I wonder if replacing the HP bonus with +1 attack would be OP, though?
Mmm, depending when. In fuedal age would be super OP. In castle/imp not so much, i guess.
Anyway, I think that with slightly better rattan and mansonery, Viets could be a top 10 civ now
1 Like
i think we need a little more time for people to use the eco bonuses and see how they fair in matches.
i see vietnam also have pretty nice HCA (12 more hp means they are superior in melee to opposing factions with PT)
and i dont get how anyone could complain about the ratan it is so crazy versatile, massive pierce armour, good hp, good speed, higher damage, and that better frame rate can make a huge difference compared to arbs. with a frame delay of 20 on arbs, the ratans (5) will be targetting and shooting much faster, meaning kiting and pitched battles favour the ratan before we even factor the rest of its superior stats…
I’m not complaining about rattan. It’s a quite good unit. I’m just saying it could have 5 or 10 more hp (max).
Anyways, I guess it’s just a matter of try new viets and see how they do. With this eco bonus i guess now they’re a real counter to Brittons/Mayans/Ethiopians
Rattan is Champa thing. Champa is a different civilisation. I don’t know how the aoe2 devs put Rattan to the Vietnamese.
Vietnamese are bad archery civilisation in real life, expected one period they were good at cav archer. I found on Vietnamese history forum that during the period 540-545 Lý Bí (Li Ben) defeated the Liang army in south Guangxi by cavalry archers in spring 543. A Xiongnu man had trained the Li army (I don’t know how a Xiongnu could traveled farther to North Vietnam). Nothing recorded else after. Overrall Vietnamese’ cavalry archers cannot be good as the Mongols.
Welp, the devs did use the Champa explanation as an excuse for giving the Khmer architecture to Viets. Of course this cosmetic change could easily be reverted and it’s why they did it, but to take away the focus from archers they would have to rework the whole civ…
1 Like
Yep. The unit composition of Vietnamese depends on Gold heavy units therefore lacking it has bigger impact than the Goths
Siege Rams are more commonly used to push buildings rather than tanking damage.
Comparing to other archer civ’s UU like Mayans, Britons, Chinese etc in terms of killing non archer unit? I don’t think so
Every South East Asian civ has Bombard Cannon plus they all have Heavy Scorpion. In addition, Britons, Mayan, Chinese all have Heavy Scorpion so they can counter mass foot unit very effectively. Viet’s UU is weaker vs foot unit than other foot archer’s UU, on top of that they lack Heavy Scorpion. The point being, if opponent mass foot unit, Viets will not be able to counter as effectively as many mentioned civs.
Doesn’t mean anything.
This is so wrong.
Viet HCA lacks Parthian Tatics which I would say more useful than extra HP (streamline HCA already has high HP to tank Mangonel shot)
Rattan Archers + Battle Elephants + Khmer Architecture was a perfect choice for Champa (South Vietnam).
While on the other hand Dai Viet (North Vietnam) didn’t have elephant, didn’t use archers, relied on cavalry/heavy infantry, for most of history it was a part of china.
They actually messed up the Civ by switching their architecture to East Asian. Not only did it make the Civ less historical, but also increased the number of civs using East Asian Architecture to five! 
While Elephants were indeed employed in VN, they played a minor role only. Historically speaking they were employed very early (1st century) during a rebellion by Trưng sisters and also during Mongol Invasion of Dai Viet (13th century). It was historically correct to give them Battle Elephants.
Not most of history were they a part of China. Of 4000 years, only 1000 years were they part of China (first and second Chinese domination), the rest of the time they had independence.
They also didn’t have a strong archer army. However they had good siege units, did known for using firearms early and their army is well-known for mobility (hence why Elephants only played minor role).
It’s true that Rattan Archers shouldn’t belongs to the Viets. They could use a high Piece Armor light cavalry for a UU coupled with gunpowder units. it would make more historical sense.
1 Like
Khmer Architecture Set has Elephants in the Stable while East Asian Architecture Set feels odd to recruit Battle Elephants
This is very true 
but its aoe logic and you know aoe logics are pretty weird sometimes
I wonder if modern Vietnamese people have a problem with South Vietnam?
First change architecture then change the units? But Why?
Cuz the Chams and the Viets are not the same culture/race. Chams were defeated and absorbed by the Viets, the Viets are the majority and they have a culture belonging to Sino-sphere. It would be as strange as seeing modern day US cities filled with Native American’s hut.
But in Aoe2 we have Native American Civilization not US Civilization.
I consider the first “Hong Bang period” was imagination in 15th century, they not even were fairly tales. Indeed, Văn Lang existed, but they were proto-Dai-Kra-Austronesian people who ancestry of Jarai-Ede and southern Thai people today which have dark-skinned and big eyes which have nothing related with the majority ethnic Kinh came from the North.
First Vietic people came from Yangtze delta in 2500 years ago, were believed that from the states of Wu and Yue. They started migrated south due to the Qin victorious, and Xiongnu raids. Today Vietnamese language still remains some ancient Wu words, like “chết” (die), giang (river). So, to say Vietnam is four thousands years civilisation is wrong.
Here a map of how Vietic civilisation spread during the warring states period:
In 207 BC, remnants of Shu migrated south, overthrew the Văn Lang culture and built Âu Lạc kingdom with Cổ Loa citadel in North Vietnam, represents strong Sinitic architecture which still exists today.
Picture Co Loa east gate:
Nowadays, there are still even some temples that worship Lưu Bang (Liu Bang/Han Gaozu) in north Vietnam.
Literally, ancient Vietnamese seemed were very closely to the Chinese.
Don’t belive or cite whole Wikipedia because it and Vietnamese history had been politicized and modified by the Sinophobia ruling Vietnam communist party since they took power.
Short cannons during late 14th century, Đa Bang, Hanoi museum.
They were used during Champa-Vietnamese war (1371-1396) and later Ming-Hồ war (1406-1407).
In December 1406, Ming army brought 10,000 cannons and handcannons outnumbered Hồ forces which had only 1,000 guns. Ming army won also with the help of Trần loyalists and local dissatisfactions.
1 Like
Matchlock with bayonete on a woodcut in Huế.
Matchlocks were widespread used during 3-centuries unstable period of Vietnam: Lê-Mạc war (1545-1592), Trịnh-Nguyễn war (1627-1672), Nguyễn-VOC war (1642-1643), Tây Sơn rebellion, Tây Sơn-Siam war (1785), Qing-Vietnamese war (1788-1789), Anglo-Nguyễn war (1779-1783) and Tây Sơn-Nguyễn war (1771-1802). They are still underrated and shadowed in Asian history through global eyes today. Wikipedia had very little or credit proper articles about Vietnamese history. Aoe2 devs also, worked based on wiki D:
Wikipedia is open to edit, why don’t you fix it with appropriate sources/references if you think it’s incorrect?
Faster foot archers, skirmishers, and cav archers please. Rattans could use a minuscule foot-speed increase as well.
All traditional ranged unites (foot archers, skirmishers, rattan archers, cav archers) could use a very small boost in HP and a +1/+0, +2/+0 armor civ specialty or special technology included with Chatras.