Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Tibetans -- AoE2 Civ Theorycraft
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- Civ Doc: docs.google.co...
Chapters:
00:00 Good to see you!
02:04 History
08:31 North Asian Architecture
13:40 Flavor & Campaigns
19:38 Major Themes
23:07 Overview
32:26 Tech Tree
36:34 Playstyle
39:34 Loose Threads
49:21 Conclusion
Hear me out:
Sons of Heaven expansion
Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Tibetans
Chinese and Koreans campaigns
Trust the plan.
I also have strong suspicions that we'll be getting an East Asian DLC this year. the devs hint at a Dynastien of India dlc on their 2023 roadmap.. which civ split would make more sense than china?
@@Steve-mx9rr None, tbf. I can see Slavs being split but I don't think the civ has as many problems as did Indians. Chinese are also fine as the Han civ, even if they end up swapping some things around like one or two boni/techs.
Slavs are a split that has happened in every way but the actual split itself. The only groups that could still use adding are Serbs and/or Croats, alongside division of Ruthenians and Rus. I would also hazard a guess that this split might necessitate addition of the Vlachs, due to the Vlad Dracula campaign no longer having a generic Slavs faction to fall back on.
Vikings are also a potential split that could happen, but would probably be controversial if it occurred. But it isn't really a split without precedent. I personally would do the Romans-Italians maneuver and keep the Norse as the pre-Christian Scandinavian civ, while adding Danes, Swedes and Norwegians for the post-Viking era. So perhaps not a split necessarily.
If we assume that the Chinese need to be renamed to Han if those others are added, then we also have to assume that the Incas would also have to be renamed if the peoples they conquered are added. In this case, being renamed to Quechua. I personally don't think either the Chinese or the Incas need a rename in such situations. And in case of the Incas, perhaps something more would be done with the Slingers, becoming a regional unit, perhaps? Equating the Elephant Archer usage among more Indian civs.
Some more esoteric choices might a Saracen division, a Spanish dissolution or an India 2.0 with Hindustanis or Dravidians. Which of these, what, 7 splits is more likely probably depends on what exactly the devs think is the big thing about the Indian DLC that they're mentioning in that post.
I would be over the friggin moon if this was announced. I've said it before and I'll say it again: East Asia is the single most underdeveloped region in Age of Empires 2 and absolutely deserves more than it has now!
Now I just need to make sure I get my own builds out for all those civilizations before they release them so I can capitalize on the hype heheheh
@@Crossil I don't think Chinese need to be renamed to Han because the concept of "China" as a civilization mostly revolve around that ethnicity and just had some different overlords over the centuries. Weird comparison, but it would be like having a Romans civilization first, then adding Germans (or Teutons) but having to rename Romans to Latins because the some germans claimed to be emperors of the romans and ruled over a sizable latin population.
By the Gods, YES!
You called it Spear-slayer, you absolutely called it!
Hoooo baby this is one I have been waiting for!
Tibetans have such strange combinations of concepts that would make for a fantastic civ.
Also loved the cold open, nice play on the situation. Fun fact, this civ nearly did make it into the game in the first expansion. So that might be part of why people are so keen to see it.
Really? i didn't know they considered to add it! I didn't even know Tibet had been an empire. Would be very cool addition to the game.
Well thank you very much Tyranitar! I was pleased with that opening too heheheh
I had no idea they were ever slated for the game! That certainly lends credence to me upping my likeliometer score. Either way, I really hope you enjoyed the build! Medieval Tibet, as I've learned, is a ridiculously underrated and fascinating part of history.
Welp... time for that part of the world China doesn't want people talking about.
Admittedly, I heard from somewhere that the Chinese government doesn't care as strongly for medieval or ancient depictions of Tibet, so Microsoft might be able to get away with it. They probably won't attempt it, but it's probably more likely than some others
That assumption, to my knowledge, is based on the fact that Paradox Interactive games have featured Tibet in, like, every single one of the Europa Universalis games, and the last two Crusader Kings games without any problems, whereas Hearts of Iron has been banned due to showcasing the true state of the Chinese Communists in World War 2.
So they aren't out of the Chinese purview based on the latter, but the Chinese censors are apparently not bothered by the former. Thus the assumption goes that Tibet is fair play when looking at its pre-Qing era.
