It is not about nations. A lot of us feel a Slav DLC is needed, because there were different type of slavs back then and it doesnt feel right to combine all of them into one Civ.
They had other religions, other culture, other military - yes, north, south, east and west slavs where slavs, they had the same origin but they split apart and became very different and this is not represented in the game right now.
This is why we feel a DLC with a Split is needed.
Current slav civ for example is heavy Cavalry oriented. Croats had a mountain terrain and although they had good cavalry (they where part of Franks and later Hungary) at the mountains also Archer were important. Just to give you one example. Other points which where different i listed in an earlier post already.
2 Likes
That I can agree with break the umbrella sure, especially if we can have some more steppified Slavs for more cav archer and steppe lancer fun. The issue is the argumentative almost everyone gets offended nature or even the dare I say irrelevant fact of where one is from no matter which of the many nations on earth you hail from, which everyone then goes to argue and dont talk about the civ bonuses AT ALL.
This game is set in the Medieval times when Ukrainians, Belarusians, Slovakians and Slovenians didnât exist. It is also racist for calling Magyars Slavs.
2 Likes
Personally, I am more interested in the visual side, the historical accuracy of the architecture and units, perhaps the music and voice acting (Slavic priest is voiced really poorly). I didnât think much about the mechanics and I would rather trust the authors in how they implement it. In the end, we still just have to adapt to what is given.
But mechanics that interest me personally for Rus:
- choice of principality before entering empire age
- removing most of the ships from the port and adding Ladia boat
- units: strelets, ratnik, vityaz
For Ukraine:
- Cossack Sich as a replacement for castle OR a replacement for 2-3 production buildings at once.
- buildings: pigsty, corchma (tavern)
If someone wants to work more on imaginary mechanics I will surely check this out.
Read the above discussian. They existed ofc.
1 Like
A concept for a Cossack i had considered is a mounted mace cavalry for the fact coassack linesge includes horse peoples. The spikes of the mace means they do extra âvolleysâ like a chukonu with each hit and the rather disdain most Russiatic civs especially a more eastenr onr mighy hsve towards mongol, Tatar, Cuman and Pecheneg invaders means a bonus vs foreigners or UUs.
Possibly adopting some semblance of cav archery and even perhaps access to camels from Gobi and Turkish invasions of such people fighting fire with fire. Offset of course by the fact that at its heart its still a slavic civ and likely hearty infantrymen of a sort is still the backbone
Isnât cossak too late for AoE2âs timeline? Cossack units with the specific clothes, swords and rifles only became a thing in the 16th century.
2 Likes
Never said guns and swords? Earlier cossack from my interwebs browsing implies a mace and if anything this version is more like a peoples so a Kipchik situation
Cossackhood appeared in 14-15 ct. Which is pretty late, yeah, so this must be a late (imperial) unit.
Cossacks used various weapons, but NEVER a mace. Best known for using saber. Itâs their wide-known symbolic weapon. This is how they look.
The Bulawa I was thinking about. But I suppose a sabre could work. Warding off enemy foreign UUs would be the name of the game though because so many obnoxious horse archer and cavalry raiders need to be chased off
Itâs not nonsense. Itâs truth. Why do people around here tend to call truth nonsense?
1 Like
Mace (bulawa) is just the right weapon for UU of Rusâ - Vityaz. So they actively used it a lot. I have already repeated many times that the current boyar unit should be renamed to vityaz, it is already good both visually and technically, and its main problem is just name. Although they could make him look a little more âfestiveâ.
Moar pix
Because Gypsies are not Gurjaras lol
I think Gurjaras would be highly offended if you called them Romanis lol
3 Likes
They could be swinging wet spaghetti for all I care. Mamlukes throw scimitars from camels. Its what the unit does that matters more to me than what it represents historically
We need Vlachs, Serbians, Croats and Venetians. As well as a Rus rework and campaign.
4 Likes
They are descended from the people of Rajasthan, who are related to the Gurjara people. So itâs not strictly true, but I was using terms people were familiar with.
And for me historical accuracy and good visuals matter much. Or else I could play any random game with space marines battling giant mutant insects.
In general, at the beginning, when I came to this forum and several self-confident characters attacked me because of use of AI in consultations, I even thought, âMaybe there really is a party of cool historians here who are so well versed in everything? Well, in case they behave this way.â
And now time passed and I see that one confuses gypsies with Indians, the other suggests Cossacks with maces and says that historicism is not important⊠Yeah. All clear now.
Again youâre playing a game where mamelukes throw swords from camel back and only a Khmer person can use the door into their house. Try not to seem superior to others youâre gonna live longer.
Other inaccuracies: Korean war wagon, Mayan Plume Archers werenât specifically called plume archers, Franks and Cets stopped using their UU by about 500. Celts in general I mean⊠what are they even?
Burmese having weak archery is not reasonable. Most of the good archer civs never even used crossbows or even arbalests either and Arbalest a French word, isnt even used by its namesake.
1 Like
So anyone who disagrees with you is a stalker now?
5 Likes
