Sorry I don’t follow your line of reasoning here, it feels like a non sequitur. What do missing techs have to do with new mechanics? Missing techs are one of the two fundamental mechanics of civ design in the series (the other being civ bonuses – both present since AoE1). They’re not a new mechanic. Unique units that aren’t fully upgradeable have existed since AoK, and units affected by a civ bonus but not fully upgradeable have existed since AoE1.
3 Likes
I agree missing techs are a core part of AoE civ design. My point isn’t removing them, but how they’re used as a trade-off.
Wei missing Plate Barding Armor while having Ming Guang Armor feels contradictory: the civ boosts armored cavalry identity while removing a core upgrade from the same line.
Gurjaras are different. They lack Ring Archer Armor, but Frontier Guards gives Elephant Archers a similar effect (+6/+2). However, it represents frontier defense, not simply replacing an armor tech.
The issue isn’t missing techs or armor effects themselves, but whether the design feels coherent.
One more point: if the UT represented a different concept, such as a cavalry combat doctrine, the design would feel less contradictory. The issue isn’t having a defensive bonus, but when a civ loses a core armor technology and then receives another technology that sounds like it restores the same function.
Yes, in the end, developers do what will bring them the most profit and community support…
But what does that have to do with this topic? You were talking about overly complex mechanics, especially new mechanics being added in new DLCs, and then suddenly pivoted into talking about missing techs. Missing techs are neither overly complex nor new. Even using them as a trade-off goes back to AoE1 (with Assyrians being probably the most conspicuous example).
I mean, it’s your topic, you can take it in whichever direction you like. I just don’t see the link between the rest of the topic and missing techs.
Nothing about the design of Wei feels coherent. But I don’t see what this has to do with the rest of the topic either. To me it’s not even similar to the example of Cumans not having Bracer (other than being a tech a civ doesn’t have that would affect its unique unit).
Sorry, I’m just generally not following your line of reasoning anymore. Missing techs is probably better discussed in a different thread, and I see you’ve made one for that.
1 Like
I agree missing techs are a core part of AoE civ design, and I’m familiar with the AoE1 examples you mentioned, including how RoR refined many of those designs.
My point isn’t that missing techs are new or should be removed. The issue is how they are used in modern civ design. Original AoE1 designs often had much rougher limitations, while later designs generally made restrictions more connected to civ identity.
In fact, RoR (Return of Rome) has generally moved toward more complete tech trees compared to the original AoE1 and Rise of Rome designs. Many older weaknesses were refined so that limitations feel more like meaningful trade-offs rather than simply leaving large gaps.
The common point with examples like Cumans and Wei isn’t the specific missing tech, but the design approach: using intentional limitations as a trade-off. Missing techs themselves aren’t the problem. The issue is when multiple restrictions and replacement mechanics are stacked together without a clear design purpose, making a civ feel incomplete rather than unique.
How does this apply to Cumans? They don’t have Bracer because the devs judged that their Kipchaks would be too powerful without it – there’s a clear design purpose there. They don’t get Husbandry because they have a superior civ bonus, similar to Franks not getting Bloodlines – there’s a clear design purpose there too.
Also, do you think Cumans don’t feel unique? I think most players, regardless of whether they like Cumans, would consider their design distinctive and unusual – and therefore unique.
EDIT: there’s a typo above – I meant to say “Kipchaks would be too powerful with [Bracer]”, not without it.
1 Like
Dare I say Cumans feel TOO unique
I wonder if Bracer but no Chemistry would be acceptable? They already get no gunpowder as is
My point is mainly about Bracer, not every missing tech in the Cuman tree.
I agree missing techs can have a design purpose, and the early TC bonus is clearly a major part of Cuman identity.
However, a strong early-game advantage doesn’t necessarily mean a civ needs to sacrifice techs related to its later specialization. Kipchak balance doesn’t have to rely only on removing Bracer; the unit itself can also be adjusted through stats if needed.
