Dude, chill. You have fun civ proposals, but that’s not a reason to denigrate others, even if you see their ideas as less compelling.
1 Like
Great Bombard can be an UU that is a trabuchet replacement for Turks. It can be trained from castle. It can have packed and un-packed mode, more expensive, moves and fires slower but has more hp, attack and range, accuracy and bonus against ships.
1 Like
So what if Janns picked up some cav/camel damage? It would make the sting of losing Pikes a little less brutal since camels can be a menace to these guys
Great bombard would be too gimmicky as a trebuchet replacement.
It was a rule of thumb all civs getting trebuchet regardless who they are until 3K.
Jenissaries fights against cavaliers behind pile obstacles that save them from direct cavalier charge. Later this tactic evolved to Tabur Cengi (Wagenburg). They started to use mobile castles that is made from wagons that is looks like Hussite Wagons. For adapting this tactic to the game Jenissaries can reflect some damage to melee mounted units.
I don’t think replacing trebs is a gimmick by itself. But it might be better to make something like this an upgrade to the standard Bombard Cannon instead, like the Houfnice for Bohemians. Though the artillery tech already makes Turk cannons great, so I don’t think it’s needed.
1 Like
I mean sure but I figured this would give them and HC different niches and it’s simpler. If you are fighting stables you go janns if infantry HC and hussars for archers and vs Italians… early aggression with extra gold???
1 Like
Slav castleage and imp set is already modelled around Moscow (eg monastery , university , fortified tower , Imp university , house , imp market etc).
I don’t think the community is eager for multiple slav sets…
_36.jpg){kind=link}
I getcha. I just hate to see that cool teal/tourquise style get too few civs. Persia isn’t enough to add imho
The Kingdom of Khotan might be a possibility for an unusual combination of regional units, since they had influences from Persia, India and China. I don’t know what their military was like though. I guess as a civ they’d be called Saka.
2 Likes
Naming style aside, there’s nothing saying civ names can’t be reused between AoE2 and Chronicles
Some players prefer to mix AoE2 civs and Chronicles civs in the same game. This can cause two different civ share same name in the same game. If a civ name be reused, developers need to add (Chronicles) or (AoE2) behind of civ name. For example Romans (Chronicles) can come in the next Chronicles DLC.
2 Likes
They would probably call them Rome or possibly Romanus? I honestly would like them to not have Rome because everyone thinks Roman’s are more amazing than the potential all the other people around them have.
I wonder how will they name. There is no Athens and Sparta in the game but Athenians and Spartans. So, I expect they won’t name as Rome. Romanus is more possible.
Yes, that sounds good to me…
Yes, that’s why I proposed it as an upgrade to the Bombard Cannon. Besides, the Trebuchet doesn’t resemble the Great Bombard at all; at most, it would be like the Onager but with a cannon in the middle if you don’t want to make it similar to the Bombard Cannon… at least it opens the door for many civilizations to receive a second unique unit…
1 Like
Latins or Latini perhaps?
1 Like
Yes, although Latins are more from the pre-Roman era (1000-753 BC), which precedes what would be the Chronicles, which ranges from 500 BC to 500 AD…
The term ‘Latins’ would cause enormous confusion. In medieval texts, ‘Latins’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘Italians’ or ‘Romans’. OK, perhaps it works in the context of the Chronicles DLCs, but I recall that, according to tradition, Rome was founded in 753 BC. So I don’t see the problem with using Romans.
Yeah, but Chronicles and main AoE2 have crossplay which might make having two identically named civs confusing
I don’t remember the game, but I’m sure I saw ‘Rome (Republican)’ and ‘Rome (Imperial)’ as faction names