We have heard a lot of opinions about the 3K civs already. But what about the Jurchens and Khitans?
My opinion:
Jurchens: At first it seemed overwhelming. But now when I’ve gotten used to Rocket Carts and Fire Lancers (since so many other civs have them), I think they’re a solidly designed civ. They’re basically Georgians without Mule Carts but with more focus on siege and gunpowder. I also like their eco bonus. I give it a 7/10.
Khitans: Aside from using a Tangut castle, I think it has way too many gimmicks.
- Heavy CA in Castle Age
- UU causes Bleed damage
- UT1 reflects damage back to the opponent
- UT2 causes cavalry to regenerate HP in combat
- Pastures instead of farms
- Mounted Trebuchets from the Siege Workshop
This is 6 things that are very unique and different from what other civs have. If they had given one or two of these each to three different civs, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it. But six of them in one civ is too much. What is the civ’s identity? Is it the civ with Heavy CA in Castle Age? Is it the civ that reflects damage back to the opponent? Is the civ that causes bleed damage?
Maybe half of these gimmicks were meant to be used by a separate Tangut civilization? Is this why the civ feels so strange?
Pastures + Heavy CA in Castle Age and maybe the Liao Dao unit with bleed damage would’ve been fine. But 3-4 more “gimmicks” on top here just makes it a mess.
My rating for Khitans (“Khitanguts”): 3/10. I dislike it almost as much as the 3K civs.
11 Likes
Imho the grenade shouldve been the team bonus unit imho
If they split Khitans into two civs (Khitans & Tanguts) and thereby gave half of the Khitan gimmicks to Tanguts, we’d have three perfectly normal civilizations (Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts) for multiplayer.
Then if they sent the 3K civs to its own game mode/single player only, everything would be fine.
You’d have lots of content for single player players and multiplayer players alike. Both would have 3 civs each. No need to make campaigns for the multiplayer civs.
11 Likes
Ikr? Massive missed opportunity.
in my mind khitans are the generalist civ. its the only civ since african expansion to have full tech tree (if we count double atk and no blast furnace)
your 6 unique things are basically 2 unique units, 2 unique techs, 1 unique building and a unit in castle age. i honestly dont think its that big of a deal. the game is going towards civs with complex mechanics and greater differences. i like it more than the 3k as shu, wu and wei are very generic (although i do like the shu). most of their ut and bonuses just affect their unique units.
1 Like
Khitans’ pastures need a nerf, pre nerf Polish Folwarks and Stone bonus are a fucking joke in comparison 11
One problem I have with newer civs is they have a lot of unique stuff that have no good reason to be. Everyone and their mom has a charge attack, why is the Ratha still the only one with the weapon switch ability that was originally meant for samurais? Why do only Khitans get fire damage? And why are pastures unique?
I assume Ensemble did stuff like that as well (like Elephants being exclusive to Persians), but it’s FE’s cases I have experience with.
2 Likes
Well, I think these unique units and unique techs differ from those of the classic civs for several reasons. Let me explain.
For example, Gurjaras is a civ that also has a lot these “gimmicks”, and many people felt (and still feels) it went a bit overboard. But the design of the Gurjaras is still a lot more coherent then the Khitans.
Two of their bonuses include being able to garrison stuff (herdables in mills and fishing ships in docks). These are two bonuses using the same mechanic, so I’d count these two together as a singular gimmick. Having both makes logical sense and is easy to remember both when playing with them and against them.
Then they have the Shrivamsha Rider that can dodge arrows (new mechanic). And finally, they start with a Camel Scout instead of a regular Scout.
All in all these are three things that are “gimmicky” or completely unique with this civ. But that’s only half as many as what the Khitans have.
But that isn’t to say the amount of gimmicks and unique mechanics is everything. If there’s some coherency among them that all ties into an overarching theme or civ identity, then more isn’t necessarily bad. Gurjaras being a Camel civ and starting with a Camel Scout and getting a trickle of food from herdables (to help you more easily make more camels) all makes sense thematically. It’s only the Shrivamsha Rider that feels a little odd (and hence it has been the main topic of discussion among critics).
Khitans? None of their gimmicks really relate to one another. Why should their infantry and Skirmishers specifically reflect damage back to their opponents? And then their cavalry line can regenerate HP during combat? And then they can make Heavy CA in Castle Age? And then they have an infantry unique unit that not only reflects damage, but also causes bleed damage? None of this makes any sense.
If they simply had the Heavy CA in Castle Age and then a unique tech that allowed for example both their infantry UU and archery range units (incl Cav Archer) to get some kind of bleed damage (because I don’t know, maybe they had some specific technology that would cause this effect), then that would make a lot more sense. Then it’s clearly a Cavalry Archer & Infantry civ (designation) that can cause bleed damage to your units (unique mechanism). Straight forward, easy to understand and remember. A civ with a clear identity. Save the damage reflecting skirms and regenerating cavalry for another civ (or two).
2 Likes
Well, I haven’t bought the new DLC yet. But… I believe that Khitans and Jurchens are the selling points for me while 3K are negative assets of this DLC. This means this DLC is worthless, except Jurchens?
2 Likes
When I used to design civs before DE decided to add all sort of new code, I was STRICT about following the law of rhe hardcoding limits as someone not blessed with coding skills myself.
The fact they added so much tech to rub in the faces of civ crafters almost feels like showing off instead of just cranking out civs like we do.
Tldr the new fangled bonuses feel more like desperation
I don’t think adding new features to a game is a bad thing, just because a game is 26 years old doesn’t mean it should stay as it was 26 years ago.
Sorry, I don’t think the devs are out to get you and I have no idea how you want to decide what should or shouldn’t be allowed.
1 Like
yeah, that’s a lot of new stuff packed into one civ and you are right, this civ has no identity of itself whatsoever. It feels like Khitan and tangut were supposed to be 2 separated civs, but the black suits demanded 3K so they had to combine both khitan and tangut into 1 civ and call it a day.
2 Likes
At least unique units used to stick to one gimmick. The Liao Dao has three separate damage sources: basic attacks, DoT effect, damage reflect. What is it’s niche supposed to be?
1 Like
DPS, I guess? (20 characters)
Pasture built sound is too loud. Low volume plz.