Personally, as a casual player, I'm not 100% against the Shencejun taking gold over time, but I feel like it should only kick in after you have a certain amount are in the field to deter people from spamming them.
I've been working on a dynastic split like this for the Chinese as well. I like your ideas here. I gave my tang a gather rate bonus rather than cheaper units to encourage booming and spreading out, but I like the reward for building Castles and TCs system you made. I focused my Tang design a little more on the religious aspect of early/mid tang with a civ bonus of cheaper monestaries and mon-techs. A silly idea I had was to replace Heressy with "Religious Tolerance" that made your unit change into a monk (still your color) after being converted. I also felt the Ji was too cool to not include, so I just had it as a reskin of the halb (I really love regional reskins/alts, although I understand needing to limit them for gameplay reasons). I really like the Modao as a 2HS alt! My one concern would be making it look different enough to indicate it shouldn’t be charged with cav, but still identifiable as a swordsman. For the UU, I was considering the Tiger Warrior (limited historical data iirc, but cool looking.) This would be a raiding unit. I was also considering the chukonu as an archery range unit that is strong against vills/low piece armor targets. The gameplan would be: boom, raid, overwhelm with swarm and superior eco. I look forward to seeing what you do with the other dynasties!
This is a cool build & I'd bet a pretty difficult one to play effectively. Esp in a game with lots of momentum swings or raiding/ pressure. With caravanserai I could see them as potentially broken / super powered in super long games. Since they can effectively give up vil creation for military effectiveness. But in a game thats progressed to post imp trade dependency - everyone does this already & no one else really gets a bonus for it.
I like tradeoffs when on a civ's start, but I have to say these ones bother me because they actively mess you up for the rest of the game. Like, 40 Shencejun that drain 160 gold per minute and vils taking longer to train if you click the button? No thanks, maybe you can argue for the strategic choice for the latter but they'd just make playing the civ more annoying. On top of that there are effects under effects under effects. For example Fu costing significantly more but adding an easy Chinese start and two vils per additional TCs like is nothing, on top of an aura (which I feel the same, they have to be used extremely sparingly). Questionable balance aside I think this just overcomplicates the game with mechanics to a point it loses what draws people into AoE2, which is its accessibility. As much as I respect Robby and the work he puts into making these works (and trust me, is a lot), if new civs in AoE2 would be like this I'd probably not play the game. They just don't belong and it's more of a fun civ to craft and think about than to play or play against.
And also regarding the weapon Modao since no surviving example had ever been discovered there're a few different interpretations as to how it looked like, in my personal opinion I favor the glaive interpretation better, which describes it as an oar-shaped double-edged glaive with a long handle but a shorter blade, and such type of glaive had been recorded on Song era military manuals.
I LOVE the idea of techs and units that give you a game warping effect with drawbacks (something something AOE3 cards) but lets be honest with ourselves here, this is WAY too spicy for AOE 2
Great video as always although I'm not entirely convinced that China should be divided based on dynasties. A slightly better term for Tangren in my opinion would be Guanlong Guizu or Guanlong Aristocracy, which referred to the Xianbei military aristocracy that founded the Northern Dynasties during the Age of Fragmentation as well as the subsequent unified Sui and Tang dynasties.
Good question! The Tanguts are Qiangic, meaning they are more closely related to the Tibetans than to the Han Chinese. I think many people would probably classify the Tanguts as part of a "Chinese split", along with the Jurchens and Khitans, but this is more of a colloquial grouping and I would say it's actually very inaccurate to the truth. Just because a group ruled China at one point definitely does not accurately make them part of a Chinese split! Much in the same way that the Mongols that conquered Russia aren't Slavs.
Depends on what you consider a split. If you see it as "They used to be represented by this other civ in campaign" then it's definitely a split and so are the Jurchens, but we have quite a few very ridiculous exemples of what could be used to represent a civ.
Language-wise they are an offshoot of the Burmese, as that's the only civ currently in that section of Sino-Tibetan language family. I think their connection to Chinese history and appearance in Genghis Khan 3 as Chinese kinda makes them a Chinese offshoot. But that also means the Jurchens are a Chinese split off. That's somewhat overemphasizing of the Chinese influence as indicating common heritage. It could be considered a Chinese split geographically, though, as the Tanguts did make their home in the region that's commonly considered China proper. This would mean that Khitans and Jurchens don't count.
