Well to be fair, Serbs were in war with Byzantians more than they were allies. As the Byzantine power was dropping the power of Serbia was increasing, so there were a lot of wars between the two.
Firstly, a unique language, and not re-using Mongolian for the third time.
Earlier influences of Sino-esque lifestyle. E.g. farming. Although not truly abandoning the Steppe hunting legacy, so for in-game Khitans likely a bonus that either affects both hunting and farming, or a small bonus for each.
Prominent use of armoured mounted archers, over the Mongol preference of lighter mounted archers. Not that the Khitans didnāt use lightly armoured mounted archers (they certainly did), just that they had more plentiful access to higher quality armour than the Mongols, and utilised it more.
Some Chinese sources also claim that the Khitans were bad at using swords and halberds, and their preferred combat weapons were lances and maces.
Personally I would interpret these in-game as Khitans having weaker knights (perhaps even lacking Cavalier), but having much more armoured Steppe Lancers and Cavalry Archers, with a mace-weilding cavalry unit in the castle. Or a unique armoured mounted archer from the castle, and a 3rd stage for the Steppe Lancer line. I would also make their infantry weaker (albeit still having Plate Mail) but some sort of ability to make them cheaper and faster to represent Chinese conscripts.
And lastly, the likely way we would get Khitans is through a Chinese-esque DLC, and in it I would include a Fire Lancer regional unit, and give it to the Khitans.
I think everybody around byzantines had a love hate relationship with them.Either you work for them willingly or unwillingly or in full revolt.
You mean like austrians and hungarians being the same people because they were part of the same state once?
2 Likes
Yes, of all those I would include the Austrians, the Bavarians and the Swiss and stop countingā¦ the Frisians I donāt know, maybe if it were a dlc for RoR or from the 6th-7th century I would accept it (since in 785 they were conquered by Charlemagne)ā¦ the other would be to include them with the Danes; but I think that geographically they are represented by the Burgundians (and by the Dutch in AoE 3)ā¦ the rest of civilizations are either for the RoR or are early modern kingdoms already represented by the Germans of AoE 3 (say Hessians, Brandenburgians aka Prussians and partly the Austrians by the Habsburg emperors)
Yes, many of us here participate in the aoe wikiaā¦
Of course, the Khitans created Great Liao which the Chinese consider a Chinese dynastyā¦
The Qara Khitai, or Kara Khitai (simplified Chinese: ååå„äø¹; traditional Chinese: ååå„äø¹; pinyin: KÄlÄ QƬdÄn or Chinese: é»å„äø¹; pinyin: HÄi QƬdÄn; lit. āBlack Khitanā),[6] also known as the Western Liao (Chinese: č„æé¼; pinyin: XÄ« LiĆ”o), officially the Great Liao (Chinese: 大é¼; pinyin: DĆ LiĆ”o),[7][8] was a dynastic regime based in Central Asia ruled by the YelĆ¼ clan of the Khitan people .[9] They were culturally Sinicized to a large extent, especially among the elites, being refugees from the Liao dynasty.[9][10][11]
The dynasty was founded by YelĆ¼ Dashi (Emperor Dezong), who led the remnants of the Liao dynasty from Manchuria to Central Asia after fleeing from the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty conquest of northern China. The empire was usurped by the Naimans under ################################################ in 1211; traditional Chinese, Persian, and Arab sources consider the usurpation to be the end of the dynasty,[12] even though the empire would not fall until the Mongol conquest in 1218. Some remnants of the Qara Khitai would form the Qutlugh-Khanid dynasty in southern Iran.
The territories of the Qara Khitai corresponded to parts of modern-day China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Anushtegin dynasty, the Karluks, Qocho kingdom, the Kankalis, and the Kara-Khanid Khanate were vassal states of the Qara Khitai at some point in history. Chinese and Muslim historiographical sources, such as the History of Liao, considered the Qara Khitai to be a legitimate Chinese dynasty.
