Someone else should correct me if I am wrong but from what I remember of AGE it is technically feasible even for a user made data mod.Is there a reason you can't give them new villager specific blacksmith techs where the cavalry upgrades normally go?
It certainly doesn't seem like a terrible idea. I'm interested to hear what others think.For me it makes a lot of sense, one tech in each age that gives +1 damage and +1 armour for villagers, can balance via cost and research time separately from everything else, nerfs their easy follow up into eagles and as much as I hate getting wrecked by Salicum, the strat gets to stay in the game.
100% agree with this. Can we not have more free armor upgrades pls? Ww with free +2/+4 is already unreasonably strong in some situations.I like the idea, my only worry is that this might make FC eagle opening kinda broken. Castle age eagles are already unbeatable by feudal units (m@a +2 damage is a joke, it's weaker than the +3 attack eagles get for free). Especially the second armor upgrade is expensive on an FC economy, so getting that for free is a bit yikes, imagine a knight civ getting chain barding for free.
huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.100% agree with this. Can we not have more free armor upgrades pls? Ww with free +2/+4 is already unreasonably strong in some situations.
Better idea would be to change the bonus to only apply defense upgrades to vills, not attack. At least untill castle age.
Go back to age of kings manJust take them out of the ****ing game.
As Burgundians and Sicilians have shown we are in desperate need of more of those. This should not be considered a valid reason for discounting an idea.reserved for a new DLC civ
We all can wish.Go back to age of kings man
The "problem" with Incas is that they are just a worse version of Aztecs and Mayans, economically as well as militarily.
Everything Incas do is done better by those two civs. The only thing they got going for them identity wise are their counter units, however they are kind of gimmicky and you usually won't see them as the backbone of their army. That said, they still have eagles, so they will be more than fine even with the removal of the boxing vills. It just makes them more boring to play.
As Burgundians and Sicilians have shown we are in desperate need of more of those. This should not be considered a valid reason for discounting an idea.
I can't believe we even talk about another civ like it is normal. It is an absurdity to me. Burgundians and Sicilians added negative value to the MP experience and it is clear beyond day that the current number of civs is too many rather than too few. Even taking it into account as a given based on what we all expect the developers to do with their dismal track record condones it too much.I'm not disagreeing with you. But there's no denying the devs have followed a very consistent trait with each DLC released with a new civ added.
Rise of Rajas gave Burmese no 2nd archer armour, Malay no 2nd cav armour.
DE in its final release gave Tatars no second infantry armour up and later Bulgarians get cheaper SW techs.
Then this new DLC civs cavalier in castle age and cheaper stable techs
I really wouldn't be surprised if the next civ gives 2h swordsman in castle age with cheaper barrack techs. It's inevitable
I can't believe some people keep crying on this stuff. Don't like the civs, don't play them man. And that applies to every cov you don't like. For those AoK purists as well.I can't believe we even talk about another civ like it is normal. It is an absurdity to me. Burgundians and Sicilians added negative value to the MP experience and it is clear beyond day that the current number of civs is too many rather than too few. Even taking it into account as a given based on what we all expect the developers to do with their dismal track record condones it too much.
Is this a serious response?I can't believe some people keep crying on this stuff. Don't like the civs, don't play them man. And that applies to every cov you don't like. For those AoK purists as well.
There's another DLC comming. And probably, a couple more down the road. Deal with it
Of course it is. Protest as much as you want, but for me some new civs more interesting that some old ones.Is this a serious response?
You use such loaded words like "crying" and "whining" to imply that what I say is not valid. Why is you liking the civ more important than me (or others) not?Of course it is. Protest as much as you want, but for me some new civs more interesting that some old ones.
You can always find people to play arabia hun wars. Go for it. Please yourself. And stop winning about the fact that some people might like bulgarians, or Sicilians, or whatever civ you consider unnecessary.
That, or build a time machine and go back to 2003 to play AoC. And if you manage to do that, let me know, I would like to spend a few days in 1975. Wanna see Aerosmith in Toys in the attic era
I'm not saying is valid or not. I'm just saying is useless. Stating that "there are too many civs" won't make devs say "yeah, he's right, let wipe out 15 of them"You use such loaded words like "crying" and "whining" to imply that what I say is not valid. Why is you liking the civ more important than me (or others) not?
Yeah, in tower vs tower war, that +1 armor makes a big difference in villagers recieving arrows.huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.
Yes. And I don't think that vils having more attack is useful for a tower rush (I mean, yeah, somehow useful, but they're sitll dying to archers/towers). So i don't think the bonus can be tweaked that wayYeah, in tower vs tower war, that +1 armor makes a big difference in villagers recieving arrows.
I don't necessarily agree that it adds nothing to the discussion. If there is any plausible doubt to whether the civ should be in the game or not - as exists by default for every civ post-AoK - then there can be value to bringing this up in a discussion. In an ideal design setting it is a completely viable option to discard additions that proved to not to make sense rather than sticking with them because they are there.I'm not saying is valid or not. I'm just saying is useless. Stating that "there are too many civs" won't make devs say "yeah, he's right, let wipe out 15 of them"
Anyway I won't continue to argue with you. The thing that annoys me (and it's not a thing that only you do, but rather a common practice here) is that when some people is discussing about how to cchange a civ, there's always someone who says "let's take them out of the game" as if was something funny/useful/intelligent/plausible to do. Man, if what you're about to say doesn't add anything to the discussion, then don't say anything at all
Yes, you should start with armor, but in vil wars, they double down on each other, meaning they make each other stronger. At least you can fight back with more vills and defenders adventage when they try to dive your tower. After they got both upgrades, NOPE. You are just gg if you cant mine gold for archers.huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.