I think most of my commentary on this civ would just retread old ground about dynasties not feeling right. So what else can I talk about, uhhh..... I might have stated this before, but I do find it annoying how the variant civs of AoE4 didn't make dynastic states or implemented lesser but period-relevant states. With Chinese in particular that could've worked, rather than having Chinese civ and then a variant that's based around a philosophy. A wasted concept. I know Habsburgs were considered, but, I mean, the dynasty was too many things at once. It was Austrian, Bohemian, Burgundian, Dutch, Spanish, Italian (well, Sicilian), Aragonese, Hungarian, Teuton.... and anything else you would split off from these civs. I personally stove that away under ideas that are experimental but don't blend well with existing principles. So, in the end, the only civilization implemented in game, that is broken on a terminological level, is the Vikings as they should be called Norse. I honestly have doubts about what The Conquerors would even look like if it had Habsburgs instead. Would the Montezuma campaign features the Habsburgs instead of the Spanish, since the Habsburgs ruled Spain in that time? Or would there not even be a Spanish civ at all, since the Habsburgs cover Spain under their rule? Would the El Cid campaign be replaced with a Habsburg one? Just for the record, which civilizations would you break by dynasty, or which civs would be purely dynastic? In particular in regards to Europe, as I seem to find strongest resistance to European dynastic splits. France and England in particular being changed into dynasties. House of Normandy vs Plantagenets vs Tudors? Would you add Habsburgs, since the devs considered them? Would you break Byzantines by dynasty? Or something like House Jagiellon? Campaign appearances are none, if we treat it as dynastic. The Tang dynasty in Kaesong is of Shatuo origin, not related to the proper Tang. Unless you want to count the Five dynasties period as being Tang dynasty overall.
Yeah, I think the habsburgs would also be a severe mistake unless they were added ON TOP OF the other civilizations they ruled. But if they were added as a unique blend of Renaissance Europe I could see them being interesting. China is by far and away the most important civilization to dynastically split in my opinion, but besides them I would agree with you that France and England are up there. The core Islamic powers could also be argued to require dynastic splitting, but I THINK that can probably be done while sticking within a largely ethnic framework, just by pure coincidence. There are a bunch of other arguable ones, but for me the other one that I think is really important to do is Japan! There are some interesting and relevant sub ethnicities within Japan that could possibly be their own civilizations, but those are very largely not relevant after like 1,000 AD, and I would love to see more variety in the Sengoku Jidai and similar
I don't understand why they are said an infantry civilization. They have a great unit in the castle but it's regional so not unique. They have a unique unit but it is not strictly better than a champion. They have fubing but scouts and skirmishers benefit from it so it's not only for infantry. Their unique cavalry unit is pretty bad. Just one more attack than a cavalier but -2 mêlée armor and no bloodlines. And as they drain gold, why would you pay for them? The lack of bracer is not a big deal I would say as everybody doesn't need to have it but why do they have Parthian tactics?
I put them as an infantry civilization because that's the only part of their tech tree they are not missing something crippling from. As I mentioned earlier in the video, they would be better classified as a combined arms civilization, but since this is lavanilla I am trying not to get too weird with the titles. I think the unique cavalry is going to be highly underrated. It's much cheaper than a heavy cavalry unit and is also much faster, so even though it drains gold I still think it will have a strong niche to play. If it ended up being weak though I'd be happy to buff it, probably by reducing the cost. They have parthian tactics because of their extensive use of Turkish mercenaries, which started in around the 1630s and went on for the duration of the dynasty. Huge part of their military composition, so I really wanted to reference it!
@@robbylava The moment you put gold drain in the mix you already went "too weird". I can pass the nerf in training time but losing resources over time is manageable on paper but during the chaos of a battle can be very annoying. There has to be a better way to define this unit.
Don't like the Shencejun. Bad stats for drain. Make them have better pierce, maybe +1, and at least +1 melee. Drain ability is meh. No. :| And they do need bloodlines. Or a civ trait, to boost, maybe +5-10 HP per armor tech?
Personally, as a casual player, I'm not 100% against the Shencejun taking gold over time, but I feel like it should only kick in after you have a certain amount are in the field to deter people from spamming them.
You know it's a good theorycraft when you've never heard of them
Great vid robby. Havent watched in a while cos i got out of aoe2 for a bit but good to see your still going at it.
Ah finally, great video RobbyLAVA
Ahhhh! So hyped!!!
Good to be back here
Actually i love this build and that conscript idea is amasing, i would love to have that on!! Bring on the Song & the Ming too!!
I've been working on a dynastic split like this for the Chinese as well. I like your ideas here.
I gave my tang a gather rate bonus rather than cheaper units to encourage booming and spreading out, but I like the reward for building Castles and TCs system you made.
