So that’s not just limited to old civs then. Sicilians for example meet that criteria. As do bulgarians.
3 Likes
ok good point still is not right
sure - tell you what. we can get around to giving every civ a regional unit at the same time that you give a campaign to every civ without one.
also remember to nerf Franks, Vikings, and Britons when you give them regional units.
yes whatever. nerfing and buffing never stops while we get new dlcs anyway
also don’t forget regional unit skins so other civs aren’t stuck with european units. at the same time.
best case scenario that too
and now you’ve just made the game very hard to read, because you don’t think old civs are treated special. even though they have their advantages over newer civs.
you know like the fact that the majority of the best civs are older civs (Franks, Britons, Vikings, Mayans and Aztecs).
you know like the majority of the civs without regional units or two UU (read Europe), all have campaigns shining the spotlight on them.
you know, like the majority of the civs without two uu or regional units, already have baseline skins that cater to that civ.
just because you think they aren’t being treated well doesn’t mean they aren’t.
Not true, AoE3 has a large amount of UUs and regional units and it’s easy to read. All depends on the artstyle. AoE4 on the other hand has only a small amount of UUs, but the units are hard to differentiate.
And both of them get an Unique Building, and their UUs have very unique mechanics.
1 Like
maybe for a long time player, but for someone new? aoe3 also doesn’t have nearly as many civs as aoe2.
furthermore - i look at aoe3 and see 3 types of units with muskets, each with different purposes, but i can’t tell at a glance which is for what.
okay well let’s take a look at all the “old civs” that the op likes to complain about
Britons - Have a campaign, gets unit skins that fit the civ, and is one of the best civs in the game. a regional unit would result in this civ requiring a nerf.
Byzantines - have a unique unit with very unique mechanics. recently got a new architecture set. Also has a campaign. you could safely add a regional unit to this civ, but again, by the standards you and the op have expressed, they are sitting better then some other civs.
Celts - i agree - this civ could use love.
Chinese - This civ really doesn’t need any buffs, so a new regional unit for them would have to result in the civ being nerfed.
Franks - the most played civ in the game, has a campaign, and adding a regional unit to this civ would necessitate a nerf.
Goths - this civ is a mess design and balance wise- feel free to do what you want with it. they at least have a campaign
Japanese - this civ has no campaign, and no regional unit - it could probably have a regional unit added without balance adjustments, provided said unit didn’t have a big impact.
Mongols - has a regional unit.
Persians - this civ could get a regional unit (or the shamshir replacing the knight). also could use a campaign.
Saracens - this civ could get a regional unit without impacting its balance. has a campaign at least.
Teutons - this civ could get a regional unit, provided it buffs it on open maps and not closed maps. also has a campaign.
Turks - this civ could get a regional unit, provided it buffs it on open maps and not closed maps. also has a campaign.
Vikings - this civ has 2 UU, by the OPs standards, that is good enough.
Aztecs/Mayans/Koreans/Spanish - this civ has a regional unit or 2 unique units. (though i think Genitour should be a regional unit added to spanish and portuguese).
Huns - this civ has a campaign and a regional unit would necessitate a nerf.
now to the less “old civs”.
Incas - has a regional unit, two UU and a campaign
Indians - see new DLC
Italians - has a campaign, a Unique Unit, and Condos - they could use some land play balance love.
Magyars and Slavs - these two civs imho could use some love.
Berbers - have two UU and a campaign
Ethiopians - this is an old civ that could get love during an african DLC
Malians - this is an old civ that could get love during an african DLC - though i’m not sure how to approach it. I Think this civ is fine.
Portuguese - two UU, a campaign - see Spanish
Burmese - has regional unit, see Goths.
Khmer - Regional Unit
Malay/Vietnamese - regional unit
no need to cover any other civs.
So what the OP is actually asking for, is a lot of work, and in many ways would continue the catering to Europe trend that he doesn’t believe actually happens. that is why if such a change were to happen i would only support said change if it was done alongside optional regional unit skins and non optional campaigns for civs without one.
1 Like
You see, one is a rifle, the other is a musket.
And a nerf to the long time top 2 archer civ would be bad because? At the expense of making them more diverse? The currently “make archers from feudal to late imp” civ.
Who cares about architecture set and campaign. They are very complete, but I wouldn’t mind an unique building for such a infrastructure focused civ.
Again, why not nerf the top 1 overall civ at the high level, while making it more fun and diverse, especially for newer players. An unique siege unit instead of the ridiculous +4 scorpion damage in imp could be an option.
Why not nerf the top 1 cavalry civ across all elos, while making them more diverse? Can’t say they “need” something at the moment, except maybe better trash units.
Can’t comment there either.
Any archer/CA unit for the civ would be good. Or an unique building perhaps, I like the shrine functionality in AoE3. Maybe something to do with their economy.
Water UUs don’t really count, they are used in maybe 1% of games.
Again, why not nerf the top 2 cav civ in the game? But also giving it a, I don’t think they need an unique unit, maybe an unique building, some sort of tent that is quick to build, can be built by military units, and trains military units quickly, but can’t upgrade them.
Feitoria in Feudal. I won’t shut up about it until it happens, it could be explored so much as a design concept and Portuguese could turn into such a beautiful civ with some adjustments in that department.
2 Likes
Very nice idea, they should’ve implemented this for all bland civs with just one unique unit a long time ago.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure if everyone has 2 UU people will start finding those who don’t have the best combo of UUs bland. Also what’s the point of generic units anymore if their bonuses are nerfed to make room for UUs?
2 Likes
I’d like the Persians to get the blue dome architecture they gave to Tatars. I think its a better look for them imo
4 Likes
The elephant was never really suited to Persians, but much less now with the Indian civs.
I like OP’s Sassanid archer, perhaps they can receive a cataphract archer? Maybe with a specific bonus damage, against cavalry for example.
2 Likes
So you want a cav archer with resistance to counter units and bonus damage against cavalry?
What would counter this unit?
1 Like
Maybe its weaker overall armour or damage output or less mobility.
I love the idea of a Cataphract Archer, better than their current not-so-unique-anymore Elephant.
Doesn’t matter. With anti bonus damage and bonus against cav the only real answer is foot archers. And considering that persians get all archer armor + pt even thosd wouldnt be that good
Maybe anti cav isn’t suitable then, but I was merely providing an example.
Alternatives could be perhaps 50% less bonus damage to reflect their armour? Or some nice unique mechanic. Reverse Polish UU, start with high armour that degrades with each hit? Or like Bulgar Konnik, when the cataphract archer’s horse dies you get a foot archer.
2 Likes
Even though a copied tech, that does sound really cool.
They could be made weak to light cavalry. Which could be more maneuverable than the heavy cataphract… That’s how the Arabs outwitted them too when conquering Persia.