And the truth is no, because the Khitans were already Mongols per seā¦
What is the Return of Rome periodā¦
No, they would just be Mongols, but speaking Chinese insteadā¦
The Hephthalites are Iranian Huns, so they are already represented in the gameā¦
The Tatars [34] (/ĖtÉĖtÉrz/ TAH-tÉrz),[35] sometimes erroneously referred to as Tartars,[34] is an umbrella term for different Turkic ethnic groups bearing the name āTatarā across Eastern Europe and Asia.[36] Initially, the ethnonym Tatar possibly referred to the Tatar confederation. That confederation was eventually incorporated into the Mongol Empire when Genghis Khan unified the various steppe tribes.[37] Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary, a term which was also conflated with the Mongol Empire itself. More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar.
The largest group amongst the Tatars by far are the Volga Tatars, native to the Volga-Ural region (Tatarstan and Bashkortostan) of European Russia, who for this reason are often also known as āTatarsā in Russian. They compose 53% of the population in Tatarstan. Their language is known as the Tatar language. As of 2010, there were an estimated 5.3 million ethnic Tatars in Russia.
While also speaking languages belonging to different Kipchak sub-groups, genetic studies have shown that the three main groups of Tatars (Volga, Crimean, Siberian) do not have common ancestors and, thus, their formation occurred independently of one another. However, it is possible, that all Tatar groups have at least partially the same origin, mainly from the times of Golden Horde.
Tatar became a name for populations of the former Golden Horde in Europe, such as those of the former Kazan, Crimean, Astrakhan, Qasim, and Siberian Khanates. The form Tartar has its origins in either Latin or French, coming to Western European languages from Turkish and the Persian language (tÄtÄr, āmounted messengerā). From the beginning, the extra r was present in the Western forms and according to the Oxford English Dictionary this was most likely due to an association with Tartarus.[42][43]
The Persian word is first recorded in the 13th century in reference to the hordes of Genghis Khan and is of unknown origin; according to the Oxford English Dictionary it is āsaid to beā ultimately from tata. The Arabic word for Tatars is ŲŖŲŖŲ§Ų±. Tatars themselves wrote their name as ŲŖŲ§ŲŖŲ§Ų± or Ų·Ų§Ų·Ų§Ų±.
They both agreeā¦
Yes, but the difference there is that since the union between both peoples is more modern, you can differentiate the Austrians (Germans) with the Hungarians (Magyars)ā¦
Charlemagnes empire had ingame teutons burgundians italians under them,yet we have them as civis already.Fricians are the stand in for dutch as some consider the term too modern.
What Iāve read is that their army did have a significant proportion of light cavalry. Although this is similar to the Mongols, the unique point is that the most of tribal cavalry they conscripted in large numbers were not even lightly armored but unarmored. It is true that the Khitans used more heavy armor than the Mongols, just saying that the description Iāve saw of the Khitan heavy armored cavalry focus on lances and maces, although they also used bows.
Itās not quite accurate in my opinion to make them have worse Cavaliers than the Mongols. Indeed, they are described as being unskilled with swords and halberds, but Cavaliers serve as comprehensive representatives of heavy cavalry in the game, and the emphasis is not necessarily on the swords they use. I think they can at most miss the Plate Barding for Cavaliers, which is the same as the Mongolsā Cavaliers, but I personally would give Plate Barding, because we know they had better armor than Mongolsā.
If being more armoured is a comparison with the Mongols, then having Plate Barding and Ring Armor can already make their Steppe Lancers and Cavalry Archers heavier than the Mongols. If being more armoured means having extra armor, itās a duplicate of the Tatars. Maybe it can only be the Imperial Steppe Lancer upgrade if necessary.
Itās just that the Jurchens, not the Khitans, are famous for their heavy armored cavalry, and the Jurchens and Khitans are likely to be included in the same DLC. What I would like to see is the Jurchens featuring heavy armor.
Iām not sure what kind of features a mace cavalry could have. Cavalry that ignores armor already belongs to the Lithuanians, and therefore there is no need for cavalry with an Obuch-like effect.
A unique mounted archer would be interesting. If generic CAs feature low armor or are relatively weak (e.g. trash CAs) to reflect their unarmored tribal archers, then a highly armored mounted archer UU can be an interesting and useful addition. High armor, HP and attack, but low speed, short range, fire slow and probably expensive.
Simply naming to Cataphract Archers is probably best, but of course they could also be named after one of their troops, such as Tielin (elite heavy cavalry) or Pishi (royal guards). On the other hand, the Tielin served as a cavalry troop, and its soldiers had been recorded using crossbows. If you want something fancy or gimmicky, Crossbow Cavalry can serve the entertainment of the game more.
