30 gold Paladin? No thank you.
1 Like
Only if you have full tt on.Poles cant train paladins for a reason.
I guess it would be possible to give a common paladin unit to liths huns cumans as they all overlap in modern ukraine area.Again the problem is what to call them.
So you are replacing Magyars with Lithuanians? Name can be as generic as Knight. âHeavy Cavalierâ or âHeavy Knightâ is not that bad when we have âKnightâ for 38 civs, from Huns to Malay.
BTW, some people suggested Lithuanians Paladin along with Poles, Slavs and Bulgarians could get Boyar as regional replacement for Knight. Of course, stat tweak is required. And Iâm not sure if Boyars is appropriate for Lithuanians.
Historically Lithuanians had a role similar to boyar so it makes sense to give it to them as well.
Magyars are a odd case they used knights similar to western europe than eastern european knight so Id assume they can keep the paladin with the other western european civis.
Really? I thought having steppe origin, they would have different type of cavalry.
If we consider Paladin and Camel Rider a semi regional unit there is only 4 civilisations left without anything special.
I donât consider not having something (missing technologies and units) as a good thing.
For regional units I valued Eagle Warrior the highest because they are a completely unique unit type with their own Armour Class and counter system.
Mamluks have their own Armour Class too but they are mostly just countered like any Camel.
Elephants are pretty different compared to other units but there are now 5 different Elephant units in the game.
I generally think that all civs in the bottom 3 categories could need some more unique things but itâll be hard to find balanced additions.
The new units/buildings need to be somewhat of an improvement or they just not be used.
2 Likes
Italians have condos right?
Oh right, I completely forgot about those! I felt like there was something off about them being so low.
Hard to keep track of all the unique things about 45 different civilisations.
Maybe I should have just kept the wiki open with the civilisation list.
BTW, last night before going to bed, I was watching Ornluâs Imperial Age UT tier list. It was 2 years old but these 2 civs UT didnât change since. And both of these 2 UTs were awful according to him. And I agree. This gave me an idea of a weak Paladin replacement and a good UT to make them better and compete against generic Paladin but keeping some variety between civs.
1 Like
I guess you also forgot about Missionaries and Genitours?
Italians do feel pretty bland though, despite having two unique units. I actually donât think unique units are that good a measure of uniqueness â e.g. I think Goths are very unique, but that uniqueness comes from their bonuses, unique techs, and tech tree, rather than their unique unit.
2 Likes
Now I just gave them a low value.
Shared unique units are less unique because they are shared and Missionaries are kinda not military units.
In some ways Missionaries are the most unique unique unit but it doesnât really feel like it.
Having generic units with very none generic stats is something that I dislike.
Like when some unique units resemble generic units more then some other civilisations generic units then how unique are the unique units and how generic are the generic ones?
In the end you can endlessly argue how unique civs are because a lot of it comes down to personal experience and also things like skill level.
On a high level a small change in some unit stat can have a huge impact but on a low level itâs more about how flashy a unique unit is.
Iâm not sure which you mean â do you have any examples? Having variation in the stats of generic units (e.g. through upgrade availability and bonuses) is a core feature of AoE games, having been in the series since the start, so it seems like an odd thing to complain about. I would expect anyone who disliked that would not be posting on an AoE forum.
Disliking aspects of a game doesnât mean hating the whole game.
Isnât it logical to want small differences in stats to be shown visually and by different names while small differences in stats are ok to be just UI.
Just because it always has been like that doesnât mean itâs good.
AoM(R) does add visual changes to most of itâs upgrades. Armoury upgrades visually change weapons and shields of units. That is a really nice feature that I miss in other AoE games.
AoE3DE also has been adding more visual changes. Impactfull home city cards now often change the appearance of units.
Adding unique models to units changed by unique technologies would be a nice touch and it would actually improve readability.
Giving Malian Cavaliers a unique skin would help you see that this unit has different stats then a generic Cavalier.
I honestly disagree at your whole outlook on this considering how often UU are absent while some civs get very unique playstyle and flavour but are still very low on your list
Like, you got Saracens in the second to last tier despite hacing one of the most unique and flavourful eco bonuses. Teutons, Britons, Turks also have very unique approach to military, but you still got them behind Romans and Portuguese, two civs with awfully boring playstyles
I also dont think Paladins should count as regional units.
