My idea is to replace the war cart skin with a horse-drawn Hwacha and change the initial main theme of the civ for a more related and appropriate one.
I once suggested the Hwacha as a regional unit, replacing the mangonel line, for Koreans Chinese Mongols and (when added) Jurchens.
But yes Koreans still suffer from being added 5 weeks before The Conquerors for the sole reason of courting the korean market, as Starcraft had sold well thereâŠ
6 Likes
If it could be a regional unit, it should be named into a more generic name, such like âFire Arrow Launcherâ, or, at least, named it after the name given to it by the people who invented it, such like âNest of beesâ by the Chinese.
The term âHwachaâ should be used to rename the War Wagon.
1 Like
Something that always bothered me about koreans was that they were designed as the opposite of their real history counterparts.
When conquerors was released, and before I bought it, I thought koreas would be a cavalry civ + gunpowder on land. Based on history knowledge. But instead, we got a defensive and tower rushing civ with an old chinese chariot as UU. Most likely devs just wanted to make the civ unique as their priority in their attempt to attract korean players.
I agree with you all about koreans getting the hwacha as UU (reskinned organ gun I guess), but about the civ design:
Koreans were always under chinese influence and were a tributary state to the jurchens for a while. Before king Taejo, korean armies used to rely heavely on horse riders, even though soldiers had to bring their own horses and armor, because their infantry were under-geared. So maybe, maaaybeee they could receive a mild scout/light cavalry bonus for early castle age.
Things changed when king Sejong ruled, as things improved for korean infantry because the use of brigandine armor became the standard (though most soldiers still couldnât afford the price, and wore inferior-quality armor). Also, he promoted the use of cannons (chongtong) through the development of bombard cannons (che0n-ja chongtong and daejanggunjeon) and hand cannons (seung-ja chongtong). One common example of their infantry-cannons synergy was during the japanese-korean war, when koreans sniped japanese ships with naval che0n-ja chongtong and then faced meele between arquebuses.
Anyway, imo koreans should be a naval civ designed around infantry (because we already have a lot of cavalry civs) and gunpowder on land nowadays. Itâd be the only asian civ with this configuration too.
2 Likes
Maybe when they put a Korean campaign, they will rework the civâŠ
Yes I like the ideaâŠ
1 Like
Shouldnât it replace Scorpion line?
Itâs closer from the mangonel line, as it deals damage over a wide area
1 Like
How about slowly replace siege towers with different regional units?
Maybe no for Mongols?
Thatâs a good way to compare I guess.
I was thinking that a gunpowder powered weapon shouldnât replace a catapult. But then again, scorpion is also a torsion mechanism weapon and technically also a catapult.
In AoE4, the Mangonels, not the Springalds, are replaced with the Nest of Bees for the Chinese.
Why no?
Ironic, considering the Mangonel is a Chinese invention.
I suppose it would be better alternative of onagers. Fast-moving Hwacha strength is quite unpredictable.
I donât follow Aoe4. Saw them on the trailer. And thatâs about it.
In real life, the closest comparison will be Organ Gun. Am I right?
Isnât Koreans now one of the best balanced Civs in the game?
With the wood discount they have the 3-5rd best Trash in the game (Lithuanians + Byz are still top, but Koreans now are definitely a contender for the 3rd spot).
In general they still beat Archer civs way better than Cav civs, but itâs not they would have any exploitable weaknesses anymore.
I still miss the times where War Wagons were a viable option for the civ, but I see atm no reason to change anything about the civ. It has a clear identity and is balanced.
Lately I see a lot of change whishes for civs that are totally fine. Why donât we start talking about civs like⊠idk
BRITONS?
1 Like
Why are you replying me? I think you wanted to reply to the original post.
They took all their siege equipment from China including rockets, and thus introduced gunpowder from Europe.
The difference is cosmetic, itâs not as if you had to plan a supply line for coal sulfur & salpeter to use it. After all even civs that are not supposed to have gunpowder, still have the petard (in castle age) and demo ships (as early as feudal age).
Mangonel + hwacha would be redundanct, 2 mid-ranged area-of-effect anti-units siege weapons. Balance would be a question but overall youâd use both units in a similar way. Just like having both rams and siege elephants would be redundanct for indian civs, while rams are so simple in concept they surely used them.
Though they still have Trebuchets representing that type of engine.
We wonât know until it comes true and we see its statistics.
I guess it would serve as an alternative where the base damage should be lower while the projectiles are faster than the Onagerâs. That way making it accessible to the Mongols shouldnât be a problem.
On the point of volley, yes.
But the projectiles of Nest of Bees obviously fly in a curve, and the performance that multiple projectiles are rained in an area is very similar to the Onager.
I think what people are complaining about is that their historical accuracy is so poor.
Such like even if the Aztecs were made a civ featuring cavalry and gunpowder, they could probably be balanced.
The heavy cavalry of Koreans do not need to become the main force of the civ, but it should be at least not inferior to the Japanese, and at most not superior to the Chinese. Losing the Hussar upgrade and gaining Plate Armor and Blast Furnace is a potential solution. They could probably lose Fever or Sanity to weaken the Castle Age Monks in exchange for the better cavalry.
Changing War Wagons (or Hwacha Wagons) from mounted archer units to siege units or cavalry siege units would more meaningfully echo the siege attack bonus of the unit and the siege weapon identity of the civ. While they would be no longer affected by the archer bonus, they could have exclusive adjustments to make sure they would be useful and balanced.
I agree with your conclusion, but I notice that destroying a forest with fire arrows might not make sense.
Maybe keep Mangonels for the civs and introduce âFire Arrow Launchersâ (or âNests of Beesâ) and the Heavy ones in the Imperial Age Siege Workshops as a regional unit. Then, introduce a new prerequisite technology of Siege Engineers named âCatapultsâ in the Imperial Age, which cost about a quarter to half the cost of Siege Engineers (and Siege Engineers reduced its price accordingly), allowing Mangonel lines and Trebuchets to destroy trees.
This way, the civs having no the Onager upgrade could still use Mangonels to destroy forests. The Fire Arrow Launchers appear to be available upon hitting the Imperial Age, but still require the Heavy upgrade to be powerful.
If people can accept that fire arrows can destroy forests but Scorpion bolts canât, then itâs fine to just replace the Mangonel line with Fire Arrow Launchers.
Why the mangonel line?
Also isnât the irl inspiration of the war wagon really old? In that case, itâd fit RoR better than keeping it in AoE2.
And on the topic of organ guns, Ports shouldnât have organ guns.
2 Likes
It depends what you mean by âbalancedâ. Theyâve consistently had a low win rate and low ranking for years. I guess you could argue that theyâre balanced but that most other civs are overpowered, otherwise I donât see it, personally.
Theyâre still usable, but too heavily countered by skirmishers now, and Koreans donât have a great answer to skirmishers. They can either use mangonels (expensive and generic for this purpose until the super-late game) or their own skirmishers (kind of silly).
Maybe. My understanding is that the original devs wanted something like the turtle ship, but on land. The idea seems to be based on a mangam hwacha (from the 16th century) but the visuals based on older Chinese wagons. Itâs pretty odd, but itâs easy to see how it would have seemed reasonable in 2000, with much more limited information available.
1 Like