Which "old" civilisations need more love?

[Skadidesu]

A lot of new civilisations are getting fancy new features and many unique or regional units, making old civilisations look kinda boring.
The Persians have been the civilisation with the lowest number of bonuses for a long time but now they got a nice rework (we need to see if they might have gotten to strong though).

I consider all civilisations up until Forgotten Empires as old.
Technically Forgotten Empires civilisations were added a lot later but in many ways they feel outdated. They were designed to be the last civilisations to be added to the game (that’s why they made big umbrellas like Indians or Slavs) and most of them where relatively conservatively designed.

How many old civilisations should get a rework?

• Most
• Some
• None

Which civilisations need some more love?

• Britons
• Celts
• Franks
• Goths
• Teutones
• Vikings
• Byzantines
• Persians (again)
• Saracenes
• Turks
• Chinese
• Japanese
• Mongols
• Spanish
• Huns
• Koreans
• Aztecs
• Mayans
• Magyars
• Slavs
• Indians (Hundustani)
• Incans
• Italians

Which HD civilisations need some more love?

• Ethiopians
• Malians
• Berbers
• Portuguese
• Burmese
• Khmer
• Malay
• Vietnamese

This thread is not about balance

Most of those civilisations are already well balanced.
“More love” doesn’t necessarily mean a new unique unit but it does mean more then just a few numbers being moved around.
It’s more about making civilisations feel unique and interesting then making them better.

The changes can also make the civilisation worse if it’s required for balance.

[icicle83]

It would be fruitful for the discussion to investigate playrates of said civs, let’s say in ranked matches. I don’t have numbers up to the most recent patch, but I guess that many of the old civs are quire popular.

If we don’t have evidence they these civs are played significantly less than newer additions, I do not see why they should be fundamentally changed (small balance adjustments aside).

[Skadidesu]

It’s more about them feeling unique and interesting then about changing the way they play to much.
So more of a flavour update or giving them more alternative ways to be played if their are to focused on one strategy.
A unit like the Persian Savar doesn’t change much about how the civilisation plays like but it adds some flavour to them making them feel less like other Knight civilisations.

But yes, comparing the results to playrates in relation to win rates could be interesting.
But then we have a graph with 3 axis.
I would guess that some of the more popular civilisations might have more people caring about them and therefor wanting them to change more.
A lot of civilisations are just popular because the real civilisation is popular.
People play AoE because of history after all, else they could play some fantasy game.

[icicle83]

I would like offer an alternative interpretation:
Many old civs are popular because people feel accustomed to them. These civs lack, for the most part, weird gimmicky features that the new civs are so full of. You can play them up to their potential with basic game knowledge. They are most true to the original premise of the age series.

Since AoE2 is a game that relies not to a little degree on nostalgia, I would advise against drastic changes to the original civs.

Additions (like new civs) can be ignored if someone does not want to play them, but if you re-work civs, some people may get the feeling that something is taken away from them.

[TwerDefender]

@Skadidesu

A unit like the Persian Savar doesn’t change much about how the civilisation plays like but it adds some flavour to them making them feel less like other Knight civilisations.

yeah, in my opinion giving some skins like savar are ok. adding awful mechanics like the bounties you get from killing with cavalry aren’t. But everyone will draw the line in a different place.

In the end people bought the game in a certain state and it feels unfair to change it in a way that they might consider detrimental. Now adding new civs that are bad is different as it’s always optional to buy/play them, but big changes to existing civs are crossing this line for me

[DynasticPlanet5]

@icicle83

These civs lack, for the most part, weird gimmicky features that the new civs are so full of

You almost sound like you’re saying this as a bad thing. After all the gimmicks sometimes a civ designer needs to reflect back on what made the non gimmick straightforward civs so beloved and give us more of that

[Skadidesu]

@icicle83

Additions (like new civs) can be ignored if someone does not want to play them, but if you re-work civs, some people may get the feeling that something is taken away from them.

A rework of a civilisation had to be done well.
If a civilisation is beloved in it’s current state, it obviously doesn’t need a rework. That’s what the poll is for.

@icicle83

You can play them up to their potential with basic game knowledge.

Not necessarily.
A lot of “fancy new features” are relatively easy to understand, like auras, often because they exist in many other games.
While very simple bonuses can often be more complex to utilise like the Chinese start.

@TwerDefender

In the end people bought the game in a certain state and it feels unfair to change it in a way that they might consider detrimental.

But that’s how it is in video games. If you keep everything the same it gets boring. Most modern games keep changing up things.
Also most of the changes done to AoE2DE have been liked by most people.
Yes there are always voices that are against any change but they are not the majority of the community.

@DynasticPlanet5

After all the gimmicks sometimes a civ designer needs to reflect back on what made the non gimmick straightforward civs so beloved and give us more of that

The problem with staightforward civs is that you run out of options pretty quickly.
More HP, attack speed, armour, movement speed or deduced cost for X doesn’t offer much variety.
Besides faster moving archers every base stat bonus already exist.

Also a lot of bonuses where just not possible in the past because of engine limitations.
Many of those limitations seem to be overcome now though.

[Apocalypso4826]

I just posted an idea to tweak the Mongols a little bit. It’s rather relevant to this thread.

Mongols change idea

This is by no means an original idea, but it’s something I came up with today as a modification of other people’s ideas. A lot of people think that Nomads should be replaced or rolled into the civ as a bonus, since it is a weak technology that does little. It has its uses, such as when you’re low on space and want room for production buildings, but it would be much better as a free bonus. The issue is that replacing it would risk making the Mongols way too strong, as their new UT would have to …

[CanineCrown7153]

I just want maybe a rework of the Hun theme

[Apocalypso4826]

Why? What’s wrong with it?

[SirWiedreich]

@Skadidesu

Persians (again)

Definitely this. Here is a partial list of changes I would like to see to Persians:

• Elite War Elephant upgrade removed, Elite War Elephant stats baked into War Elephant.

• Kamandaran effect baked into Crossbowman upgrade. New UT: Medicine - all units regenerate 50% HP/min

• Citadels effect free on reaching Imperial Age. New UT: Legacy of Cyrus - all units gain +3 attack against unique units.

• Infantry now generate stone while attacking.

• New unit: Immortal - replaces the Long Swordsman upgrade, adds 3/2 Armor and +10 bonus vs. Cavalry.

• New unit: Elephant Cart - regional variant of the mule cart that has 3x HP and can fight back when attacked.

• Can build Kreposts, Donjons, Feitorias, Folwarks and Harbors in addition to Caravanserai.

• Town Center, Dock workrate boost now applies to all buildings.

• Architecture set changed to Mediterranean.

• Spies free.

• /S

Mostly though, I don’t think deep reworks are necessary. IMO they actually went a little too far with the Persians and just handed out more bonuses and new effects than they needed to. The gold generation bonus was unnecessary, as was the Imp tech having 4 different effects. Not that I have a problem generally with more flavor - I think the rework was a net positive - but several of these new bonuses should have been saved for new civs.

I think the closest civ now to what Persians were before the rework is perhaps the Huns, with only three bonuses and two of them being fairly weak and/or situational. And yet I’d prefer to start by improving their existing bonuses before adding new ones, e.g.:

-Cav Archers cost -15% in Castle -20% Imperial
-Cav Archers and Trebuchets +30% Accuracy.

[DynasticPlanet5]

@SirWiedreich

Cav Archers and Trebuchets +30% Accuracy.

Maybe include missile speed. It doesn’t sound like much but once thumb ring and Ballistic is out good luck dodging a missile going at 9.1 movespeed and for trebs… whatever

[Skadidesu]

I’d personally prefer to remove the Trebuchet bonus.
A civilisation that never used them historically should not have a bonus for them.

The Huns are generally a strange civilisation from a historical perspective, they speak Mongolian language and their Unique Unit has a Turkish name.

[TwerDefender]

@Skadidesu

@TwerDefender

In the end people bought the game in a certain state and it feels unfair to change it in a way that they might consider detrimental.

But that’s how it is in video games. If you keep everything the same it gets boring. Most modern games keep changing up things.
Also most of the changes done to AoE2DE have been liked by most people.
Yes there are always voices that are against any change but they are not the majority of the community.

I am just waiting for someone with too much time and money to sue a video game company for changing the product after purchase. I don’t think it would be good for the industry, but in some cases I can see where they are coming from.

[TungstenBoar]

Surprised most people seem to be happy with Magyars

[CanineCrown7153]

@Apocalypso4826

Why? What’s wrong with it?

OG one had a fear mood. Current one feels like a medieval party.

I actually replaced it with the Mongol theme

[SirWiedreich]

@TungstenBoar

Surprised most people seem to be happy with Magyars

In a lot of ways they feel like Huns 2.0 and have been seeing a lot of use in tournaments. Unlike Huns they’ve gotten a couple buffs and tweaks lately as well that help their CA/UU viability. So while maybe they’re perceived as being on the blander side, I think there are stronger candidates for a rework in terms of strength and even flavor. I appreciate that their design works but doesn’t create power creep or lead to all civs eventually needing the same kinds of bonuses (i.e. Magyars lack an eco bonus but are still fairly good).

[Apocalypso4826]

@CanineCrown7153

OG one had a fear mood. Current one feels like a medieval party.

I can get that vibe, honestly. But after raiding your enemies and looting them, you’d probably celebrate by partying. So it still kinda fits, IMO.

[CanineCrown7153]

@Apocalypso4826

you’d probably celebrate by partying

You have a point, which is the same point that Vitalis Eirich made, BUT
this is Mongolian party

Mongolian's Folk Music.

This is the Hun theme

Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition - Huns theme

And this is fantasy Tavern like music

Medieval Instrumental Music | Royal Feast | Fantasy Folk Music | Middle Ages Celtic Era

which kind of sounds like this

2 Hours of Celtic Music by Adrian von Ziegler (Part 3/3)

I’d argue that the Hun theme sounds more like the latter than the former.

In fact, take a look (hear) at this

Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition - Celts theme

It kind of sounds a little bit like the Hun theme

The hun theme could hear like a party, but it shouldn’t be a MEDIEVAL party, but a Tengrist one

[SirWiedreich]

Yeah Hun theme sounds like Renaissance Fair music. Which might be okay for a Northwestern European civ if somehow they had no examples of their music, but it’s very weird for Huns.