Exactly why you need representation from Africa and Asia then, not just representing current day European countries! 
4 Likes
Considering most Bantu civs were major contributors to trade of all kinds of goods from Gold to slaves and poisons, I would t strongly disagree and think 3 or 4 some day would be interesting for gameplay.
That matters too. If a civ could have a history that lends itself to a fantastic play style it should be considered to shake up interesting unit composition.
Kazars as an example in a historical vacuum and most would say they’re just Cumans but a civ with monk siege and cavalry is yet to be fully realized. (Why is it censored when I add the H!?)
I don’t care about the culture or the people or religion just the fun and unique units and military and eco bonuses a civ can imply.
8 Likes
Yes, that’s why I’ve never understood it! Is there some niche gameplay situation in which you absolutely need Petards? Some unwanted cheese strategy they counter, perhaps? They seem to be useful mainly for speed runs.
I think it’s an acceptable buff for the Cumans to have better monks.
And limit the number of Lancer civs? I’m hesitant to keep that number at 3.
-
Winning a Castle war in Castle Age.
-
Very rarely in Imperial Age if the castles are so close together that ungarrisoned treb won’t make it to the safe distance.
-
Opening up walls in Arena and Fortress (Regicide).
4 Likes
NO, if they want they can add 50 more civs, every medieval empire should be represented in this game that everyone cares about
and USA, Russia, in AOE 1 XD seriously?
5 Likes
Huns deserve SL.
Also, for the potential Central and Eastern Asian Steppe civs like Gokturks, Sogdians, Khitans and Jurchens.
1 Like
Tbh Europe wasnt very doninant in the middle ages either. Its a period we associate with them but its not the period in which they shine.
To me at least you complain because you dont care about those civs.
Thats not quite true.
And thats very much extrimely subjective. A lot of European civs dont fit this criteria imo
Sub saharian Africa was both relevant to the world trade, had multiple powerful states and had excellent metallurgy. There was a bunch of states with gunpowder too
9 Likes
and how do you balance them after giving them SL?
Furthermore what bonus does their SL get?
I dont think they would need any changes if they got Lancers.
And rn they would be generic, but maybe we could give them a steppe lancer UT to finally put Atheism to rest
the civ is already strong as is, doesn’t need buffs.
every civ with SL gets a bonus that applies to their SL, either through civ bonus or UT.
The civ is indeed viable but steppe lancers are just so niche I think its a fine change that helps with their identity
Imo they could have just generic ones or get a new imperial UT to buff them. They could be cheaper like their CA but thats probably too strong. In either case I doubt it would be that big of a deal.
Their bonus would be faster training time the same as all their other cavalry.
Not advocating Huns mind you but if this unit wound up on enough civs we would eventually get a generic version that simply is just there with FU status and nothing extra.
Same for Eagles and elephant units too.
We may even get a civ with Steppe Lancers but no Elite.
Useless discussion… SL are underpower, none of the civs with SL are powerfull because of them, so, how SL would make Huns more powerfull?
and yet we still have plenty of people advocating for steppe lancer buffs - which means they might not remain niche.
you operate under the assumption SL will always be underpowered, but we constantly see people advocating for SL to be buffed…
furthermore - more options will always make a civ stronger overall.
It would be waste of time and money to make DLC for AoE1 DE, it has very small playerbase
Everything else in Age of Empires serries would be more profitable and meaningful - DLC for AoE 3 or 4, definite edition for Age of Mythology, new Age of Empires game set in classic perriod… Or DLC for AoE2 DE
1 Like
What? Of course… I can’t see the future… People ask for so many things…
Not if options are inferior in most cases…
What make huns so special to make it so too much powerfull having SL compared to tartars, Cumans or mongols?
Fair enough, although I don’t think I consider any of those things so important that everyone should have Petards. To be honest, I think I’d rather no one have Petards than everyone have them.
Yes, I agree. Maybe ‘dominant’ wasn’t the best choice of word. I don’t suppose the AoE1 Devs thought about how many of their civs were European anyway - for the most part they picked the “obvious” ancient civs, and many of those are not European.
Hmm, I think I’d lump Gauls in with Celts, and go for something like Celts, Germani, Etruscans and Iberians.
2 Likes
I would propose Thraco-Dacians and Scythians, but an Etruscan civilization could be pretty cool.
5 Likes