This might be boken, though.
Too litle a payoff for having to build a Wonder. It costs 1000 Wood, Gold and Stone, and takes a long time to build.
This should halve the cost of Knights instead. Tibetans were known for Heavy Cavalry.
The rest seems OK to me.
OK, it can be adjusted.
I set this bonus for reflecting that Tibetan empire had defeated Indians.
It is only against Camels. I actually think it would be a useless bonus a lot of the time, since even Camel civs would not train Camels against Tibetans in this case.
I think a Pierce Armour buff for Knight would be better, in exchange for no Husbandry or Bloodlines.
And this mean against Tibetan Cav you will have only Halbs, wich canot catch them during raids. And what if you are civ without Halbs and like Saracens or Berbers? Even Mongols?
We allready have 2 cav units immune to the Camel attacks, we dont need whole civ with this.
But, funny thing, i propose similar thing for my Armenians Civ. But this was the UT. THis bonus is too good to be free.
Gongkhang armouries is for villages defense instead of for empire army in the fact.
Full upgraded Cavalier can already represent Tibetan heavy cavalry well, especially its stable is already better than the other current east Asian civ.
Too overpower. Losing Husbandry and Bloodlines for creating this advantage sounds extreme.
And the fact is the civ most famous for the heavy cavalry in the east Asia was Jurchen instead of Tibetan.
Basically it can not make Tibetan cavalry defeat the camel. It is designed to reduce the pressure from facing camel.
If there is the another bonus but still reflect the relation between Tibetan and Indian, I will be willing to adjust it.
But Tibetans were known for their arrow-turning Lamellar armour.
Different type of the heavy armor does not mean it has to be more heavier in the game.
Lamellar armours were used by many troops in many forms from east European to east Asian, Tibetans is not the special one at this point.
It can get a bonus about the stable and even replace that camel-related bonus, but should not in this way.
You also have to understand that an UT that halves the cost of all Trash would be quite OP, and even if you just had Spearmen, Skirmishers and Scout without any line upgrades, Turks players would be up in arms about it.
It loses the last infantry armor, the last range upgrade and maybe Hussar. If it is still regarded too strong, it will be more expensive like Kamandaran, or decrease the percentage of the discount.
I set Tibetans as an aggressive civ, that means it has less eco bonus.
And Turk should be adjusted by the other way, and it has the better gold units than Tibetans.
Even then, it would be super cost-efficient Trash. Trash is already too easy to spam as a whole, no Tech or Bonus should aid all Trash at being even more efficient at being spammed.
Cumans, Magyars, Aztecs, Goths, Huns, Vietnamese as well as Britons.
Even it halves the cost of the trash, the trash still can be defeated by gold units easily.
It does not make trash units themselves be stronger and still needs a castle to research, not a bonus that having it automatically.
Tibetans has not quite good eco so it worth a military advantage, especially in the late game.
We already have a Chinese civ that is fully flushed out and that doesnât need more units ,likewise we lack the Tibettans, I highly interesting civ, the Showlin in run are also an extremely I interesting elite order. I only bring them into the Tibettan civ because it will provide diverse variety, once again, I know my knowledge of far eastern history and culture is limited, I am just providing ideas. That is also why I have the Tibettans so low on my digestion list and the civs I have more knowledge in higher priority. This list is not definitive⊠it is a suggestion and it invites you all to add your own ideas and concepts. So please feel free to add your construct of the optimum ,diverse Tibetan civ 
i want a civ with a corpse catapult. Tatars were a good option for that, but it may be more out there.
the corpse catapult could have bonus against calvary, and it also damages the garrisoned units inside buildings, towers, ships or rams.
Tibetan/Tufan civ concept
Team Bonus: Fervour free
Tech Tree:
Barracks: No Champion, No Eagle Scout, No Arson, No Supplies
Stable: No Battle Elephant, No Elite Steppe Lancer, No Heavy Camel, No Hussar, No Bloodlines
Archery Range: No Hand cannoneer, No Crossbowmen, No Thumb Ring
Siege Workshop: No Siege Onager, No Heavy Scorpion, No Capped Rams
University: No Heated Shot, No Tread Mill crane, No Bombard Tower, No Arrowslits
Dock: No Galleon, No Dry Dock, No Shipwright, No Careening, No Heavy Demo Ship, No Cannon Galleon
Blacksmith: No Ring Archer Armour, No Bracer
Market: No Guilds
Monastery: Full
Economy: No Crop Rotation, No Gold Shaft Mining
Spoken language: Tibetan
Wonder: Potala Palace
Architecture: New Chinese architecture set or East Asian architecture set we already have.
