[Poll]First Persians+Saracens then Chinese+Koreans. Which pair of classical civs next?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

The Mounted Royals came with a major rework of Persians (Without switching their architecture set to Central Asian) and some major changes of Saracens. Next Three Kingdoms had a major overhaul of Chinese and Koreans. All 4 civilizations are “Classical” civilizations meaning they were released in the base game Age of Empires II : The Age of Kings (1999) and The Conquerors Expansion (2000). With this trend, I’m assuming we will get rework of rest of the 14 “Classical” civilizations.

In my opinion there is a lot of ways the “Classical” civs can be changed in the future. I’m not saying they are boring to play. In fact, Mongols and Saracens is my all time favorite civs to play. Britons always have a soft spot in my heart. I also like Huns and Franks for their easy gameplay. And Vikings is my go to civ for water maps and Japanese for hybrid maps. All I’m saying the old civs having less UU and Regional Units make them too generic. Adding SL to Mongols was a controversial topic back when they were added. But look at the picture now. Everyone loves to play Mongols SL regardless of elo. Any future DLC with rework for old “Classical” civs will only bring more interesting game play imho.

Now there is already a speculation that next DLC will focus on South America. In that case, Aztecs+Mayans is the obvious choice. But what about the next next DLC? Which pair do you want to see to be changed?

  • Aztecs+Mayans with American DLC
  • Japanese+Vikings with Naval DLC
  • Mongols+Huns with Steppe/Nomadic/Central Asian DLC
  • Britons+Celts with Western European DLC
  • Franks+Spanish with Mediterranean DLC
  • Byzantines+Turks with Steppe/Anatolian/Caucasian/Eastern European DLC
  • Goths+Teutons with Central European DLC
0 voters
1 Like
2

It looks like we are getting an America themed DLC next so it’s not unlikely that we will see an Aztec and Maya rework.

1 Like
3

Japanese and Vikings will have the least impact as they dont have campaigns.

4

What do you want after that?

Sentence like this always confuses me. Does this mean “It’s likely that we will see an Aztec and Maya rework?”

A Naval DLC may add campaign for them.

5

Undecided about that.

not unlikely → likely

2 Likes
6

They have a tons of individual scenarios dedicated to them. Vikings have 6 scenarios. Japanese have 4 scenarios. And each of these scenarios are on average longer than many normal scenarios of a campaign.

7

Those are not full campaigns so those have a less chance of breaking apart.Saracens has minor chnages so its had a less effect on the overall og campaign.

Im pretty sure devs did not chnage franks to sicilians in hastings campaign as it would break the entire structure of the og campaign.

8

Civ changes like that are more likely to break an enemy AI then the player because the player can just simply train Rocket Carts instead of Onagers but if the AI is scripted to train Onagers it will fail to do so when they aren’t available anymore.

So for example the Vietnamese campaign has Chinese as enemies in every scenario, which means more chances of braking then a hypothetical Chinese campaign would have had.

9

In the absence of a “none” or “other” option, I voted Aztecs and Mayans. All I’d want is for plumed archers to become a regional unit, replacing crossbow/arbalester for these civs and Incas, and for Mayans to get a new unique unit with a specifically Mayan name (and without any new/extra mechanics).

Generally, though, I think these civs are fine, and I don’t think recent civ reworks have been all that positive, so I’d rather not see them changed significantly.

2 Likes
10

I don’t think they need a different unit to replace the Crossbow, they just really really need regional skins.

1 Like
11

I forgot “None” and it never came across that there could be “Other”. I thought the rework will come with future DLCs and DLCs are based on particular region.

Can you elaborate? I think other than Koreans losing their iconic 10 range SO everything is well received. Oh and Lou Chuan being too good against ships is criticized I guess.

12

The main issue with the poll is that it has pairs of civs. Some people might group the civs differently.

1 Like
13

The reason I don’t think that wouldn’t work well for American civs is that their crossbowmen would either be depicted using traditional bows (in which case the name crossbowman is nonsense) or would still be using crossbows (in which case it wouldn’t solve the problem).

I can imagine, for example, someone suggesting Goths and Byzantines together with an early medieval DLC.

Turtle ships firing rockets in between cannonballs is nonsense both mechanically and visually. I dislike giving new mechanics to classic civs – in this case, fire lancers with a charge attack – and I also dislike that there are so many gunpowder units that don’t require chemistry now. Removing the old shinkichon siege onagers feels like removing a big part of Koreans’ identity (although they had already been toned down). Rocket carts are worse than mangonels against the AI – their projectiles land over a longer time period, so it’s easier for the AI to dodge them. Koreans were my favourite civ but the only positive I see in the rework is that shinkichon affecting rocket carts rather than onagers makes more physical sense.

As for other civs, I think auras don’t fit well into AoE2 so I dislike the changes to Saracens and Celts. Persians upgrading Cavaliers (a mid/late medieval western-looking unit) to Savaran (a late antiquity/early medieval Persian-looking unit) looks sillier than them just having Paladins. Citadels isn’t fully an upgrade because it negates ballistics. As for Chinese, I am less bothered because I think they weren’t a great design anyway (the villager bonus was fine in 1999 but doesn’t work well in the context of ultra-optimised build orders) but similar comments to Koreans apply there as well.

14

I get that now. I want to do the same topic after the next DLC which I believe an American DLC with Aztecs+Mayans rework and will be dropped on February 2027. In that poll I’d add “None” and all the possible 12 combination 2 = 66 options as the forum doesn’t have any limit on poll option unlike reddit.

