More like talking in circles about the same thing lol.
That would be you.
(20 characters)
To make it quick, @xPizzaSamuraixD is not talking about pastures, he’s talking about other things.
But these are things that have to do with AoE2, its historical period, and they have a lot to do with the pasture theme, so there’s nothing wrong with that.
@RatcicleFan On the other hand, the other member didn’t insult or disrespect you, heated discussions are allowed, and I didn’t find anything wrong with his comments.
Final point, I don’t want any more debate about it, if you want send me a private message and we can continue talking, but please, not in this thread.
Get back to the discussion about pastures, which I’m interested in, by the way.
Is this a new AoE2 building?
Yes, pasture is a unique building and belongs to one of the new civs: khitans.
Interesting. What’s different about it compared to the classic farm? Is it more OP? And why should other civilizations have it?
Yes, it’s pretty strong for now. And other civs could have it from a perspective that prioritizes real life.
But from civ design and concept point of view, I argue that it shouldn’t be shared to other civs because it’s part of khitan identity right now.
If initial civ design was the only thing that mattered we wouldn’t have four Indian civs now. And even regardless of that, I’m against making something as generic as pastures exclusive to a single civ (especially one that already has three unique units, one of which should have gone to a separate Tangut civ).
As I said, that’d be like if only one civ had the Knight line, or for a more extreme example, if only one civ had the regular farm.
The wood savings is still so huge that it is always a better food generation than regular farmers. All steppe/nomad civs have some of the strongest eco bonus (except Tatars and I don’t think they should get pasture).
Just rework their eco bonuses to balance them with pastures. But I agree Tatars as depicted in the game don’t need pastures.
Will be very weird when you lose pop space after pasture is deplected.
And also mule/ox cart.
The Georgians were not nomadic people. Having the Mule Cart in the game has nothing to do with the nomadic lifestyle.
Ideally, the Mule Cart should be unique to Georgians, the Armenians should not have Mule Cart too.
The warrior priest is basically made up for the game and the unit design is based on a Georgian ethnic group.
Armenians have the same problem as Goths of being different for difference’s sake.
Here’s the full list of civs that should have pastures:
- Khitans.
Reasoning?
20 Charecters
There would be no appeal in playing with Khitans. Being the only civ with pastures is what makes them interesting.
Pastures also had to stay better than farms to justify their existence. Giving them to other civs disturbs the balance, and it would make no sense either if non-Khitan pastures have the same productivity as farms.
If the Pasture is something unique to the Khitans, then thematically it feels quite forced. Influenced by the Chinese, the Khitans explored settlement and agriculture far more than the Mongols did.
In my view, their ultimate goal should have to be to weaken the Pasture itself, making it a safe replacement for Farms for nomadic civs rather than being specific to one civ, and then reintroduce the Herder bonus for the Khitans.
The Khitans feel dull mainly because it was too easy for them to gather food, which results in gameplay highly focused on Steppe Lancer rush. After their economy was nerfed, I’ve consistently supported giving them Bloodlines while removing Thumb Ring. This should allow them to access decent but not overpowered HCAs in the Castle Age with a lower barrier. As for the Forging line bonus, it could be changed to become available one age earlier at 50% cost, rather than doubling the effects, so that the power spike of Steppe Lancers with Bloodlines could be delayed to a more reasonable moment.
want to make Khitans more interesting, replace the Liao Dao with a Cataphract Archer that can use a bow or even a crossbow in visual.
Here is a semi comprehensive list of what makes the Khitans unique and appealing to play even without pastures:
- Double effect blacksmith attack upgrades.
- The only Cavalry civilization in the game which lacks both the knight line and bloodlines.
- Heavy Cavalry Archers in Castle age
- Trash training and upgrading 25% faster.
- Liao Dao swordsmen bleeding mechanic
- Camel Trebuchet quirks
- Reflect damage tech
- Cav regenerates in combat.
So we have at least 8 things that make them unique. Now let’s look at what makes one of the classic civs of aoe2, the Goths unique:
- Cheaper Infantry
- 20% longer lasting boar as well as easier to kill
- Faster training infantry
- instant loom
- +10 population space in imp
- Huskarl being an infantry unit which counters archers
Conclusion: One of the most beloved civilizations among players only needs 6 things that make them unique and fun to play. The new civ the Khitans, has 8 without the pasture. Hence, we don’t need 9 or 10 unique things per a civ to make it unique. Furthermore, just as giving the caravanserai to the Persians did not make the Hindustanis lose their identity and uniqueness, the same could be said of giving the Pasture to the Stepp civs, namely, Mongols, Huns, and Cumans. Granted for balance reasons it shouldn’t be given to them in its current state.
Now to respond to your second issue:
Actually it would make sense to have same food rate. First of all you don’t need to make a mill to construct them. Second of all, 2 per pasture allows you to put more vils near tc making them safer. Third of all the 20 wood discount over a farm makes things smoother.
Furthermore, we see reskins of monks for the American civs. So even if pasture would just become a reskin, that reskin adds much more variation into how things look in the game thus justifying its existence.
Historically earliest nomadic ingame civi huns not getting stepp lancers and pastures but having the tengri shrine with german buildings is something I will never understand.
Sadly, Goths don’t give me that old unique feeling anymore since Cheatistanis got Ghulams, which are basically just Huskarl copies. I wish these kinds of Huskarl clones were never introduced, it diluted the uniqueness of Goths. Worse, there’s way more going on with Cheatistanis on top of basically having access to Huskarls. They have better archers, better eco, better Hussars, super camels, OP hand cannoneers, better monks, better university techs, and better defense.
New civs are way too powerful, but they’re nowhere near as fun to play as the classic civs for me.