Bracer also affects other archer units like CA, so removing it is a broader restriction, not just a Kipchak balance tool.
Early Rams are unique, but their practical value can be situational. Whether they provide enough compensation for the added limitations is still debatable.
My point isn’t that Cumans lack uniqueness. They’re clearly one of the most distinctive civs in AoE2. The issue is whether stacking multiple restrictions and replacement mechanics is the clearest way to express that identity.
This is also why I think the discussion is worth having. Even players who consider Cumans very unique have questioned whether they may have too many special mechanics.
Cumans are definitely unique, but the challenge is whether all these elements together create the clearest design.
I agree that developers need to consider profit and community support. New civs are valuable, and I’m not suggesting they should stop making them.
The Empty DLC concept exists because the current content cycle is much faster and larger than before. In the past, this idea was less necessary because there was more time between major additions.
With the current pace, the team may move on to the next DLC before the previous one has been fully balanced and refined. This creates additional pressure on balance, testing, and long-term maintenance.
Of course, players could simply ask the developers to slow down or pause DLC releases. However, that kind of request usually has limited practical impact because it doesn’t provide a clear direction for development.
The Empty DLC is a different approach: it turns that pause into a dedicated period for polishing existing content, improving balance, and rethinking future designs.
Resting doesn’t mean stopping development. Sometimes a rest is necessary to go further.
Something I heard in a sermon years ago has really stuck out to me all this time:
“You don’t work to play; you play to work.” In other words, relaxation is not the end goal of life; work is. Relaxation is simply a necessary step to enable work to continue.
1 Like
The problem can’t be just Bracer but also “stacking multiple restrictions”. Either way, I don’t really see why it’s a problem.
This should push Cuman players towards using Kipchaks rather than cavalry archers, so it seems like good design to me. I think of Cumans’ identity as fast close-ranged cavalry, not really a cavalry archer civ. Lacking Bracer is part of that, and distinguishes them from the other steppe cavalry civs.
Not wildly different. It depends whether their Kipchaks having +1 range in Imperial Age would make them too strong. (I very deliberately said “the devs judged that their Kipchaks would be too powerful [with Bracer]” – I didn’t claim they would be too powerful with Bracer personally.)
1 Like
One also needs to consider steppe husband Cav archers
Players aren’t against limitations.
Players are against limitations without a clear purpose.
I’m not saying every civ needs a full tech tree. I actually support removing techs when they don’t fit a civ’s identity.
For example, I’d be fine with Wu having weaker cav if it matched their identity better. Historically, Wu relied heavily on Shu for war horses, so having one of the most complete cav tech trees among the Three Kingdoms civs feels less coherent.
The same applies to newer civs. If a UU is too strong, removing a major blacksmith tech affects an entire unit line, not just the UU itself.
For Cumans, if the main identity is simply a cavalry civ, using a CA UU that requires removing Bracer creates a design conflict. Bracer doesn’t only affect Kipchaks; it also affects CA. If Kipchak balance is the concern, adjusting the UU directly — or even choosing a different UU concept — may be a clearer solution.
I understand devs need to consider Ranked balance, but many single-player and casual players care more about whether the game world feels right to them.
Better customization tools would let different groups maintain the experience they prefer. The problem isn’t that players can’t modify the game; it’s that current AGE editing is difficult to maintain when frequent updates change core data.
The goal isn’t to remove competitive balance or stop new civs. It’s to give the game more flexibility for different players.
Do you think it would be a problem? Steppe Husbandry affects Cumans’ fully upgraded Hussars and Elite Steppe Lancers and it doesn’t seem to be a problem for them.
And I’ve just told you three purposes of Cumans not having Bracer (without even mentioning the possibility of Cuman Kipchaks with Bracer being overpowered).
That is not what I said…
This I agree with. An in-built user-friendly way of editing civ data that doesn’t break every patch would be welcome.