Same thought. But I’m okay with aura when it is for healing. I always wanted a Britons and Celts rework. I personally think “Stronghold” as a UT name is stupid and other than the healing, the rof was weak enough (25%) to even make the tech a generic precursor tech for Arrowslit.

I actually liked new Turtle Ship. With your profile picture I can understand you. 11

15

The name could change too, not just the visuals. Generally a bow instead of a Crossbow would be more fitting for most parts of the world. Europe and East Asia liked Crossbows but most other places didn’t use them much. Even for some European and East Asian civs Bows would work a lot better.

But I personally care more about the visuals then the unit name. The names are often kinda stupid anyway. Like Man at Arms are supposed to be cavalry not Infantry or the Pikeman uses a glaive instead of a pike, which is more historically correct for the time period.

You mean 2026, right? 2027 would be a little far into the future.

Better to just let us vote for single civs I think.

16

Remake the Slinger as a regional trash unit. Very fragile and performs poorly against archers and cavalry, but it could be mass-produced, so it would naturally counter infantry until the opponent infantry get Imperial-level upgrades. Only the Inca could have a upgrade in the Imperial Age.

I don’t sure. The vast majority of warfare in feudal Japan consisted of internal conflicts that took place inland, with some occurring along the coast. The Japanese in the Middle Ages were not truly a naval civ, so although you could design the in-game civ to have naval advantages, it would be difficult for campaign choices to fit well in such a theme —unless you intend to portray Toyotomi’s invasion of Korea from the Japanese perspective (and even then, Japan’s strengths still lay in land warfare).

Replace the Crossbow and Arbalest with the Longbow and Elite Longbow after stats tweaks. A new UU introdeced in the Castle.
Replace the Woad Raider with the Kern, and Two-handed with the Gallowglass. The old Woad Raider skin could be reserved as an official graphic mod.
But a DLC is unecessary.

Agree on this. I don’t mind giving old civs new toys, but I don’t like having a unit use different attack types within a single attack cycle. To me, this kind of design is unnecessary and only adds confusion. It makes players unsure of what’s happening. For example, if a Turtle Ship moves right after firing a cannonball, does it then have to fire two volleys of rockets before it can fire another cannonball?

There are clearly better ways to help players understand easily. For example, it could normally fire rocket volleys but switch to a cannonball shot when fully charged, or it could work like the Ratha, allowing players to toggle between rocket volleys and cannonball mode.

Similarly, new units like Lou Chuan, Fire Archer, and Jian Swordsman, which try to create a unique identity by having two attack types, face similar problems.

2 Likes
17

Personally I always want a Britons and Celts rework. And Longbowman replacing Xbow/Arb was my 1st priority. But from the latest DLC I am leaning towards Huns. And previous DLCs like TMR adding Mule Cart for new civs and a horse for Huns in nomadic maps really changed my mind. Now I want Huns rework with relatively small Mongols changes.

Everybody hates Huns in Land Nomad now. And maybe even in Nomads too. Farms make zero sense for them when we have pasture. Steppe Lancer is also more appropriate than Knight but that will be a huge balance issue as their stable work faster.

18

Yep, that’s why I changed it!

I’d prefer not to have identical units with different names and visuals. Do we have any already? I can’t think of any.

Or it could just fire a cannonball like it used to! Why can’t it just fire a single projectile with a consistent reload time like basically every other ranged unit in the game? I don’t understand the motivation for the change at all.

19

The Mule Cart in the game actually reflects the lifestyle of the Caucasus Mountains, not the nomadic lifestyle of the steppe. Therefore, it belongs to the Georgians and Armenians—or, in my view, it would be better if it were exclusively available to the Georgians. (As a side note, the Warrior Priest should ideally be the opposite, available to both Georgians and Armenians.) If the Mule Cart is to be changed to represent the nomadic lifestyle, then it should no longer be available to the Caucasus civs.

Another reason is that the Mule Cart itself is special as a mobile building, which makes me think it doesn’t need to be available to as many as five or six nomadic civs.

Just make the Hunnic Horse unable to convert sheep, and perhaps give it an unarmed rider in visual.

Agree that the Huns, Mongols, Cumans, and Khitanguts can share a new nomadic architecture set. In this set, the Pasture replaces the Farm (as well as the Mill). Of course, the Pasture would need to be further tweaked, and the Khitanguts should be given compensating civ bonuses.

Letting the Huns have Steppe Lancers themselves should be less broken than Mongols/Jurchens/Khitanguts allied with the Huns going for a Steppe Lancer rush, shouldn’t it?

Maybe it’s because they think rockets are cool as a new type of projectile. Firing rockets also allows the Shinkichon to upgrade the Turtle Ship.

At least, the cannon fire could be changed to a charge attack, with rocket volleys serving as the regular attack.

Off-topic, I just remembered that I’ve always felt it doesn’t make sense for Galleons to still fire bolts in the late game. By the 16th century, naval warfare had already shifted to sailing ships equipped with cannons like culverins and swivel guns firing on each other. The Turtle Ship also originated in the 16th century. Perhaps the cannon-firing charge attack should be unlocked with the Elite upgrade, or maybe the ship should only be available in the Imperial Age?

20

Totally pointless change. If turtle ships were too weak in Imperial Age, they should just have buffed the elite version.

No! Why?! It’s already a very distinctive design for a unit that’s unlike anything else in the game, it doesn’t need any extra mechanics to distinguish it from other ships.

1 Like