I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I think any change to gameplay should have a gameplay-related justification behind it. What would be the justification for splitting or reworking Celts?
The only Scotland that I would support adding to AoE would be for AoE4 (and a Clansman unit for AoE3 with a royal house), tho I don’t play AoE4 as I don’t care about it ever since the variant civs nonsense happened.
Also obviously Celts pantheon for AoM…But AoE2? A Celts campaign that isn’t the tutorial like Robert De Bruce would be the best thing added instead of splitting the civ.
If you ever watched a reenactment of a Germanic or Viking battle most of the time they used shields, in fact the shield was more for pushing and creative vulnerable openings and the use of the weapon was far more careful. Why?
Because they could BREAK! Two handed swords like the claymore are not common to the point regionalizing out of the teo handed sword feels extraneous when mostly only The Islands a few Germanic and some sparse East Asian weapons like the Zhang Madou (the horse chopping greatsword) were the exception not the rule.
Sxrew it! Make the Chukonu a Chinese and ugh the 3ks regional since its actually one of the few things timeline appropriate for those monstrosities then give China the horse chopping saber that sounds kinda unique as a big sword that chops horsies
With a new version of the William Wallace campaign! It’s the same as the original, except in the Battle of Stirling Bridge there’s an actual bridge, and in the Battle of Falkirk you have to lose.
maybe, but the current devs make worse decisions. Vietnamese, Chinese and Koreans now all have some dumb charge-attack unit. Celts have an aura bonus, Vikings have a “resources on kill”-UU, Japanese have a temporary boost on one unit. all of this is bullshit that shouldn’t be in the game, espcially not on classic civs
the original devs had that already implemented, but decided against leaving it in the released version because it was clunky to use. So they tried it out, decided it wasn’t a good idea, and removed it again
(Civilizations – Age of Kings Heaven)
In our original spec, we planned to have certain units have multiple attacks. For a number of reasons, none of which were because it was hard to program, this was scrapped. Two reasons for dumping it were, first, the icky interface it led to, and second, the immense annoyance a player suffered when his multi-units used the “wrong” attack.
i think the current devs should learn from them, instead of repeating their mistakes. I think a better change to samurai, that would make them lean more into their “UU-killer”-identity: make them resistant to ranged attacks by unique units (a bit like the shotel warrior)