I focused my Tang design a little more on the religious aspect of early/mid tang with a civ bonus of cheaper monestaries and mon-techs. A silly idea I had was to replace Heressy with "Religious Tolerance" that made your unit change into a monk (still your color) after being converted.
I also felt the Ji was too cool to not include, so I just had it as a reskin of the halb (I really love regional reskins/alts, although I understand needing to limit them for gameplay reasons). I really like the Modao as a 2HS alt! My one concern would be making it look different enough to indicate it shouldn’t be charged with cav, but still identifiable as a swordsman.
For the UU, I was considering the Tiger Warrior (limited historical data iirc, but cool looking.) This would be a raiding unit. I was also considering the chukonu as an archery range unit that is strong against vills/low piece armor targets. The gameplan would be: boom, raid, overwhelm with swarm and superior eco.
I look forward to seeing what you do with the other dynasties!
Casual player here. Love the beefy infantry. Appalled by two self-inflicted penalties.
Robby! Please make a vid about Rome at War mod!
This is a cool build & I'd bet a pretty difficult one to play effectively. Esp in a game with lots of momentum swings or raiding/ pressure. With caravanserai I could see them as potentially broken / super powered in super long games. Since they can effectively give up vil creation for military effectiveness. But in a game thats progressed to post imp trade dependency - everyone does this already & no one else really gets a bonus for it.
27:34 The Dai Li look different here
I'd rather keep it simple. Nobody likes nerfs (longer training times) and this new aura mechanics... It just don't fit right in AoE.
@@MaxHardcore-p7t Talking to myself could be the first syndrome of shizophrenia.
I like tradeoffs when on a civ's start, but I have to say these ones bother me because they actively mess you up for the rest of the game.
Like, 40 Shencejun that drain 160 gold per minute and vils taking longer to train if you click the button? No thanks, maybe you can argue for the strategic choice for the latter but they'd just make playing the civ more annoying.
On top of that there are effects under effects under effects. For example Fu costing significantly more but adding an easy Chinese start and two vils per additional TCs like is nothing, on top of an aura (which I feel the same, they have to be used extremely sparingly).
Questionable balance aside I think this just overcomplicates the game with mechanics to a point it loses what draws people into AoE2, which is its accessibility.
As much as I respect Robby and the work he puts into making these works (and trust me, is a lot), if new civs in AoE2 would be like this I'd probably not play the game. They just don't belong and it's more of a fun civ to craft and think about than to play or play against.
And also regarding the weapon Modao since no surviving example had ever been discovered there're a few different interpretations as to how it looked like, in my personal opinion I favor the glaive interpretation better, which describes it as an oar-shaped double-edged glaive with a long handle but a shorter blade, and such type of glaive had been recorded on Song era military manuals.
I LOVE the idea of techs and units that give you a game warping effect with drawbacks (something something AOE3 cards) but lets be honest with ourselves here, this is WAY too spicy for AOE 2
Great video as always although I'm not entirely convinced that China should be divided based on dynasties. A slightly better term for Tangren in my opinion would be Guanlong Guizu or Guanlong Aristocracy, which referred to the Xianbei military aristocracy that founded the Northern Dynasties during the Age of Fragmentation as well as the subsequent unified Sui and Tang dynasties.
Castle Age unique tech - benefits post-imp game best. Leaves this civ without good unique tech in Castle. Unique unit DRAINS gold? Nah.
Didn't the Tanguts count as a Chinese split?
Good question! The Tanguts are Qiangic, meaning they are more closely related to the Tibetans than to the Han Chinese.
I think many people would probably classify the Tanguts as part of a "Chinese split", along with the Jurchens and Khitans, but this is more of a colloquial grouping and I would say it's actually very inaccurate to the truth.
Just because a group ruled China at one point definitely does not accurately make them part of a Chinese split! Much in the same way that the Mongols that conquered Russia aren't Slavs.
@@robbylava Well, that goes to show how much I know about Chinese ethnicities/dynasties.
I mean... kinda? They were more a northern people who were influenced by the Chinese. Like the Khitans and Jurchens
Depends on what you consider a split. If you see it as "They used to be represented by this other civ in campaign" then it's definitely a split and so are the Jurchens, but we have quite a few very ridiculous exemples of what could be used to represent a civ.
Language-wise they are an offshoot of the Burmese, as that's the only civ currently in that section of Sino-Tibetan language family.
I think their connection to Chinese history and appearance in Genghis Khan 3 as Chinese kinda makes them a Chinese offshoot. But that also means the Jurchens are a Chinese split off. That's somewhat overemphasizing of the Chinese influence as indicating common heritage.
It could be considered a Chinese split geographically, though, as the Tanguts did make their home in the region that's commonly considered China proper. This would mean that Khitans and Jurchens don't count.