OOOOH, now THIS is information I did not know! Well thank you very much for sharing Crossil! This is definitely grounds for me to update my likeliometer.
49:32
I think that's my favourite civ you made until now, I think.
I love the theme, and I love how it was implemented.
It should be a monster in team games with the abundance of gold from trade.
Nice! Awesome to hear man, thank you so much for saying so!
I've been sick & rather.....distracted with other catastrophes in life. But I can still do a run thru 11111:
Historical quibble: One unusual thing on this build is that I have a historical quibble with your build!
Specifically, one of the only contemporaneous writings we have about the army of the Tibetan empire said this: "Their lances are longer and thinner than those in China. Their archery is weak but their armor is strong. " (see wikipedia article on the tibetan empire)
While this quote is attributed to a chinese author (so maybe biased), and one has to be careful about wikipedia quotes (*cough* thirisadai), it may be one of the best insights that we have into the Tibetan military and it indicates that the strong archery focus you've given the civ -- I'd say your Tibetans' best unit is the cav archer -- may be ahistorical. Just because the Tibetans revered the bow, they may have been low quality archers.
Team bonus:
-- Faster training monks. Decent, small like many team bonuses. Kinda the same as the lithuanians' team bonus, probably slightly better?
Bonuses:
-- gold from military production buildings: This is a pretty small bonus. Assuming you build 1 barracks in dark age and ~3 military production throughout feudal, it only nets you 70 gold. In late game though, it will mean that Tibetans minimum market sell price is effectively ~28.5g / 100wood, which is 2x the usual market bottom-out price and may not be the effect you intended
-- Onesie armor: I like this bonus, is quite unique & of course saves a decent amount of research time and resources. Not certain why the last armor is only +1/1, seems a little odd, especially with the gambesons bonus only becoming a compensation for this rather than a straight bonus
-- sup/gambe: cheaper cav archers & steppe lancer is cool, although the other aspects of the bonus (+1 PA, speed) seem more like slight re-ordering/re-shuffling of normal techs.
UTs:
Castle -- relic bonus: This needs a cap (like lithuanians), particularly for maps with >5 relics. Otherwise it is interesting and powerful, and hopefully balanced since it requires a castle / UT research and does not easily stack.
Imperial -- cursed monks: The effect is uber powerful (-5 hp and -1/1 armor per second), but since the range is only 4 tiles, I'm not sure this would see much use. Maybe vs. enemy melee units in combination with cav archers (?)
UU:
EverythingCav: seems like a very complicated unit. I don't say that it is necessarily unbalanced, but I don't think I like it. The Ratha is a fairly boring unit, despite its complexity, and I'm suspicious that adding another layer of weapon-changes only makes a unit more complicated but not any more interesting.
Tech tree: I think you underscore them in a number of areas (defenses, archers, levies), but overall the tech tree seems fine.
Overall gameplay: This civ seems like a fairly slow steppe lancer / cav-archer civ. Lacking strong early game eco bonuses they aren't likely to have the advantage early-on against most other civs, but once they can snag a relic or two and start building cheaper, +1 atk cav archers or steppe lancers, they will come into their own. Overall, I suspect they'd be on the weak side, unless on a map with 10,000 relics.
Nice & interesting civ concept, as always! I did particularly like the bundled armor techs, and monk UTs.
Good to see you back, Simbelmynë. I hope you're doing all right.
I imagine Robby did think of the building bonus as a potential market replacement. Not that I know, of course. But otherwise their eco would be rather lacking.
Hey! Good to see you again my friend! So sorry to hear you've been sick and busy.
Bjarke is right in that I did, at least partially, intend for the military building bonus to somewhat substitute for a late-game market. I may well change out the bonus, though if I do I definitely would want to buff the civ in another way to compensate for a very poor economy.
Now, on to the historical quibble! You are right that Wikipedia does say that, but in this case I can say it is pretty much 100% incorrect! I read not one but two academic sources in my research that indicated the precise opposite -- one even went so far as to say that the bow was the single most important weapon in all of golden age Tibet.
Now that's not to say that Wikipedia is entirely wrong here. They may just be going off of contemporary Chinese sources which would have been more likely to downplay Tibetan archery, particularly since by this point china was pretty much the land of the crossbow. But that's mostly speculation!
