As a meso civ they lack cavalry, have no elephants, and their UU is also very cheap. That alone is a pretty significant chunk of the things you’ll usually convert.
The only other thing you typically might convert are onagers, but I don’t know that free heresy on just those would be overkill. If necessary you could give them no siege onagers or even just mangonels, but I think fine-tuning things like that should happen late in the development process. It’s hard to tell just how a civ will play out until you actually get your hands on it, so I don’t see much point giving really detailed tech trees that will ultimately be pretty well useless.
Oh, fair enough. About the invincibilty gimmick, would players be able to use attack ground to killl the cliff castle from its “blind” side with onagers?
Ideally not? Though I guess I could maybe see attacking ground just on the far side of it doing some damage, if only to prevent those rare cases where someone manages to find a very difficult to assault position.
Bear in mind though, that this isn’t a benefit with no downside. It also limits the offensive potential of their castles, so you wouldn’t want them to be too vulnerable from that side or you’d basically just have weaker castles without much benefit in return.
Especially since they would need a fair number of castles to produce their swarms of archers. With increased pop cap and reduced numbers of villagers farming, you’d expect to have quite a few of them on the battlefield at once, almost like a ranged Karambit.
It maybe possible to attach multiple buildings around a central structure, each building with separate hit points. Central structure will not be attackable until the attached building is taken down similar to how towers are attached to markets/barracks in campaigns. In theory this way directional vulnerability maybe implemented. Melee units will need to focus attack from weaker direction.
Well we have Indians and Teutons as umbrella civis so bntu is not a bad idea.problem with most african civis is they are mostly confederacy of tribes so its difficult to give them an exact origin.
The Teutons really are based specifically on the Holy Roman Empire, while the Indians are modeled after the Delhi Sultanate than anything else. It’s similar to the Slavs really just being the Russians despite being advertised as covering Western and Southern Slavs, too. The Bulgarians becoming their own civilization, splintered from the Slavs, shows that the devs are willing to get more precise if necessary.
They feel very separate to me. Tatars aren’t just the Golden Horde but more the Turkic nomads who were eventually Persianized. By the time the Golden Horde existed, the Mongol Empire was split into multiple smaller empires, each with distinct cultures. It’s just like the French and Teutons being separate civilizations despite both sharing the same origin. The Golden Horde was extremely different from the Yuan dynasty of Kublai Khan, even though both stemmed from Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire.
The Cumans, on the other hand, had nothing to do with the Mongols until some of them were integrated into the Mongol Empire; others ended up as Mamluks, Ottomans, Hungarians, or Bulgarians. The Kotyan Khan campaign does a great job illustrating how separate the Cumans were from the Tatars and Mongols.
A lot of people have requested the Jurchens to be their own civilization, and it’s basically the same situation. You could either just say they’re already covered by the Chinese civilization, or you could hone in further on the technically separate faction before it was fully integrated into China.
Monasteries available from Feudal Age (can only create monks in Feudal Age)
In Imperial Age the Monastery can be upgraded to Dzong Fortress for 200w and 100st
-Dzong fortresses can build Monks, Steppe Lancers and Khampa Warriors 25% faster, fires no arrows.
Stone and Gold mines last 25% more
Infantry and Stable units armor +1 melee armor in Castle Age, +1 in Imperial Age.
Livestock pen instead of mill.
New mechanic: Herdables instead of farms. Cost 60w. Start with 175food. Fatten at a rate of 0.2. If garrisoned at the livestock pen increase this to 0.5. Max food is 450.Max number of sheep is 30.
B. Team Bonus:
Monks move 10% faster
C. Tech Tree
Barracks: No Eagle Warriors
Archery: No parthian tactics, no hand cannoneer, no arbalest, no thumb ring
Stable: No camels, no paladins, no battle elephants, no hussars
Dock: No Cannon Galley, no Heavy demo ship, no Galleon, no shipwright, no gilnets, no dry docks
Monastery: No heresy
Castle: Full
Siege Workshop: No bombard cannon
Blacksmith: No ring archer armor, no bracer
University: No treadmill, no arrowslits, no bombard towers, no keep
Economic Upgrades: No mill.
D. Unique Unit
Khampa Warrior
Melee unit that cannot be converted
+2 bonus damage vs all units who do not have Faith researched
Cost: 65f 35g
HP: 50/70
Attack Fire Speed: 2.03/2.03
Movement Speed: 1/1
Accuracy: 100%/100%
Training time: 20s
Attack: 8/10
Range: 0/0
Armour: 1/0, 1/1 for elite
LOS: 4
Elite upgrade 1000f 500g
E. Unique Techs
Herders (Castle Age) - Shepherds work 10% faster, yak cost reduced to 50w Cost: 300f 200w
Buddhism (Imperial Age) - Units in LOS of Dzong Fortresses cannot be converted, Monks take half the population space Cost: 800g
F. Campaign:
Rise of the Tibetan Empire (vs Chinese, Mongols, Cumans)
I was very upset when Adam Isgreen said that there would’t add any new civs. I think that a lot of casual players want to see at least one more DLC with new civs. I agree that there are already a lot of civs in the game, and they are hard to balance, but we could have a compromise - just add two or three new one and that’s it. Georgians definitely should be in the game! For historical accuracy - cause they had a really big kingdom in time of Queen Tamar- and it would be a good story for campaign.
“Casual players” also like to see good civ diversity in tournaments and adding 2 civs would lenghten the balance process. Oh and if it means going through having to bear with OP civs again I don’t think the idea of a new civ would be popular.
I enjoy the fundamental idea, but you’re making it far too complicated. Just have them produce sheep that are boosted by the castle age tech. You might not even need to do that, as your farmers could then stay beneath the TC indefinitely and be perfectly safe at all times.
Also your bonuses are too diverse. +1 melee armor to both infantry and cavalry makes them too broad. In point of fact, their entire concept is too broad. You can have Infantry and Monk, Cavalry and Monk, or Infantry and Cavalry, but not all three.
Finally, the plural of “bonus” is “Bonuses”, not “Boni”.
All my bonuses? Or just one on the melee armor? Byzantines have a pretty wide discount bonus on halbs, skirmishers and camels for example. Franks have a bonus that affects both stable units and archery units. Anyhow, I’d prefer to drop the extra armor for infantry.
I think a civ that’s infantry, monk, siege and cavarly is the Slavs.
Unless it has such a big payoff that it overshadows Farms completely, as to account for the constant Eco-micro of creating new Sheep at a cheap cost, people will just prefer Farms anyway,.
It is just not an idea that translates well to this kind of gameplay, where you have to pay a lot of attention to your army, and your Food economy needs to be more autonomous.
The reason why Auto-Reseed has been so well recieved, is that it made Farms much less of a hasle to deal with.
I am afraid that this mechanic would only work if it was bonkers OP, and made Farms obsolete, at which point this civ would just get constantly banned, or nerfed to Goths level.
My civ suggestion excludes farms from the civ entirely so it’s not a matter of choice. The point is to make it a good source of food but not as good as farming. To compensate for this you get improved defense as the villagers could gather food under the TC with minimal drop distance.
Perhaps their food to wood ratio could be changed and automatic creation of sheep could help minimize the micro.
Some manner of standardization is good, even great. Not everything needs to be unique, and the Farm economy is perfectly functional, with the whole game having been based around it.