If generic CAs donāt feature low armor or arenāt relatively weak, or even have more armor, then a highly armored mounted archer UU is less necessary in my opinion. Maybe let those unarmored horse archers be the UU at this point. Itās just that if they werenāt trash, the low cost would probably make them similar to Kipchaks.
Cavalry with bonus against other UUās maybe.
Itās not a bad idea, but Iād rather the anti-UU bonus be saved for a hopeful Samurai rework; I know a lot of fans are interested in Mounted Samurai becoming more legitimate.
1 Like
A cavalry UU that directly features anti-UU would embarrass Samurai.
By the way, in my concept, Jurchen castle age UT āTiefutuā will make cavalry units (maybe not including Hussar-line) have +2 attack vs UUs. This will make Iron Flails, their UU, ranged melee cavalry with short range and Scorpion-like piercing effect that can reduce targets rof and speed by 10%, also enjoy this buff.
My idea is not absolute. A melee cavalry UU for the Khitans is not unacceptable, but I would rather see a mounted archer unit as the UU for the Khitans.
1 Like
To answer OP which has been inactive since creating the thread:
No, definitely not. Iād rather see a rework of Ethiopians or Malians with three additional African civs like Songhai, Swahili, Nubians, Somalians, Kanem Bornu, Mossi etc. or a American DLC giving us a Maya campaign with Purepecha, Chimu, Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Muisca.
Weāve had the equivalent of 4 4-Civs-DLCs about Europe strictly going by architecture sets.Iād rather see even an Asian DLC first which in comparison had only 2 1/2 such DLCs.
1 Like
Would you indeed play such Meso American campaigns? You recently confirmed, that you have not yet completed a single campaign of the 37 available civs, not even on the easiest difficulty level. That is why I view your wishes very critically and the developers do not miss something like that either.
2 Likes
I just follow the format of previous DLC. Campaigns are not necessary for me. I just want to play with new Eagle civs and get new architecture sets. Possibly also new regional units from uncovered regions like Central Africa, Oceania or North America like Dynasties of India did and all HD expansions did with the exception of Forgotten. My motivations are really not that hard to understand.
Plenty people donāt enjoy campaigns going by the achievement completion rate. This is nothing uncommon like you want it seem to be.
3 Likes
This statement has nothing to do with the fact, that you do not play campaigns and suggest this.
Then it will be better, that you stop suggesting them, because it makes absolutely no sense.
Then you continue to suggest your exotic civs, but please do not more reference to campaigns because you contradict each other here.
Your motives make zero sense, if you propose campaigns but you never play them.
Campaigns are based that people playing them, that is why they are created by the developers. Only secondarily is it about the players thinking competitively and having the goal of completing many campaigns at several levels of difficulty.
It is not about boasting about how many campaigns you have played, I never wrote that either. It is about playing them, but you played almost none of them.
1 Like
Of course good pointā¦well weāll see what they doā¦
He proposes campaigns because thats what every DLC has, thats why he mentions it.
Honestly you should just understand that a decent portion of thd playerbase doesnt care about campaigns. Complaining about someone not playing campaigns is just silly.
I made a poll a few years ago and, nearly a fifth of the people who responded doesnt really care for campaigns Poll: The Future of DLCs and what would you like them to see on them
2 Likes
Most players play singleplayer only and no campaigns similarly to Szaladon.
We donāt need these bunch of insignificant European civs. I would favor adding them if they were big empires.
Asia and Africa still has big empires yet to add, even America.
4 Likes
He wanted to justify himself with this argument that he can suggest campaigns even if he does not play them. But the whole thing does not justify it in any way.
And below you mention that only a fifth of your survey is not interested in playing campaigns. So the majority does, you contradict each other like Szaladon.
You have said this sentence to me before, but it does not help. It is silly, when players suggest campaigns but do not play them themselves.
It does not change the fact, that Szaladon stands out in this forum with continuous exotic civs wishes including such campaigns, but he does not and will never play them. That means, that he do not understand the basic principle of the game, like everyone else, who does the same thing.
He mentions Mayans because almost every DLC includes campaigns for civs missing campaigns and Mayans are the only American civ missing one
20% is a decent portionā¦
1 Like