…ok, I was talking about the Middle East; India isn’t in the Middle East.
2 Likes
added this for u 
4 Likes
That works out too, as long as we get some new civs with that architecture set. I wouldn’t give 10$ for an architecture set alone.
But say a DLC with Slavs rework, Croats, Serbs and Romanians. With the formerly mentioned Balkans/Byzantine architecture set. That would be worth 15$ if not more.
Caucasus DLC was kind of a letdown with 15$ for 2 civs. Like Lords of the West and Dawn of the Dukes. Dynasties of India was 15$ but had 3 civs + 1 rework so it made sense.
2 Likes
Dynasties of India was $10.
3 Likes
In a sense, TMR DLC, if it weren’t for its absurd price (I would understand it if there was +1 more civ or Caucasian Architecture Set), it could be accepted. It has a lot of strange features - especially Mule Cart, which should be an additional unique feature and not a complete replacement for Mining Camp etc.
Unfortunately, TMR DLC continued the bad streak after RoR DLC.
5 Likes
Yeah…
I have no idea why they changed the formula when the previous one worked.
Nobody complained about Lords of the West or Dawn of the Dukes. So why experiment?
1 Like
A lot of people complained about the lazy Lords of the West designs.
4 Likes
But they sold well according to Steam, so likely those people were a minority.
What was lazy about them? I think both the Burgundians and Sicilians have something unique going on for them.
5 Likes
I find this question just… depressing…
4 Likes
Sicilians were the stupid castle drop civ with the stupid first crusade and were then made into the annoying knight civ
Burgundians were released as a weak civ with a OP UU which only could play into Flemish Rev
And both of them are Frank clones
They were badly recieved by the pros and the community if you check the forum around that tume
3 Likes
Every civ is unbalanced at release. Part of this is making sales for the DLC, si many people want to buy that OP civ, part of this is the fact that you cannot balance a civ with just the beta testers, until you see it out in the open, there’s no way of precisingly telling what is broken and now.
The Sicillians still are the castle drop civ. And Burgundians UU is still good depending on the situation, a preferable choice in fact given that they don’t have Bloodlines.
When I think of poor DLC design first that comes to mind is Dravidians with their Battle Elephant that has no Elite Battle Elepahant upgrade, despite there being only 6 elephant civs. You either win in Castle or you don’t. And they are not some powerhouse in castle either. Out of all 6 elephant civs, Dravidians is so bad it’s not even wroth looking at.
In fact, Khmer overshadow elephant civs for having both melee & range elephants options. Burmese could have been given Elite Elephant Archer but they are not part of the DLC. So that the total number of Elephant Archer civs would be 4.
Huns could also use steppe lancers to increase the total number of this regional unit to 4.
If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
3 Likes
Try new things… otherwise let’s go back to AoK from 1999 and that’s it…
Yes, I liked the TLOTW civs and the pros complain so much about their mechanics, because they didn’t know how to adapt, so they are not as “pros” as they say…besides, it’s not like they were such complicated mechanics to adapt to, they are AoM mechanics, a game immediately after AoE 2 (if we don’t count SWGB)…and if the problem is the balance, all the dlcs civs come out OPs at the beginning, then they balance it…don’t worry…
1 Like
Ehh. Sicilians is Teutons clone.
The sicilians are still bad. Their only reliable military bonus is that you can play more stupidly into one type of unit with less consecuences
And I like the Dravidans, they are fairly simple and fit well into the game. They are a lot like Vikings (and the eles are there for historical reasons, not balance)
1 Like
Teutons and Franks are really similar overall but I think they are more similar to Franks considering Im pretty sure Teutons got their own knight bonus after Sicilians were released
Yes, but it refers to the fact that the Sicilians are clones of the Teutons because they are a civ focused on heavy infantry… the Burgundians are clones of the Franks because they are a civ focused on good economy and heavy cavalry like the Franks…
The Sicilians arent much more focused on infantry than Franks are. The bonus damage reduction for infantry is very small, and they both have an infantry UU
Sicilians have tamky knights, bonuses for mill techs, bonuses for castle drop, a UT affecting their infantry UU and another affecting their cav,
Yes, but it is more for the civ bonuses…the Franks have the ax thrower, referring to the Meronvigians (481-751) and the Carolingians (768-962), but they are a civ more focused on cavalry, making an allusion to France during the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453)…
Unfortunately you’re wrong.
So does Teutons. And Sicilians UU is way more similar to Teutons UU than Franks UU.
I don’t know what you’re seeing. If you put all the bonuses, UU, UT, UB side by side of all 3 civs, you’ll see Sicilians design is way closer to Teutons than Franks. Teutons will stay in the middle, and Franks and Sicilians are on two opposite side.
I dont see it. They are way more similar to Franks imo.
Tbh Teutons are kinda the “everything but atchers and light cav” civ, But Sicilian strength of their infantry, monk and cav play are more in line with Franks. The tower and monk resistamce bonuses are Teuton like but overall I think they play way more like Framks with thr Donjon acting like their own cheap castle
And either way I just dislike their design. They are a very dumb civ imo unlike the other DLC civs who are at least mpre complicated to figure out