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Great to have you back my friend!
Ah, Wikipedia being deceiving again? Or perhaps there is some discrepancy like you said between the chinese view of things and reality.
It could be both! And there's always a chance that my sources are wrong too, I just tend towards stuff that seems more thorough and better cited. And in this particular case I wouldn't be so adamant had the sources I found not been saying the exact opposite of Wikipedia here!
I think Tibetans would be the perfect civ to have a "dismount" feature. Give them a Unique Building that allows their Takhrab to garrison inside and then ungarrison as Infantry, able to reenter and remount whenever you need them.
The idea of building a forward Garrison for my raiding Takhrabs to dismount in and destroy the enemy counter halberdiers sounds hilarious and incredibly fun.
And it's a great idea to make a separate North Asian architecture set, since I've always found Mongols having East Asian architecture with all those bamboo frames a bit unrealistic since bamboos don't grow on the steppes.
Really enjoyed this Civ build.
Really liked the unique unit and the multi weapon aspect.
For the weapon swap what if they could be changed simlar to how one can change unit formation or unit stance that way u know which weapon tyoe ur using Might be easier then it cycling through. I do see the point of it being too powerful this way but it does cost 3 resources. Plus I think with modding that could be addressed where if it did beocme too powerful it could be altered slightly.
Liked how u kept the sword, lance, and bow theme throught the build.
Really liked sngags pa and the effect it gave to Monks. A unique ability. I wonder if that could destinguish the different monk like units from ur previous video. Each monk like unkit could have a different ability like draining HP but maybe not as strong. Or with shamans they have effects that work on animals like maybe being able to control wild animals.
The civs seems pretty historical plus it might teach people about history that they didint know. I learned a lot on this one about Tibetan history that i didn't know so its fine.
I think they should get caravensai. From a histiorical reason but also I feel they might need it since their economy is lacking and I dont think would make them over powered.
I hope you add the Zhags Pa as a second UU.
I wonder if they were under a more politically neutral name if they would be more accepted by China.
Hey, thank you so much Gaetano ! I love your multi-button idea for the weapon switching, I think I'm definitely going to put that into the next recraft. And I'm really glad that you think the build worked well, especially on the historical side!
Having different monks all have different powers is something I intend to explore, though I think I'm going to do it in a bit of a sneaky way! Probably will go into it in part three of my religious overhaul, whenever that comes out.
And I really appreciate all the rest of your feedback my friend! Always great to see you in the comments section
I think the "Into China" mission from the Genghis Khan campaign could have the Tibetans instead of two Tanguts factions.
Yeah, another commenter mentioned this too! Definitely a valid way of doing it, though it might be a stretch. I probably should have mentioned it though
Um, not really. Tibetans and Tanguts aren't interchangeable, although they were both Tibeto-Burman speakers and likely shared some bloodlines, by the 13th century they were pretty much distinct peoples. I'd prefer to have both the Tanguts and the Tibetans as new civs and both should appear in the Genghis Khan campaign.
Exactly what I meant?
9:41
So very close to how it already is for the house and the TC 😅
22:38
I just thought of a team bonus, anytime a member of the team researches a technology, all other members get a cumulative discount on that technology (I don't know what would be a balanced value, specially considering the first ones would get 0% and in a team, there are some specialisation happening, so not everyone will get the cavalry armour, but everyone will get the economy ones).
I also noticed that it would do literally nothing in single player.
So it could include techs searched by enemies, but with a smaller discount.
I have actually done a very similar bonus on another build! When you get to it I'm curious to see whether you will notice it hehehe
@@robbylava, you are probably talking about the one with the UT that "copied" monastery techs and you later changed into getting a big discount (I forgot from which civilization it was).
At least that's that's my guess.
If not, I think I haven't seen yet.
40:42
I like the build.
Maybe your most versatile build, at least for the middle of the game.
YEEEEEESSSSS! One of the OG speculated civs!!
Hell yeah dude! I literally just learned from another commenter that they were at one point slated to be included in an expansion, how cool would that have been?!
Hope you enjoyed the build alchemist!
Wow, i never knew tibet used to be such a superpower!