1 Like
I honestly don’t. Unless you have guns or a Malian ally the same costing Bracer is always a better investment than Chemistry. Actually scratch that the University bonus it’s STILL slower than bracer’s 40 second research time.
The issue is that 11 pierce from FU attack is a nice benchmark to hit as it lets you slice Siege Onagers in 2/3 the time if you didn’t have one or the other. Although the extra range would be noticeable l
And the main identity of Mayans is Archers yet they get the renamed Dorado tech which I can never remember that does +40 HP on an infantry unit and most players switch to that instead
3 Likes
I understand that Steppe Husbandry also affects Cavalry Archers, so Bracer is not only about Kipchaks. But that is exactly my concern: removing Bracer becomes a civilization-wide restriction, not just a UU balance tool.
If the goal is to balance Kipchaks or Cavalry archers, adjusting the UU itself may be a cleaner solution.
I understand the reasons behind missing Bracer. The disagreement is about the solution.
Personally, I’d rather adjust Kipchaks directly (for example, lower their range) instead of removing a tech that affects the whole civ.
That said, if there were a reliable customization tool that didn’t break with every update, I’d be happy to adjust my own version. The goal isn’t to force one balance choice, but to give players more control over the experience they want.
Official civ categories are already pretty broad. A civ being classified as a Cavalry Civ doesn’t mean CA can’t still be an important part of its identity.
Players usually use terms like “Cavalry Archer Civ” for a more specific playstyle, especially when CA is the main late-game option.
So the question for Cumans isn’t simply whether they are a CA civ or not. It’s whether removing Bracer affects a meaningful part of their gameplay beyond just Kipchaks.
That said, these labels are ultimately just labels. Official categories often can’t fully match how players understand and play a civ over time.
That’s why better customization tools matter. Different groups can define and enjoy a civ in the way that makes the most sense to them.
I think this is where we can find the most common ground.
Better built-in customization tools wouldn’t replace official balance. They’d simply let different groups maintain the experience they prefer without forcing one design choice to satisfy everyone.
I’ll say it again: we need a Balkans DLC.
3 Likes
Reducing the range would be a big nerf to Kipchaks in Castle Age/before Bracer. Making a cavalry archer unique unit even more difficult to get going and/or more dependent on upgrades seems like a bad idea to me.
I see your point about Castle Age Kipchaks becoming weaker with -1 range. I just don’t think that necessarily makes the whole approach bad.
There is still regular Cavalry Archer (CA) as an option in Castle Age. In fact, I think regular CA should be the more natural early option, while Kipchaks can be a more specialized investment.
Kipchaks are already a UU, so they’re not exactly easy to mass. Cumans also have a strong reason to spend their stone on a 2nd TC in Feudal Age. Castle Age UUs don’t necessarily need to win every C/P comparison. They just need to be attractive enough to give players a reason to invest in them.
If Kipchak range is reduced to 3 in Castle Age, that does make them weaker early. But for a player who chooses Kipchaks as their main army, it also gives them a clear progression toward Imp. Once Elite Kipchak is researched, their range/dmg can become much more relevant, and the Elite upgrade itself is only 1100F 1000W in the official proposal. The player’s investment then has a clear payoff.
My Cuman mercenary idea would also make their own Kipchaks 25% cheaper after the Elite upgrade, while allies get them at the normal price. Allies can only get Elite Kipchaks after the Cuman player has researched the upgrade.
And I’m not fixed on -1 range either. Kipchaks could be adjusted in other ways, such as higher dmg or a shorter attack interval. The more things we change, though, the more complicated the balance environment becomes, and the harder it is to tell what is actually causing what.
That’s why I prefer adjusting the Kipchak itself rather than removing a tech that affects the whole civ.
And honestly, if there were a reliable civ editor that survived patches, I’d just make my own changes anyway. 
Sure, there are lots of other ways that Cumans and Kipchaks could be balanced. I just don’t see any reason to change them, and I still don’t understand why you think it’s such a problem.
2 Likes