(I do however aprove of having Slavs in the bottom, I really think they are the âfaster farmersâ civ without anything else worthwhile until imp)
1 Like
I didnât say it did. But to me, itâs like if you said âI dislike that there are four resourcesâ or âI dislike the aging up mechanicâ or âI dislike that different civs have different tech treesâ. If you really dislike it to any significant extent, Iâm surprised you actually keep playing AoE2.
Of course, youâre free to play whatever you like regardless of which aspects of it you like or dislike. Iâm not telling you what to do, just making an observation. (In fact, mostly I was asking for clarification, because I wasnât sure Iâd understood you properly.)
I can see the sense in it, but I think the gain would be minimal.
Sure, but this is not something Iâve ever had a problem with, or known anyone else have a problem with. Iâm not aware that anyone needs this help.
I totally agree. I gave Goths as an example before, but there are loads more, e.g. Koreans, Huns, Spanish, Turks, Celts, Chinese, that are very unique for other reasons.
I also reject the suggestion that having more unique stuff is somehow better. The third tier is labelled âunique enoughâ so presumably any civ below that is judged ânot unique enoughâ. Unique enough for what?
1 Like
Uniqueness has many dimensions so itâs impossible to have an objective list.
The way you play the game and how good you are at the game has a huge impact on how unique a civilisation will feel.
Saracenes Market bonus is something that makes the civ play pretty different for a skilled player but for a casual player it likely doesnât change anything.
They donât.
Thatâs why I called them a âsemiâ regional unit. They are a unit that only appears in one region but they arenât anything like the other regional units.
The Camel Rider is in a similar situation, but here you could argue that the whole unit line is not available to most civilisations.
Technically every cavalry unit is a regional unit, with the region being all of the old world since Americans donât have access to them.
Oh yes those are all things I dislike.
Like not even joking.
And the ironic part is that all of those things are actually not even true for the whole series.
Resources
AoE3 and AoM kinda have 3 resources (but kinda still 4).
AoE4 has some civilisations with 5 resources.
Empire Earth added Iron as a 5th resource and I think that is something that is missing in AoE.
Age up mechanic
AoE3 has a lot of different Age up mechanics.
AoM has minor gods as a special age up mechanic.
AoE4 has landmarks.
All better then AoE2.
Tech trees
The holes in the techtree thing is something I dislike about AoE1 and AoE2.
AoM, AoE3 and AoE4 have solved that in a better more elegant way.
Every game is flawed.
No game is made for me.
But in the end itâs still fun. It just could be more fun, right?
Every AoE game (I havenât played AoEO) has something in it that I really like and some things that I donât like.
Of course I wished all the best traits would be combined in one game, but would it be a game that other people also like?
For me.
Like that is literally the purpose of this list.
Using the Tierlist website was just easier then writing down all the civs, and itâs kinda nice being able to just drag them up and down.
1 Like
Itâs actually a good tierlist, I could agree with most of it. You should rename the tiers, though. I suggest: The Green tiers should be âfit perfectly into the original game mechanicsâ, the middle ones âa bit unique, some simplification/streamlining neededâ, whereas the orange/red tiers should read âunique beyond redemption, needs to be deleted from the gameâ.
I very much disagree.
I like AoM.
The more unique the better.
1 Like
Well, wouldnât it be than an easier solution if you just played the game you like instead of turning another game into something you would like?
1 Like
I play all games in the series and all of them have their advantages and disadvantages. And they also have different settings. If I feel like Middle Ages I canât play AoM.
AoM has paper thin walls and buildings that collapse as soon as they see an Throwing Axeman.
AoE2 has all units look European despite half of the civs not being European.
I havenât warmed up to AoE4 yet, not sure why. Maybe because the Editor kinda sucks.
AoE3 is my favourit game in the series but it also has a bunch of small flaws. Like I miss Stone for example.
All the games have things that could improve in my opinion. None of them are perfect, but each of them have something I like a lot.
1 Like