I love the relic bonus technology, very flavorful! And the curse monks are very spicyyy
Heheheh thanks bud!
Great build, Robby! I especially like the Three Circles theme and how it permeates the entire civ.
Some thoughts:
*Bonuses:*
- Bonus food/gold: You know, Robby, Johannes' Norwegians bonus still takes top spot, but this one will come in at a close second. It's excellent! And - for once - I can elaborate extensively on everything I think is _right_ about one of your ideas, so please indulge me:
1) In Dark Age 10 gold means you don't have to send a villager to collect it for a Drush strat. 10 extra food is just a nice little bonus.
2) In Feudal Age it's pretty negligible, but free stuff is always nice!
3) In Castle Age it works more or less as the equivalent of 1 swordsman, 1/2 knight or 2/3 lancer for free with every building. Nothing gamebreaking, but it can give that little extra to a push or when defending.
4) The Imperial Age, however, is what makes me like this so much. I don't know if you've thought about it, but 50 gold/building(175 wood) makes it -exactly- twice as good as selling wood at bottom prices without Guilds, effectively giving them one of the best lategame markets. And you get the same amount of food as well!
But wait, doesn't that just make their "market" overpowered, with quadruple gain and all?
Well, a) this is a lot more micro-intensive, as you'd have to actually build stuff to get the resources (and have the space to do so); b) lacking Treadmill Crane further impedes this; 3) they don't get Bow Saw, making their wood income (potentially) slower; d) the are an Elite civ, so it'd make sense for them to have some improved way of getting gold.
With all the obstacles and requirements to actually get the extra gold, this makes it a strong but not overpowered bonus, in my opinion. And with the added food gain as well, I'd imagine them having more villagers assigned to collecting wood than average, thereby mitigating their lack of Bow Saw. And I can even see them buying wood lategame as well (if needed), as it would be a small net gain if done at lowest prices.
So all in all, probably my favourite bonus of yours so far, second only to Johannes'. Well done!
- Armor: The package deal! It's a good idea, but they are rather cheap. This is just my opinion, but I'd say that they should each be more expensive than any armor tech of their tier, but cheaper than all of their tier combined. Something like 200 food -> 350 food/200 gold -> 450 food/300 gold. Adding wood as a third resource cost to further emphasize the uniqueness of the techs is also an option.
- Supplies/Gambesons: Since they only have +1/+1 on the final armor upgrade, this one's quite interesting. Their "core" units gain full armor, but everything else doesn't. And it might make for a strong late Castle Age with that +1p.
- Team bonus: More wololos = more fun. More team wololos = much more fun!
*Unique unit/techs:*
- Takhrab Paidungpa: Three weapons? Three?!? You madlad! Also, the synergy with Gonkhang is really nice.
- Gonkhang: Great UT! Utilising relics is a clever move, especially with the monk focus. Does it cap at two levels for all the bonuses (on maps with more relics)?
- Sngags Pa: -More wololos = more fun.- More wololos = more deadly! Interesting and cool mechanic. I think the more useful part is actually the armor debuff. Monks can rip open heavily armored enemies quite fast, leaving them vulnerable to - well, pretty much anything, really.
One question: Does it replace conversions or add a toggle between the two functions? -And would the range be the same as conversion range or healing range?-
*Uncertainties/tabled ideas:*
- Remove barracks from bonus: No! Nooooo. No. Nu-uh. Nope. Nyet. Nein. Non. Iie. Nej!
Reducing the food/gold is better anyway, if it really needs to be tuned. Please don't, though. The *-exact-* double of regular market bottom returns is just too neat.
- Caravanserai: Could be good, could be too strong. Not really sure. I think their military is strong enough already, so maybe just leave it out. Someone else might provide better insight here, though.
- Herdables revealed? Awww... no laming? Boo.
It's a nice bonus, though, so it'd be cool to see it in some other build.
- Parthian Tactics bonus: +1/+2 armor in Castle Age at half the price sounds a tad on the strong side. I'd probably go with only one of the two things.
- Formation speed: Good idea for a bonus! But it needs a (significant) cooldown, as otherwise you could just keep switching formation to maintain the extra speed. Maybe also have it require more than one unit, so you can't just auto-escape/chase with a single unit. Not sure about the latter.
