Retrospectively, how would you re-design some DE civs?

Retrospectively, I think some DE civs were either hurried or recycled, and not all their designs were well-thought out.
Several people would want certain civs removed. That’s a different topic. Let’s assume we keep them here. Also, not considering business needs or practicality.

We are mostly talking about themes and mechanics here, not balance. That’s another topic too.

Swedes:
Okay. But since they are the “merc-as-regular units” civ, I’d make their basic roster maybe more limited with units roughly multi-purposed but specialized as none:

  • Caroleans as the ranged cavalry counter with an all-round melee and ranged attack, but not very good at either.
  • No crossbows. You have jaegers in age 3, and no counter-goon pressure in age 2.
  • Hakkapelitt return to heavy cav with a ranged charged attack (like the Oromo) and replace hussars. No goon. You have black riders.
    And then make their German merc access cheaper. Now they have a full barracks-stable roster without duplicating units.

Inca:
I’d rather prefer them to be a more streamlined non-cav, pre-gunpowder civ, like Aztec but with some more defensive bonus and other gimmicks (like Chimu’s ability and poisoned arrow)
No conversion
Their war hut roster is the same as Aztecs. That’s fine, but the Kallanka units don’t have to be “look like Aztec units but with roles and tags randomly shuffled ”:

  • Huaraca could be a super skirm, not a culverin and mortar hybrid, like the jaguar is a super halb. Both giving them counter-infantry means since they lack artillery.
  • Bolas warrior should be a regular ranged shock infantry with snaring and AOE, not a heavy infantry. They could also have more anti-artillery bonus since Incas don’t have arrow knight
  • Maceman should be even more siege-oriented.

Ethiopians and Hausa:
Okay. I actually think they have the most coherent designs. Not too streamlined, not all over the place either

US and Mexicans:
Their federal state cards should be less diverse, and combinations should be more limited. Many designs should be scattered around natives/revolutions/other civs.
I don’t think they really need the inspiring flag.
They have a good base roster already, so they don’t need that many options to train European units either. Maybe tercio and cdb could remain.
Same thing with the natives. Unlike Africans who have a very lacking roster, their rosters are very good already. So their excessive access to extra natives is not necessary.

Visual and theme nitpicking:
They look 200 years ahead of every other civ.
Their age 2 unit designs should represent early colonies, not the revolution (1800s)
Gatling guns should replace horse artillery in age 4, not falconets in age 3.
Steamer should be an age 4 unit, or an upgrade of galleon (and give them galleon——that’s the staple “colonial ship”). Sloop is already better than caravel, and that is thematically more accurate: they relied more on swift, small ships most of the time rather than large European ships. Or steamers should be a shared European unit or upgrade.

Italian:
Mostly okay. But maybe some too state-specific units like papal units, schiavone (Venetian) and bersagliere (Sardinian) should be locked behind city state cards like native American allies——basically the same system as the NE mod.
Make the pavisier viable late game.
And things like “papal lancer” and “papal bombard” never existed. Too fantastical. Maybe they want to avoid reusing the elmetto and Li’l bombard which were originally meant for Italy in 2005. But we have so many mechanics of gaining strange access to units already. It shouldn’t be a problem if Italy is more merc-focused. Similarly, basilica units should all be mercs.

Maltese:
This is the least thought-out and obviously most rushed civ, both its theme and gameplay.
They need a serious re-design. So many re-used assets. “Consulate-like” mechanics are too overused at this point.
Commandery as a defensive building training consulate cavalry is fine. And not more than that. The Tongues cards should provide bonuses and one-time unit batches, not training. Could be re-sent.
Fixed guns and depots are too gimmicky and out-of place. Especially weird as they were all used by their “enemies” in the campaign.
Their defensive bonus should be more on TCs, commanderies, forts, walls and towers. That’s already a lots of options.

The overuse of charged attacks should also be restrained:

  • Now fire throwers can have three attack modes in one stance. They could only get the flamethrower
  • Sentinels don’t really need the rockets. Just buff their stats.
    Maltese were famous for using thermal weapons in the Great Siege, and since their design has some Byzantine vibe, flamethrowers would fit. But rockets were more of an Indian, Chinese and later British thing.

I think a lot of civs were given too many mechanics. The USA’s “free techs that cost more time” could have been fascinating as a core mechanic for some civ. Totally underused and a missed opportunity.

Mexico is too complex.

I think Sweden needed a unit comp with actual holes; same can be said for Malta. One of both of their rock/paper/scissors needed to be real weak to at least soft-force the use of mercs/foreign supplemental troops.

Inca ideally wouldn’t have been an Aztec clone.

Italy was probably pretty well executed actually. Not really my favorite, but not too much I’d do differently.

The African civs are awkward. Really complicated and probably too low of a reward for the APM/complexity required.

I think my leaning is each civ should have “a thing” or 2 things and several unit comps. Even with fairly minor differences you can make fairly major differences in how they play.

