Tbh I dont see a big problem woth Wootz Steel. Its like Druzhina when compared to Logistica Cataphracts
I wouldnt have used it personally, since it is a bit bland, but its nit that bad
1 Like
It’s yet acceptable, but as you say. To me this shows how little inventive design space there is for more civs.
And as always, two wrongs don’t make one right and the devs could have known better not following the Druzhina example.
And probably same with Coustilier Infantry - Urumi.
Even Ratha’s ability is not new at all. It was a 1999 concept by OG ES developers.
Anyway, I usually don’t like units with special ability/gimmick. New units must not have a new ability all the time. In fact I believe there are enough rooms for a couple of new units with no gimmick, specially archers. Even for Infantry, I’m so wager to see an infantry UU with big bonus attack vs siege.
Enough design spaces for 6 more civs if 48 is the limit without any problem. I think one can literally come up with 6 different archer bonuses and make all 6 archers civs. Others a bit crowded, ngl.
Exactly. They just ran out of ideas.
Therefore I hope both the community and devs will realize that soon civs become too gimmicky or repetitive to keep adding expansions.
I disagree, we can still design quite a lot of civs without gymmicks, you just have to be a bit inventive.
I dont think we need more than 48 civs, but we could have more
3 Likes
Just like they were out of idea during Forgotten and added a mounted TK, a foot archer version of Mameluke, an useless war wagon. Even you can say 2 out 4 African UUs are not anything new - Camel Archer and Gbeto. With time devs came up with some new ideas. Give them time, I hope they can still bring more.
1 Like
I mean, even if you develop civs symmetrically (without gimmicks), you’re just going to get similar bonuses elsewhere.
I’d say there’s some extra potential for bad. Melee units and infantry in particular often have to really dig in to engage. The opposing units lose their armor halfway through the engagement and have a good chance of dying short after. Archers make more fleeting contact, units are likely to have danced around for a while and have taken a bunch of archer shots before they go in for the big engagement, or decide to pull away and not do the big engagement. But at that point they have already lost their armor. You’re reducing the value of the enemy units earlier in their lifespan.
1 Like
OK. Thanks for confirming for me. This was an attempt to simulate an archer who uses poison arrows without having to use “+x% attack”
1 Like
Yes, because Obuch are limited by melee attacks and unit pathing/collision so the armor reduction of an attacked unit isn’t that quick. Archer units need only one volley to completely remove the armour, and then they become really OP. 10 Archers would likely just end up three-shotting high armour and hp units (cba to do math).
1 Like