- Castle food bonus: See "Remove barracks from bonus".
- Zhags Pa: Cowboys in the game? Um, yes please! (And no, I'm not joking here.)
- Las Rgyu Bras: Wickedest rubber band tech ever! Very fun to use, not very fun to be up against.
- Phong Spyad: **cough** Less train _time_ **cough**
To sum it up: Nice build! And fairly well balanced, I think.
And kudos to Tomáš for that architecture presentation! It was really nice to get an idea of how it might look when implemented.
edit: Okay, the building bonus isn't exactly double a normal market... but it is pretty close.
Also, just spotted the range of Sngags Pa, so never mind that.
To give an update on the Military building resource bonus (I saw someone else comment that it was too strong, so now I had to know, haha):
This test used 1 Villager right next to a Lumber Camp, so no walking distance. Tested with both 1 and 2 minutes.
+ Double-Bit Axe: 28 wood/min
+ Bow Saw: 33,5 wood/min
+ Two-Man Saw: 37 wood/min
In a scenario with 50 villagers on wood, this would amount to 1400/min with Double-Bit Axe, 1675/min with Bow Saw and 1850/min with Two-Man Saw.
1675 wood can be sold at bottom prices for 234,5 gold, or 284,75 gold with Guilds.
1850 wood can be sold for 259 gold, or 314,5 with Guilds
Tibetans (without Bow Saw) can exchange 1400 wood for 400 gold by building military buildings, plus another 56 if they sell the extra food.
Tibetans wood->gold exchange compared to other civs:
- With Bow Saw, without Guilds: 94,5% increase
- With Bow Saw and Guilds: 60,1% increase
- With Two-Man Saw, without Guilds: 76,1% increase
- With Two-Man Saw and Guilds: 45% increase
And without selling the extra food:
- With Bow Saw, without Guilds: 70,6% increase
- With Bow Saw and Guilds: 40,5% increase
- With Two-Man Saw, without Guilds: 54,4% increase
- With Two-Man Saw and Guilds: 27,2% increase
All of this is without accounting for walking to/from a Lumber Camp (which might actually benefit Tibetans here), delayed gain by having to build buildings (without Treadmill Crane!), and the increased micro hassle compared to just clicking a market button. As well as any shortcomings in my math skills, haha!
Those are the numbers, Robby. Whether it's too strong or just right is up to you to decide. I like it as it is. Especially since they are an Elite civ. But that's just my opinion.
And you can always reduce the numbers to something like 10/20/30/40 if it is a bit too strong (40 gold puts it at 320/min - making it only slightly better than Two-Man Saw + Guilds. Which almost makes it worse, since the Tibetans would have all that extra hassle).
edit: Oh, and it also doesn't take into account that you have to research Lumber Camp techs and Guilds to get those benefits. Just thought I'd mention it for completion's sake.
Also, it's worth mentioning that with their civ bonus the Swahilis effectively have a 27,1 exchange rate without Guilds. Their military is miserable compared to the Tibetans, though.
By the way, Guilds would actually be a detriment for the Swahilis, as it would disrupt their civ bonus. But I imagine you just intended for it to further reduce the penalty? Or does their market bonus function differently than the Saracens'?
edit 2: Um, why did I only count 28 gold for sold food? It should be 56. Numbers are fixed now. I also added the comparison for not selling the bonus food. Hopefully everything is all right now.
Update: Another option is to use the idea the other commenter came up with, but recycle the old version for another civ build that'll have a weaker military.
I really like this bonus and how it functions as a "market", so it'd be a shame to see it disappear completely. However, it doesn't have to be for the Tibetans specifically, so this might be the best of both worlds.
You always deliver, Bjarke: this is a glorious amount of feedback and I really enjoyed reading through it.
Your mathematical explanation of the food/gold bonus really is spectacular. I'm definitely stuck between reducing it to 10/20/30/40 and going with Chris's solution of it only benefiting the first xyz per age, but your approach has been really helpful and gives me so much more information than I had before.
Some other minor clarifications:
1. Sngags Pa is meant to kick in automatically, just like healing. If you manually right-click a monk onto an enemy it will try to convert them if it has the faith, but if it doesn't it will try to curse them. Should I clarify this better on the document?
