosu”, and there is a cite note. If you insist on evidence or any body looking here is curious about evidence, that cite note may be the evidence.
My position on this issue from beginning to end is that some elements, not all, of the in-game East Asian Castles have actually not common in Japanese castles but are relatively similar to Chinese defensive structures, such as the balconies. I have not denied that they resembled Japanese castles, not did I say that they simply resembled Chinese defensive structures. That’s different! I don’t understand why you keep misunderstanding what I mean, but when I shared pictures to support my own opinion, you thought I was “attacking” you.
The thing was started like, you said that the term “Han” which I think is valid for the civ’s name in the game is nationalistic and not medieval, but I was just pointing out that it is not so important for a game that uses terms “Spanish” and “Franks” to represent the periods of El Cid and Joan of Arc. Also, in the forum there were some people being accepted to suggest renaming the Franks and Teutons into terms “French” and “Germans” which may also be considered nationalistic.
I even have never taken initiative to raise politic issues. It was you that first slandered me as so-called “Han ethnocentrism” and accused me hurting you, but what I did is just explaining that it doesn’t matter whether the term is nationalistic or not, not advocating any ethnocentrism. On the contrary, it was your use of this word to describe me that made me upset. I expressed that terms like “nationalism” and “ethnocentrism” are not good words to me just because my country is threatened by Chinese nationalists.
From then on, you started presupposing that my opinions are relevant to politics once they disagree with yours. Like now you start to mention the political issue again.
I have not even expressed my personal views and feelings on the Chinese mainlanders. In fact, I even have a friend from China in the forum who shares with me about AoE3 and other interests.
So, at that time, after you knew my identity, you presumed that my suggestions and feedbacks contained my political point of view on modern China or modern Chinese people. What you did to me were because you presumed I have grudges and put them on you mainlander. However, my opinions have not been influenced by who you are or where you come from, only by your words, nothing about politics. Even if you were European, American or Indian, I’d still have the same opinion.
You are not intentionally picking fights with me? Every time, every time it’s always you accusing me first when discussing. In the forum every user should be free to express objections to others’ opinions. I am fine when you disagree my opinions, but when I have my opinions in my replies to you and even not totally disagree your opinions, you would start to say I’m “picking on you”, “forcing you”, “condescending”, “dictatorial” and not respectful of you, like you are an innocents victim and make me a bad guy and embarrassed. For a long time it made me uncomfortable when I saw you quote me or reply to me.
I don’t want to take initiative to discuss with you, and I indeed have never initiatively replied your posts and topic for a while unless replying you when you replied to me first. You want peace but you hit me first and then said you want peace.