I think most of my commentary on this civ would just retread old ground about dynasties not feeling right. So what else can I talk about, uhhh.....
I might have stated this before, but I do find it annoying how the variant civs of AoE4 didn't make dynastic states or implemented lesser but period-relevant states. With Chinese in particular that could've worked, rather than having Chinese civ and then a variant that's based around a philosophy. A wasted concept.
I know Habsburgs were considered, but, I mean, the dynasty was too many things at once. It was Austrian, Bohemian, Burgundian, Dutch, Spanish, Italian (well, Sicilian), Aragonese, Hungarian, Teuton.... and anything else you would split off from these civs. I personally stove that away under ideas that are experimental but don't blend well with existing principles. So, in the end, the only civilization implemented in game, that is broken on a terminological level, is the Vikings as they should be called Norse.
I honestly have doubts about what The Conquerors would even look like if it had Habsburgs instead. Would the Montezuma campaign features the Habsburgs instead of the Spanish, since the Habsburgs ruled Spain in that time? Or would there not even be a Spanish civ at all, since the Habsburgs cover Spain under their rule? Would the El Cid campaign be replaced with a Habsburg one?
Just for the record, which civilizations would you break by dynasty, or which civs would be purely dynastic? In particular in regards to Europe, as I seem to find strongest resistance to European dynastic splits. France and England in particular being changed into dynasties. House of Normandy vs Plantagenets vs Tudors? Would you add Habsburgs, since the devs considered them? Would you break Byzantines by dynasty? Or something like House Jagiellon?
Campaign appearances are none, if we treat it as dynastic. The Tang dynasty in Kaesong is of Shatuo origin, not related to the proper Tang. Unless you want to count the Five dynasties period as being Tang dynasty overall.
Yeah, I think the habsburgs would also be a severe mistake unless they were added ON TOP OF the other civilizations they ruled. But if they were added as a unique blend of Renaissance Europe I could see them being interesting.
China is by far and away the most important civilization to dynastically split in my opinion, but besides them I would agree with you that France and England are up there. The core Islamic powers could also be argued to require dynastic splitting, but I THINK that can probably be done while sticking within a largely ethnic framework, just by pure coincidence.
There are a bunch of other arguable ones, but for me the other one that I think is really important to do is Japan! There are some interesting and relevant sub ethnicities within Japan that could possibly be their own civilizations, but those are very largely not relevant after like 1,000 AD, and I would love to see more variety in the Sengoku Jidai and similar
Wonder Power could be Changan itself?
Day 1 of asking for a Saxony Theorycarft (or HRE, germanic civs)
I would also help with this one.
I don't understand why they are said an infantry civilization. They have a great unit in the castle but it's regional so not unique. They have a unique unit but it is not strictly better than a champion. They have fubing but scouts and skirmishers benefit from it so it's not only for infantry.
Their unique cavalry unit is pretty bad. Just one more attack than a cavalier but -2 mêlée armor and no bloodlines. And as they drain gold, why would you pay for them?
The lack of bracer is not a big deal I would say as everybody doesn't need to have it but why do they have Parthian tactics?
I put them as an infantry civilization because that's the only part of their tech tree they are not missing something crippling from. As I mentioned earlier in the video, they would be better classified as a combined arms civilization, but since this is lavanilla I am trying not to get too weird with the titles.
I think the unique cavalry is going to be highly underrated. It's much cheaper than a heavy cavalry unit and is also much faster, so even though it drains gold I still think it will have a strong niche to play. If it ended up being weak though I'd be happy to buff it, probably by reducing the cost.
They have parthian tactics because of their extensive use of Turkish mercenaries, which started in around the 1630s and went on for the duration of the dynasty. Huge part of their military composition, so I really wanted to reference it!
@@robbylava
The moment you put gold drain in the mix you already went "too weird". I can pass the nerf in training time but losing resources over time is manageable on paper but during the chaos of a battle can be very annoying. There has to be a better way to define this unit.
Don't like the Shencejun. Bad stats for drain. Make them have better pierce, maybe +1, and at least +1 melee. Drain ability is meh. No. :|
And they do need bloodlines. Or a civ trait, to boost, maybe +5-10 HP per armor tech?
Day 2 of asking for a Saxony Theorycarft
Really prefer Chinese split into Dynasty (Tang, Song & Ming) Instead one civilization since they have different philosophy how to govern & military
No, Tang is an empire not a civ. This is like spit the Briton into Wessex, Plantagenet and Tudor.
Which they should do. He mentions he has a whole video on the topic. Dynasties > Civs
First!