2. I think adding wood to the combined technology costs is a fairly clever idea, but I'm not sure they're that strong even in their current state. Good no doubt, but I'm not sure they need to be toned down. If I did end up needing to this would definitely be how I would do it though!
3. Great catch on the swahili's getting guilds, I'll make sure to clarify that!
4. Gonkhang is meant to cap out at plus two to each on maps with more than five relics, I'll be sure to clarify that!
And thanks as always for your feedback! If I missed anything please don't hesitate to follow up, and as always I hugely appreciate the amount of time you put into analyzing my designs.
Glad you liked the breakdown, Robby.
I think the bonus could function well as a kind of "tax theme", so if you ever have a civ with that as a significant part of their history it could be used there (but maybe for eco buildings instead of military).
Oh, and I would very much like to know if you had intended this as a kind of market bonus, or if it was just a happy coincidence.
Don't think you need to clarify the curse range. I might have been the only one who wondered about it, haha.
The issue with the armor bonus is that curently you effectively get two free techs per research, which is a standout bargain. But you're also locking any single amor tech behind the bundle price, so it can't be too costly either. Otherwise it wouldn't be a bonus, but just a trait.
So I'm not sure. But I think that a package deal like this should be more expensive than any single tech, like 150% of the individual price. maybe a little less. At the very least they need to have the same price as the most expensive armor tech of their tier, not an average. But it's up to you.
I hope that clarifies what I meant. And thanks for reading through my lengthy post.
It was a very helpful clarification, thank you!
I think particularly if we do end up limiting the food / gold off of military buildings then not increasing the cost of the combined armor upgrades is pretty justified. It's certainly strong, no doubt about that! But since the civilization will have such a poor economy, especially late, it just pushes them more towards tempo play, which was my intention with the build.
Naturally, if testing revealed it to just be absolutely broken then we would certainly be able to change it!
And yes, I think I can safely say that bonus was intended, at least in part, as a substitute for late game market use. So removing that functionality will definitely mean I'll want to buff it in other ways!
31:30
You should give them an aggressive version of Wololo and having their stick threatening the enemy unit. 😂
35:39
Considering they don't have any "A"s and the value they give to the spear, I think they could get the Halberdier.
And I feel it would make more sense to have the Halberdier than the Elite Skirmisher.
China's claim on Tibet started after the AOE2 time period. There's no geopolitical issue around depicting it as a separate kingdom in the medieval era. There are other games in China showing an independent medieval Tibet.
A few other commenters have mentioned this to me as well, and because of that I have completely changed my mind on The likelihood of this civilization being added to the game!
@@robbylavaThe blow would be softened a bit if/when China is split up
I’m at work but can’t wait for my lunch break to watch this video 🙏
Really hope you ended up enjoying it!
Missing husbandry will cause serious weakness for their composition, just like Teutons. Same situation with the barrack units.
Hey there Tian! I partially agree with you -- the speed will be recouped by their three core units, which should prevent it from completely hamstringing their main army comp, but I do see it as being a notable downside to their trash War potential.
I could be wrong of course, but if so I think I would prefer to buff the civilization in a different way since I quite like the way that missing those two speed techs shapes their strategy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment! Hope you enjoyed the build.
@@robbylava Hello! Generic infantry units are already too slow to be used in competitive gameplays, you don't need to make them even slower. Based on this design, it is going to be a cavalry archer civilization. The other two cores will be underperforming.
Yeah, infantry are in a bad place more broadly, though I don't think squires is what holds them back in general (though movement speed is certainly a factor).
I think you're underestimating the hypothetical effectiveness of their steppe lancers though -- the unit is seeing a resurgence, and for the Tibetans that will be cheaper with potential for attack boosts and more.
If, in practice, they ended up just being a cavalry Archer civilization I would definitely be up to make some tweaks. Though it would be pretty historical! Multiple sources I found indicated that mounted bowmen made up the bulk of most Tibetan armies during their golden age, so there could be worse units for them to specialize with!
At long last!!!!!!! I’ve been waiting for this one!!!!
Good to see you Jimenez! Yeah, you were one of the many great commenters who pushed me towards this one, and I'm really glad you did! It was such a fun period of history to learn about.
