That’s not how it works. Something being made exclusive to a single civ doesn’t mean it’s justifiable to do so. The pre-Indian-split Elephant Archer got complaints because there was no good reason to make it a UU, and the same happened to the Caravanserai. Even the Organ Gun gets the same complaint. There’s no good reason to make pastures exclusive other than forcing uniqueness.
2 Likes
That’s because you are looking at it from how it fulfills its role as part of a kit and gameplay.
I’m only talking about uniqueness in civ identity and civ crafting. I thought it was very clear in the very same post you quote.
As this is a discussion board I am attempting at discussing things. Thus if we all agreed we disagreed this would be a very boring forum. We would have threads where the only comments are “I agree with you” or “I agree we disagree”. This forum would, as a result, have no purpose.
Proceeding, I acknowledge that civ crafting is hard which is why changes can be made as updates continue. The pasture is essential to the civ identity of the Khitans though that does not mean that it can’t be a regional thing. I mean, look at the Caravanserai you mentioned. It was added to the Persians but it still remained one of the selling points of the Hindustanis late game. It didn’t take away any uniqueness but really just added more dimension and historical accuracy to the game.
Now, here’s where I think your point makes a lot more sense. If every civ has a unique thing then it’s not unique. But 4 civs having pastures is fine just how 3 civs having eagles and no stables is. The Khitans have so many unique bonuses that making the pasture regional and not even taking it away would make the steppe civs in general feel more unique. Btw I forgot to mention in their list of bonuses the Liao Dao swordsmen as a unique unit and the camel treb. Both are units that add a lot of uniqueness to the civ.
1 Like
Maybe that just isn’t a good method of making them more unique.
That’d be like if only one civ got the knight line and all others only got the light cav line.
Nah, my point is more in line with mongols having mangudai and being against mangudai given to other civs.
Because, you know, unique units, unique buildings, unique technologies are in the same category of “uniqueness” like with pastures in this case. Technically there is nothing wrong with the mangudai case, as its stats can be edited, but that would ruin mongols identity as “the only civ that has mangudai”. That’s how the mongols civ was designed and crafted anyway; it’s part of its concept. Or even kipchaks or keshiks, if you want to be even more technical historically.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Pastures are not an essential part of the Khitan identity while Mangudai are essential to mongols.
1 Like
It’s really not the same. Mangudais are unique to Mongols because only Mongols and their relatives fielded Mangudais irl. Pastures are unique to Khitans because the devs fucked up that civ’s design in every way conceivable.
War Wagons, Gbetos, Organ Guns, Warrior Priests and Mounted Trebuchets also don’t belong to the civs they were assigned to. Even Cataphracts are too close to the “shouldn’t be civ-exclusive” line.
2 Likes
Mangudai were the elites of the mongols during ghengis khan era. But they were also deployed as part of the chinese army in kublai khan’s reign. Keshiks were mongolian imperial guards. Kipchaks were a tribe.
I’m not talking historical accuracy anymore, I’m talking what’s essential for a civ identity.
First of all, Mangudai have been a part of Mongols for 20 years so changing it would face heavy backlash.
Newer civs have a more easily molded civ identity as people don’t have attachments to specific civs that are new.
Ok, let’s go back to that then. There are units that could be shared even if they are right now unique units.
So imagine giving them to other civs just for historical accuracy. That would ruin the identity of its original civ.
I’m sure you’ll appreciate the fact Kublai Khan is one of the relatives of the Mongols I mentioned.
Which still tracks with “Mongolians and their relatives”.
At this point you’re just purposely distracting from the topic at hand.
I disagree with this. Not that Mangudais should be given to other civs, but older civs shouldn’t be exempt from reworks. Celts and Koreans are extremely poorly designed and I hate the nostalgia shield they get.
Again, purposely distracting from the topic at hand.
Hot take as it may be, I don’t actually care. Again, I don’t think any civ should be exempt from reworks, especially not pre-HD civs.
1 Like
Exactly, but the problem would be that those unique units have been essential to their civ designs for 20+ years while pasture’s have not. Because Khitans are new, players won’t have that same attachment they do to the Kipcheck or Mangudai. I mean look at Hindustanis when they were “new”. The devs added caravanserai to Persians with little no backlash because they could easily mold the caravanserai into other civs since it was new.
No, you didn’t get my post. The point I’m trying to get to with mangudai, kipchaks and keshiks is that, under what you both are saying, it’d be ok to have mangudai as part of the chinese, keshiks as part of mongols, and kipchaks as part of turks and mongols. Which in turn, ruins mongols, tatars and cuman civ identities.
Pastures, a 1 or 2 month old unit and kipchecks a 6 year old unit are both in different situations.
No, it’d only be “under what we are saying” if we actually were saying that. Don’t put words in our mouths.
And just so you know, every time you try moving the discussion from pastures to your unique unit bullshit I’ll flag your posts. Because you’re distracting from the actual discussion.
I’m not saying they should be exempted, I’m just saying it would face massive backlash. Also you have to remember we have a huge nostalgia player base so changing the age of kings/conquerers would be very bad for game’s longevity.
The building category they have right now is unique building. Which is actually the point I’m trying to make this whole time if you actually read my posts instead of skimming. Same with my example about caravanserai, but for some reason you didn’t get at all.
Just because they’re a unique building now doesn’t mean they should remain one. Again, as I’ve said previously, look at the caravanserai.
Also I didn’t skim, I read everything in your responses.
1 Like
Which brings us back to what we were talking before about civ concepts and I told you that we just agree to disagree.
Omg I get you because you are more reasonable, but the other dude doesn’t even read properly.
I’m not skimming anything, I’m calling you out for it because it legit doesn’t matter, which I couldn’t do if I didn’t know what you’re saying.
And like lemurover said, the Caravanserai should have never been unique, as shouldn’t the Organ Gun. The Portuguese never even used Organ Guns.
Now you’re being rude for no good reason.
@FloosWorld this user is both distracting from the topic at hand and pretty much insulting me.