I still think pastures would be better historic flavor
1 Like
No matter which nomadic civ, there were a minority of residents who had settled down and attempted agriculture (perhaps except for the potential Gokturk civ), but herding is clearly much more important to them and carries significant cultural and historical meaning.
For the game, Pasture was designed and introduced to replace Farm, so in theory there shouldn’t be a civ that can access both of them.
2 Likes
Huns and Mongols are pretty strong civs currently, so shouldn’t receive pastures since they are better than farms.
Similarly, for Cumans they would probably cause problematic booming potential in certain circumstances.
They’d probably be ok for Tatars, I think.
I don’t see the point though. There doesn’t seem to be a gameplay-based argument, and as long as pastures have wild animals rather than domesticated ones, they provide no meaningful flavour.
The Tatars, as they are depicted in-game (with a campaign on Tamerlane and the timurid architecture), mostly refers to an empire who was definitely settled. For sure their elites and warriors had nomadic roots, and pastoralism was still a thing, but in Transoxiana, the heart of their empire, intensive agriculture was the norm. Celts might be a better fit for pastures than Timurids.
(oc as cougarloup said you can make changes for campaigns)
Please, no changes to Celts that make them even more of a pop culture joke.
1 Like
If you give it to the Celts, at least give them a model that doesn’t have a yurt at the center.
What bonus do the Khitans have?
They used to have +10% gather rate on pastures. It got removed… but pastures got buffed to compensate
1 until we run out of ideas or the “Regional” thing becomes available to too many civs. Imo 6 as the marginal number between “Too many” vs “Enough” number of “Regional” thing.
Ensemble also did the same. Both of the Eagle civs have different UTs. And neither of the Caravanserai civs have any bonus for the buidling.
Would you say the same for civilization with Stable since 3 civs that don’t have Stable, have different bonus for Stable alternative?
Just 2 - Turks and Tatars. One of the reason I’m liking the idea of splitting Camel Rider - Dromedary and Bacterian. Stats will be tweaked like Knight vs Hei Guang.
You recall wrongly. As I pointed out above.
The region where Huns lived is shared by Cumans, Magyars, Mongols, Byzantines, Romans, Goths, Teutons, Turks, Tatars, and maybe more. So House is not regional.
It’s a no from me. Their 2 sheep bonuses is already more than enough to reflect their nomadic style.
Plot twist - They are actually toned up and Khitans just lost their +10% bonus. So still impossible to add this building and make Mongols/Huns/Cumans balanced.
No other civ should have pastures. I know it makes sense irl
But it’s part of the uniqueness of the building. From a civ design perspective, it’s gonna take away the concept of it being khitans’ identiy. Like with caravanserai.
Not if you think of it as being regional identity. Khitans already have a unique identity without it( +2 attack scouts in feudal with fast creation time). Make the players happy and make it regional.
I mean region identity is just as important as civ identity. Look at the American civs and their eagles or the steppe civs and their steppe lancers. In fact we don’t have enough regional units in the game.
Except eagles were unique to aztecs (I mean, historically). Mayans and incas shouldn’t have them in the first place. And steppes already fulfill their concept as regional units because they were released like that. Not as a unique unit, or unique building in this case.
My point still stands. But oh well, it’s just my opinion about civ design and respecting concepts.
Impossible to add it as is. It is possible to reduce generic herder gather rate and then give Khitans a “bonus” to keep their current herder gather rate. And since pre-wheelbarrow pastures and post-hand cart pastures have similar gather rates compared to farms now, they wouldn’t need as much tweaking to keep them roughly equivalent to current farming rates in early and late game. Mid game may be a different story, but since wheelbarrow is often not researched until castle age, having wheelbarrow pastures perform worse than wheelbarrow farms shouldn’t be too big of an issue (since most of the time, players can just get hand cart right afterwards).
What did civ designs do to earn this respect? Look at Hindustanis who essentially lost their unique unit and became essentially a brand new civ. Their unique unit became a regional unit and their bonuses were shifted. If you can add a regional unit to make things more historically accurate in a historical game, then you should. Thus for the same reason the 3k civs need to be changed or removed, pastures should be added to more civs; though of course some tweaking is required.
They already have quite a lot of gimmicks, just look at their UUs… (notably the monster that is their infantry that causes bleeding damage and reflects some).
Because it adds uniqueness. And it’s pretty important in a symmetrical game like this, so civs can be different in their own way besides the civ boni.
That’s why civ design is very difficult and takes skills, at least for this game. If civs lose things that make them unique, it’s like watering down their identity.
And we’ve had the concept of regional units and buildings for things that are narrow but not exclusive to one single civ. The Hindustani caravansari was given to the Persians for example.
It makes sense to give the pasture to other nomadic civs that didn’t rely on farming.
1 Like
Yeah, I already pointed that out.
They don’t even need more than one thing that makes them unique +2 attack from blacksmith is enough. Look at goths. They really only need their discount and perfusion. For Khitans fast training scouts along with attack is enough. They don’t need millions of unique things. Right now they actually feel all over the place with a CA bonus, a trash bonus, pasture being a bonus, a scout +2 bonus, a team bonus that makes infantry better vs archers. Like taking one thing away from a civ whose identity feels all over the place is fine if not helpful.
I already pointed out how boni are part of the civ concept.
Anyway, I’m not even trying to convince you. All I’m saying is that civ crafting and design is very difficult and we shouldn’t water down civ identities.
Let’s just agree we disagree.