Dutch - coin and banks
British - house boom
Ports - free TCs
Russia - cheaper units in groups
French - better vills who can fight
Germany - SWs and “free cavalry”, also more mercs
Spain - cheaper shipments and lots of melee units
Ottomans - poor eco, but really strong units
DE Ottomans - nearly everything is just better
Japan - shrines and better, but pricey units
India - vills with shipments and early access to units
China - mixed batch units and villages
Aztec - better plaza
Huad - fast rush or strong ff
Lakota - No houses and really good cav (post DE that kinda changed)

I think they were much better designed than US and Mexico. But the livestock market and field could be turned more friendly.

Agreed. Civs that have many access to alternatives should have missing parts in the regular roster, and civs with a complete roster shouldn’t have too many access to alternatives. Maybe just one or two as a gimmick or a further boost of their already-existing strength, like British highlander.

But the fact is US and Mexicans have a strong and complete roster AND a lot of other options (outlaws, mercs, natives, even European units that overlap with theirs), while the native Americans lack both.

That’s why I think the African designs should be the staple: they have major holes in the main roster, and many alternatives.

The African civs might be better designed, but they feel different enough that I’m already “off my game” by the time I’m dealing with all the new stuff.

The hunting aura building and split market ups, and then placing everything so the fields work later, and then making sure I have influence for my natives, and then managing my livestock, and then a building for age up techs that change depending on how I age, etc.

America feels like a European civ (similar building set etc) so it’s easier to adapt to the wacky mechanics. Mexico is kinda on a different level due to all the revs.

2 Likes

Simplifying Fields/Granaries would solve like 90% of the issues with African civs. They’re just a tremendous APM sink at all points of the game.

In age 1-2 you’ve got to waste time construing Granaries, dealing with pathing around them, and focusing intently on herding so the villagers don’t shoot all the herds a million miles away from them. Then in age 3+ you’ve got to tediously place many, many Fields, construct them extremely slowly, task villagers, and set them to the correct resource.

Giving that tedious of a mechanic to a Euro civ would be enough to tank the play rate of that civ. But the African civs have the Livestock Market which already requires a ton of attention. With Ethiopia it’s a double whammy because MM are yet another building that has to be managed and they conveniently run out exactly when shit hits the fan with transitioning to Fields. Hausa is at least manageable because their Universities are set it and forget it and you get Cows for free so all you have to do is remember to sell.

The other big issue is that everything that costs influence costs only influence. So you either have enough, or you’re screwed. And since there are way too many competing things that you need that cost influence, you’re almost always screwed. If the cost was split with other resources (say natives cost 80% influence / 20% wood, and mercenaries cost 80% influence / 20% coin) then you could stretch it further in the early game and have more flexibility in how you use it. It could also damper the very late game when you’re swimming in influence because you’d still need some wood or coin to spam mercs and natives.

3 Likes

The state age ups probably wasn’t something I would have come up with, but would actually work really well if they had 13 options total across the 4 times you age. With each age up you’d choose one of 4-5 states from the original 13 colonies, each with regional cards etc. Maybe Gatling Guns come with age 4, or maybe not. I’d probably lean hardest on 1776-1812 USA.

I could frankly see limited artillery options until age 4 as I’d imagine most of the cannons were imported from Europe. For age 3 specifically, I could imagine having cards that send French consulate cannons (for a price), but no ability to create an artillery foundry until age 4. Sharpshooters could be turned into anti-infantry units with a kinda big bonus vs all infantry on a really low attack (hard counters are hand cav and artillery). State Militia would remain a traditional skirm. In age 3, you might need to get creative to deal with cannons, kinda like how Huad does.

Roster looks something like:
II:
Minutemen (faster training Musketeer, kinda Rusket-y but maybe keeping 14 range)
State Militia
Hussar
Sloop
Galleon (as you said)
III:
Sharpshooters (redesigned as above)
Dragoon or Carbine Cavalry
Frigate
IV:
Culv
Heavy Cannon (trainable?)
Mortar
Monitor

Unique economic bonus might be tied to your age 2 state card choice. It’d kick in late, but you could pick between a few options (none of which would be too revolutionary).

I believe, on the contrary, that Italy was mainly thought of as a standard European civilisation. Home city cards do reflect the key points in the history of the city-states and the alliances they had, but they don’t do much more than that, simply because as a card, the way in which you want to represent political, historical and geographical specificities is simply limited. And Italy suffers from that. I’m thinking of an average player who has a limited knowledge of history, but who would like to learn from civilisations (which we’ve all done): what could they learn from this design other than Italy seems having always been unified, that it has a Schiavone as a papal unit, a risorgimento as an useless church upgrade and so on? Historically, the conception is not accurate. I have nothing against the few fantasies of the developers if the civilisation is faithfully represented in its singularity.

Change that it’s what i’m doing and i hope it could be ready for the october 18th!