Suggestion for the Next DLC: The Empty DLC

[cito]

@TommoChocolate

Interesting – I tend to think of Cumans as not that extreme in terms of new mechanics. Multiple projectiles have been in the game since AoK so they’re not new. Early access to TC, Siege Workshop, etc. was new, but to me feels more like a variation on the long-established practice of giving civs distinct tech trees than a new mechanic as such. That just leaves the Cuman Mercenaries tech, which did introduce a new mechanic, but since it’s an Imperial Age unique tech that’s not useful in 1v1s, it’s rarely a relevant part of the civ design.

@TommoChocolate

It’s the same with the other mercenary-type units. I’m not sure how this could be avoided unless the tech is replaced completely.

I discussed this in more detail here:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/the-problem-with-balancing-civs-through-missing-technologies/288571?u=cito

I don’t think Mali is a bad design. Its compensation is strong enough that the civ still has a clear identity.
However, Mali helped create a trend: using missing techs as a balance tool.
Missing techs themselves aren’t the problem. Some limitations can create interesting civ identities.
The issue is when too many missing techs are combined with UT replacements, making a civ feel restricted instead of unique.

Cumans are a good example. The problem isn’t just Kipchak missing Bracer. It’s strange when the civ that created a UU can end up with a weaker version than other civs using it.
Cuman Mercs is also interesting, but free ally Kipchaks feel disconnected from AoE2’s normal eco system.
A better solution could be: allies produce Kipchak normally, while Cumans get -25% Kipchak cost from the UT. This keeps the merc theme and also makes the UT useful in 1v1.

My point isn’t that all missing techs should be removed. The problem is when missing techs replace the normal way a civ expresses its identity.