Warrior monks: Monks take less damage from anti-monk attacks
Nancheng Breeds: Mastiffs and Mounted units +20 HP.
Unique unit: Mastiff: War dog with bonus attack vs spearmen, does not benefit from any technologies. Quite cheap and produced fast.
AI Leader names:
Campaign: Songtsen Gampo (Conquest of Zhan Zhung)
Strategy:
Economising on eco pop space, Tibetans will save on wood for houses over time and also be able to field a bigger army with less houses. A fully boomed economy of 120 pop villagers for Army will only occupy 96 population for the Tibetan player which is a considerable saving in terms of pop space.
The free armour upgrades for cav will facilitate a Scout rush as well as a Knight rush. Going to hunt those relics is easier with faster monks. It will also help to avoid potential Scout units.
The biggest weakness of the Tibetan army are terrible archers and poor siege. Also they underperform on maps with a lot of water. Theyâre pretty terrible once Gold runs out but are very strong in the midgame where they benefit the most from Castle Age chevalier.
How are they different from the civs we already have?: First of all Castle Age chevalier and if that doesnât make the cut itâs the only civ with access to Steppe Lancer but not the Elite upgrade and the only civ without access to Capped Rams. A civ using less pop space for economy is also pretty unique.
Here is my version.
Tibetans
Monk civilization
-Barracks: No Tracking or Halberdier.
-Archery Range: No Arbalest, Hand Canonneer, or Parthian Tactics
-Stables: Scout line has no upgrades, Knight line upgrades only to Cavalier, has Camel but no upgrade. Lacks Bloodlines and Husbandry.
-Siege Workshop: No Bombard.
-Monastery: No Heresy.
-Docks: No Shipwright, Galleon, Cannon Galleon, or Fast Fireship.
-Blacksmith: No Blast Furnace.
-University: No Guard Tower, Keep, or Bombard Tower.
-Economy: Full upgrades.
UU:
Dharmapala- Inexpensive Light Cavalry/Monk hybrid unit with an attack bonus vs other UUs. Can Heal but not Convert. Can benefit from Fervour and Sanctity upgrades.
UTs:
-Walled Stupa: Monastaries get a ranged attack, and can benefit from Hoardings (Castle Age UT, Hoardings needs to be researched first, which also needs Imperial Age)
-Gongkhang Armouries: Knight line units cost no Gold to train.
Civ bonuses:
-Garrisoned Monks can fire arrows.
-Cavalry get +0/+1 armour per Age, starting in Feudal Age.
-Monks regenerate Faith 50% faster.
Team Bonus:
-Stone Walls have +1/+0 Armour.
Thoughts: It was brought to my attention that Tibet was actually known for itâs heavy lamellar armoured cavalry, that was very effective against ranged combatants. However, Tibet is a very mountanous region, and horsemanship is much more viable in open plains.
The military culture revolved a lot around sacred weapons, specially Swords, and that Monastaries would often keep sacred armouries that were distributed to those deemed worthy among the local population, in case of war. Therefore, I reasoned that Tibet should have decent and cheaply trained Heavy Cavalry, but not to the point that it could resemble something like the Franks or the Huns.
Trash Cavaliers and a Trash UU, would make their gameplay more unique, while at the same time giving them viability in the lategame. For this, they trade a lot of Cavalry upgrades, even Blast Furnace, but would also have the most cost effective Heavy Cavalry in the game, just not to the point that they should overcome dedicated Cavalry civs.
I gave their Cavalry Archer the Ring Archer Armour upgrade, instead of Parthian Tactics, as it would be boring to have another case of Mongol-Hun mirror Cav Archer line. Parthians were also used to open plains battles, rather than mountanous terrain, so their Tactics would not make much sense in Tibet. Tibetans still would have respectable Heavy Cavalry Archer by the lategame, to round out their Trash Cavalry lines, and provide a good Wood and Gold sink.
Drew these concepts a while ago, just of the UUs and Wonders, didnât bother with all the grown up stuff like balance lol. Not an amazing artist but if you have requests i might be able to -
Cool concepts, Malakh means Angel in Hebrew.
Traditional term in Somali clans for âwar leader,â there might be a better name out there if anyone knows one.
Are you âalmusafirâ of Reddit?
The Last Natives:
