New Civ for Alpha 28+ (extended discussion)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Continuing the discussion from here: 

 

 

A large majority of voters (82%) want to see another new civ added to the game. But now narrowing down the civ options since no civ received 50+% of the vote in the last poll. I've dropped the lowest 3 choices (and the "other" option since no consensus formed for an alternative) from the poll in hopes one will gain a majority.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

Very difficult to see the nomads so soon.

The gameplay still needs mobile defenses.

 

Also units that subdue by Lasso others to convert them and turn them into slave warriors.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The gameplay still needs mobile defenses.

 

Also units that subdue by Lasso others to convert them and turn them into slave warriors.

I don't agree that these are necessary for nomadic gameplay.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't agree that these are necessary for nomadic gameplay.

The defenses to force yes, if they are not very exposed. They would have balance problems.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Are the thracians ruled out?

I think the Suebians would a bit more familiar civ structure and thus better received. I totally support the nomadic civs, its just that I anticipate more disagreement on their units and mechanics.

Plus, I think work remains on making the two nomad civs look different.

Edited May 29, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

41 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The gameplay still needs mobile defenses.

30 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't agree that these are necessary for nomadic gameplay.

 The packable CCs are already fine for this. Also, I would rather nomads have mobility in their offense, not defense.

Edited May 29, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think the Suebians would a bit more familiar civ structure and thus better received. I totally support the nomadic civs, its just that I anticipate more disagreement on their units and mechanics.

Plus, I think work remains on making the two nomad civs look different.

We can always plan on Germans (Cimbri in EA, Suebians in DE) for Alpha 28, then nomads for Alpha 29...

 

Quote

Are the thracians ruled out?

They had the lowest number of votes in the last poll, tied with Thebans.

 

37 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The defenses to force yes, if they are not very exposed. They would have balance problems.

Scythians built fortresses, specifically the Crimean Scythians. They have a fortress in DE. Xiongnu might have built rammed earth fortresses (still need research on that).

Edited May 29, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

We can always plan on Germans (Cimbri in EA, Suebians in DE) for Alpha 28, then nomads for Alpha 29...

 

They had the lowest number of votes in the last poll, tied with Thebans.

 

Scythians built fortresses, specifically the Crimean Scythians. They have a fortress in DE. Xiongnu might have built rammed earth fortresses (still need research on that).

Cart fort for Xiongnu?

[Delfador]

Yayoi Japan!

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Scythians built fortresses, specifically the Crimean Scythians. They have a fortress in DE. Xiongnu might have built rammed earth fortresses (still need research on that).

Obviously, it is easier to portray the nomads with the same mechanics than the other civs. I think being innovative here is an overshoot.

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Cimbri in EA, Suebians in DE

Suebians are better. Cimbri are less interesting and less known.

If we say that Suebians are related to the Jastorf culture, then they are already appearing around 600 BC in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

They had the lowest number of votes in the last poll, tied with Thebans.

But now they have some proto-buildings. People couldn't picture the civ.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

AoE4 had Mongols as a nomadic civ, but basically all it meant was that their buildings could pack up into carts, and it was quite gimmicky. I would prefer to maintain the functionality of the cc (territory root, training) while it moves, and have it move very slowly, also other buildings should be mobile as well but faster and with a pack up pack down feature. moving cc territory would be very challenging without making some features to help make it feasible, such as a dedicated territory root building, permanently mobile storehouses and farmsteads, and/or buildings not decaying to gaia once they are out of cc territory. Nomadic society doesn't simply stop when they are on the move, so the cc should remain functional as it moves. Having a slow but still functional cc also means players need some planning and strategy while moving around the map, instead of zooming around and using the cc to snipe enemy units like in AoE4.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

38 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

AoE4 had Mongols as a nomadic civ, but basically all it meant was that their buildings could pack up into carts, and it was quite gimmicky. I would prefer to maintain the functionality of the cc (territory root, training) while it moves, and have it move very slowly, also other buildings should be mobile as well but faster and with a pack up pack down feature. moving cc territory would be very challenging without making some features to help make it feasible, such as a dedicated territory root building, permanently mobile storehouses and farmsteads, and/or buildings not decaying to gaia once they are out of cc territory. Nomadic society doesn't simply stop when they are on the move, so the cc should remain functional as it moves. Having a slow but still functional cc also means players need some planning and strategy while moving around the map, instead of zooming around and using the cc to snipe enemy units like in AoE4.

Can definitely play around with it. Have you played around in DE lately? 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Have you played around in DE lately? 

No, but @real_tabasco_sauce recommended that I check out the nomad implementation in it.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

No, but @real_tabasco_sauce recommended that I check out the nomad implementation in it.

Scythians are more complete than the Xiongnu, but both are playable. They're highly experimental.

[chrstgtr]

Anything but another Hellenistic faction. 

[alre]

for any nomadic civ, territory should be either not present or somehow secondary, I'm hoping for a civ that actually plays nomadic.

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

AoE4 had Mongols as a nomadic civ, but basically all it meant was that their buildings could pack up into carts, and it was quite gimmicky. I would prefer to maintain the functionality of the cc (territory root, training) while it moves, and have it move very slowly, also other buildings should be mobile as well but faster and with a pack up pack down feature. moving cc territory would be very challenging without making some features to help make it feasible, such as a dedicated territory root building, permanently mobile storehouses and farmsteads, and/or buildings not decaying to gaia once they are out of cc territory. Nomadic society doesn't simply stop when they are on the move, so the cc should remain functional as it moves. Having a slow but still functional cc also means players need some planning and strategy while moving around the map, instead of zooming around and using the cc to snipe enemy units like in AoE4.

I agree that packing/unpacking shouldn't be abused, and pure mobility could be used instead for a lot of units (that would be buildings in other civs, houses maybe).

[Delfador]

15 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Scythians are more complete than the Xiongnu, but both are playable. They're highly experimental.

I am not against nomadic tribes, but only if you teach them AI how to use mobile carts. And I hope you leave them at least some stockade...

[Delfador]

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Anything but another Hellenistic faction. 

As far as I can see, it would be more logical to replace Athens, which seems to be subordinate to the Macedonian Empire, with Epirus or Syracuse.

[Delfador]

21 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't agree that these are necessary for nomadic gameplay.

But I found another problem: in this picture of the war between Rome and the Cimbri, we see the presence of bows among the Romans. Maybe you will still give the Romans at least some bows in the 28th alpha?

Spoiler

Well, at least as a secondary weapon, like Anushiya of the Persians?

Spoiler

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Delfador

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, alre said:

for any nomadic civ, territory should be either not present or somehow secondary, I'm hoping for a civ that actually plays nomadic.

The Scythians and Xiongnu in DE only have territory attached to the CC and a small radius at that. That's to simply not break the AI and maybe give the nomad player some territory denial strats. No other buildings cast a territory and in fact can be built anywhere (own, allied, neutral, and enemy territory). The only building with a restriction is the Fortress and that is only restricted from building in enemy territory. 

The CC, house, and storehouse can be packed and moved. The House and Storehouse pack into the Resource Cart, which can unpack back into either of those. The Resource Cart is a dropsite for every resource and gives a small amount of pop cap bonus (half of a house), but is very vulnerable.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

16 minutes ago, Delfador said:

As far as I can see, it would be more logical to replace Athens, which seems to be subordinate to the Macedonian Empire, with Epirus or Syracuse.

No

[borg-]

10 minutes ago, Delfador said:

But I found another problem: in this picture of the war between Rome and the Cimbri, we see the presence of bows among the Romans. Maybe you will still give the Romans at least some bows in the 28th alpha? Well, at least as a secondary weapon, like Anushiya of the Persians?

  Hide contents

 

This is actually not a problem. All societies used all types of weapons throughout the history. The bow isn't important enough in Rome to be in the game, though that doesn't mean it was never used.

Edited May 30, 2023 by borg-

[Delfador]

18 minutes ago, borg- said:

This is actually not a problem. All societies used all types of weapons throughout the history. The bow isn't important enough in Rome to be in the game, though that doesn't mean it was never used.

Mercenary foot archers already served with the Roman republican army...

It could be mercenary archers. Another option is to allow the Romans to create archers only in the captured buildings of other factions. Or if you have another player on the map with archers, the Romans will also be able to hire these archers.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Delfador

[borg-]

3 minutes ago, Delfador said:

Mercenary foot archers already served with the Roman republican army...

It could be mercenary archers. Another option is to allow the Romans to create archers only in the captured buildings of other factions.

Yes, but I want to say that we must have some differences between civilizations. Historically, we can give all units to all factions, but I don't think that's the goal here.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Delfador said:

As far as I can see, it would be more logical to replace Athens, which seems to be subordinate to the Macedonian Empire, with Epirus or Syracuse.

No.

The set is dated approximately around 500 B.C to 1 B.C.

 

Athens was an important maritime empire that had their soldiers serving as mercenaries to other states and of controlling several states through some leagues.

 

It had one of the most reputable whaling fleets in the ancient world.

 

If you remove Athens you would have to remove Sparta as well.

 

Which is absurd considering The Greco-Persian Wars, therefore you would have to remove the Persian Empire.

49 minutes ago, Delfador said:

Mercenary foot archers already served with the Roman republican army...

It could be mercenary archers. Another option is to allow the Romans to create archers only in the captured buildings of other factions. Or if you have another player on the map with archers, the Romans will also be able to hire these archers.

Cretan Mercenary.