You read the title probably so here’s my choices:
Mongols: Pastures giv + 5 housing
Tatars: Pastures have +2 animals
Huns: Pastures 10% cheaper
Cumans: Can garrison vils in pastures
8 Likes
I think Pastures and Herders need to be toned down first before we even discuss on giving it to the other steppe civs.
11 Likes
Does every civ with pastures need a special bonus for it
Cant we just have civ that has pastures but no bonus for it
16 Likes
It seems the new big thing for FE is everyone who has something regional having a different bonus for it, so that there’s no generic version of it
1 Like
When every version is special no version is. Cant we just have one standard version. Im asking permission even thougg I know nobody who was gifted a position of power in this dev team by randomness will ever listen to the lowly dude with decades of civ crafting
2 Likes
Thank you! Otherwise, it’s like saying that every civilisation with Farms must have a bonus linked to it.
There’s just left some civs with the camels, but not much.
5 Likes
If I recall correctly, this started with battle elephants in Rise of the Rajas, so not such a new big thing, even.
Houses are a regional building (the region being everywhere outside of Hunnic territory), so every civ with houses should have a bonus for them. Prove me wrong!
5 Likes
even if they get them, why do they need bonuses???
3 Likes
This thread was created for those who want bonuses for pastures and for those who don’t alike, hence the (if any) in the title. Furthermore, if you don’t think that civs should get bonuses for pastures then there is still the other question, which civs should get pastures?
1 Like
As a base, the pasture should have a similar yield to farms all things considered, to effectively be a reskin more thematic for nomads with a resource adjustment that doesn’t matter much in the end. So it will need a nerf to start with
Then add bonuses if need be, civs who have a generic farming and are already strong (Mongols for example) do not need a bonus on top of that. Unless you nerf pastures lower than farms, but it’s not necessary
For Tatars though I’m on the fence, they are quite settled as the Timurids. Yes for the Huns Cumans and Mongols
5 Likes
- Cumans
- Huns (still waiting for the Steppe Lancers)
- Mongols
- The Tartars are a difficult case. If we take the Timurid Empire, it certainly still had many nomadic tribes in its territory / sphere of influence (which were also quite independent), but it relied heavily on settled populations. So idk.
1 Like
Tatars shouldn’t get Pastures. But Tibetans when introduced should get them and yaks as their herdable unit.
3 Likes
They are now toned down so we can discuss it.
With Pasture still being 7% faster than farmers, we can all bury our dreams of more nomadic civs (Mongols, Huns, Cumans, Tatars) getting pasture in the future.
1 Like
Slav farms are 15% faster than normal farms. Plus pastures actually aren’t 7% faster after upgrades but actually worse than farms.
Looking at sotl’s numbers (for old pastures), when devs say pastures were changed from 12% to only being 7% more efficient than farm, it seems that they refer to farms places right near a tc.
In an extended feudal age (something that will happen if you play a nomadic civ on arabia), it looks like pastures would still be significantly better than two rows of farms.
Regarding Tatars, maybe in scenarios where they are an umbrella for various turkic peoples they could get pastures. But as timurids they should definitely have farms, irrigated agriculture was central to their economy (alongside trade).
1 Like
In April I made a poll related to pasture.
According to the results there is a consensus for giving pasture to Mongols (87%) Huns (84%) and Cumans (82%)
For the Tatars with only 51% there is no consensus. I think it’s better to leave them by default with farm because ingame their main campaigns (Tamerlane and Babur) show them as farming civilization (who was historically exact).
Campaigns who can be modified
We can put them as pasture civilization in some scenarios :
Algirdas and Kestutis campaign (scenario 2 and 3) : the various Tatars factions in the campaign were nomadic, they gain pastures
Ivaylo 1 : The tatars faction was nomadic, they gain pasture.
Ivaylo 2 : We don’t care because the tatars factions have neither farm or pasture
Jawigda 5 : The various Tatars factions were nomadic, they all gain pasture.
Kotyan Khan 1 : We don’t care because the tatars faction have neither farm or pasture
Kotyan Khan 2 : The tatars faction was nomadic, they gain pasture.
Seljuk (Viktor and vanquished) : We start as a nomad. Gaining access to pasture will be good. For the Kara-Khanids faction there were mostly settled so they stay with farms.
Scenario that must be reworked (not related to pasture)
Genghis (Viktor and vanquished) : We don’t care because they have neither farm or pasture. Also this scenario need a rework because their is still the old AoE1 priest for the shaman (now we have a steppe skin for the monk) and the Great Jin faction must be changed from Chinese to Jurchen.
Campaigns who stay unchanged
Babur campaign : the player keep the farms. For the various Tatars factions in the campaign we don’t care because they were settled people with farms.
Devapala 3 : We don’t care because the various tatars factions have neither farm or pasture
Edward Longshanks 2 : We don’t care because they have neither farm or pasture
Genghis Khan 1 : We don’t care because they have neither farm or pasture.
Ismail campaign : the various Tatars factions in the campaign were agricultural people in Iran they stay with farms.
Prithviraj 4 : Ghorids : a dynasty who come for Iran, stay with farm.
Tamar campaign : the various Tatars factions in the campaign were agricultural people in Iran or Azerbaijan they stay with farms.
Tamerlane campaign : the player always keep the farm. For the various Tatars factions in the campaign we don’t care because they don’t have farm or any economy.
2 Likes
Mongols: Yes, +5 housing space is a good bonus, maybe the Nomads unique technology also apply for the pastures in addition of the houses. Maybe lowering their +40% food bonus form hunting and giving them the last pasture upgrade (they lack the last farm upgrade).
Huns : They already have a bonus in wood because they didn’t need to build house (for 195 pop (+5 town center = 200 pop) : these mean 975 wood). No pasture discount for the Huns (pasture are already cheaper in wood than farm). Maybe removing the last pasture upgrade (they lack the last farm upgrade).
Tatar : They stay with the farms
Cumans : Why not ?
Known that they want Pasture to provide more early-game benefits than Farm, but with lower late-game benefits. This should still remain the core identity of Pasture. However, its early advantage and late disadvantage should be subtle enough that, even without a civ bonus for it, its overall effectiveness would not differ significantly from Farming without a civ bonus.
Pasture should replace not only Farm but also Mill, since mills are intended for farming peoples.
In the future, civs that can have access to Pasture can include, but not be limited to, those that use the Nomadic Architecture Set (such as the Cumans, Khitans, Huns, and Mongols).
The Tatars may still belong to the Central Asian set, but based on the Golden Horde (especially in its early period), they could also fit into the Nomadic set. Alternatively, they could use the Nomadic set only in the Feudal Age and return to Central Asian from the Castle Age onward. Regardless of which set they belong to, they can have access to Pasture to replace Farm and Mill.
The Bulgarians, Magyars, and Turks might possibly be able to adopt the Nomadic set in the Feudal Age, but from the Castle Age onward, they should return to the Eastern European and Middle Eastern respectively, symbolizing their settlement. Therefore, they should not have access to Pasture.
Although the Jurchens are not classified as a nomadic people, their lifestyle that they lived in yurts and migrated was influenced by nomads when they lived on the steppes. Therefore, they could also use the Nomadic set during the Feudal Age, and then revert to the East Asian set afterward. With no Pasture, for sure.
Although yak herding is an important industry in Tibet, I believe they should still be classified as a farming civ in the game. In their core region—the densely populated Yarlung Valley where often referred to as the “cradle of Tibetan civilisation”, including the capital Lhasa—they grow highland barley and wheat. Herding is more significant in the drier and sparsely populated north. With having Farms instead of Pastures, they can still receive bonuses related to yaks, like receiving 3 Yaks at each tc upon reaching new Age, to reflect the importance of yaks to the Tibetan people.
By the way, after the split of Khitans, the Tanguts should have access to Pasture.
Mongols should also have farms they settled in china.
Cumans and huns should get pastures as they just assimilated to other peoples.