Hope you enjoyed the build my friend! Do you feel that it represented the Tibetans pretty well?
@@robbylava I loved the North Asian architecture, as well as the curse of the monks. Super amazing ideas. I also think the late game economy is a great touch. One thing I was thinking about was the physiological advantage where the Tibetans have adapted to life on the high altitudes in ways where people from flatlands might struggle. Some clever ways in which to play with hill bonuses might be a great way to address this - take no hill damage, etc. What do you think about that?
Another potential unique tech I was thinking was "reincarnation" - the idea that a killed unit may be brought back with "memories" of its previous attributes, or something along those lines. I know you table a lot of amazing ideas already, I don't mean to pile on more!
Both excellent ideas Jimenez!
I tend to go off of historical sources as literally as possible for my builds, and as weird as it sounds I never once saw in my research any indication of how Tibetans adapting to high altitude affected them historically! Not saying it wasn't the case, I just didn't find it. So if you happened to find any information on the topic please do pass it on!
Similarly, belief in reincarnation was pretty prominent in a great many world cultures, so I could see that being present in multiple civilizations! The Tibetans are famous for it because of the reincarnation of the lama, but that tradition only started after the turn of the millennium and my build is focusing more on the pre -Buddhification era.
But this is just my personal approach! I think that builds incorporating both of your ideas could work just as well as mine.
And I'm really thrilled that you liked the build! Thank you so much for your kind words and for all the great ideas! I really hope to see you on future videos as well my friend.
41:50
I would say that it depends if the Tibetans were into building infrastructure for the trade.
If they mostly used what was already there when they took control of the roads, I don't think they should get it.
If they invested a lot in improving it, they should get it.
49:56
I disagree.
I would say that this is among the more likely ones, and specially in terms of your build for them being quite well grounded on the design philosophy of the game (in comparison with the other ones 😅).
50:09
True 😅
Fantastic build. Very unique playstyle, nothing quite like it. Combined arms with monk support, where the monks can actually hurt your opponent's units in late game? Wow.
Well thank you very much Johannes! That is very satisfying for me to hear
I love all the cool ideas, also seems like with Tibetan UU you’ve made an improved version of Ratha 11
Appreciate you saying so! Yeah, I wanted to see how far I could push that weapon swapping mechanic heheheh. I'm so glad they introduced it! It's really fun to play with as a designer, and if I had suggested something like that before the game did people would have called me crazy!
In theory, the Tibetans could be used as a placeholder for the Tanguts of Genghis Khan 3, since the Tanguts were linguistically more on the Tibetan side of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic division, and did migrate from what was, at the time, northeastern Tibetan territory to the northern lands, on the borders between China and Mongolia. But this is supposing that the Tanguts aren't added themselves at some point.
More libertarian individuals might theorize about making certain Burmese factions in Bayinnaung Tibetans if they aren't mainstay Burmese, but I'm not so inclined as they're closer to the Burmese than they are to the Tibetans.
Last point of contention might be Kamarupa in Devapala 1 but this is also not entirely accurate, although there might have been some overlap in this region between Tibetan and Indian cultures to perhaps justify this.
I don't mind the architecture showcase. it depends on whether or not you feel like you can depict such architecture adequately.
These are all fascinating points Crossil, such clever inclusions of the civilization! I'm inclined towards being on the conservative side for these commonly particularly in the case of the Tanguts since that's a civilization I want to tackle myself, but if any of these changes were made I would certainly not be upset to see them.
Glad you liked the architecture presentation my friend! I certainly wouldn't intend on doing one if I didn't have good examples prepped, do you think that this one met a sufficient quality standard to be a good rubric for me going forward?
My guess is that we'll get an East Asian DLC later this year. That China will be renamed and divided into separate dynasties. the DEVs hint at least a similar DLC as Dynasties of India on their 2023 roadmap. Tibet would also make a lot of sense. After all, even Tibet was planned as a civ, I don't know if it was in AoK or AoC. it was at least once in official planning.
I certainly hope so! Though I personally doubt the dynastic route will be how they divide China, seeing as with very few exceptions Age of Empires civilizations are all ethnic. I think there are ways to divide China very effectively along those lines though! And more East Asian civilizations are the very top of my wish list for the game
I haven't watched the whole video yet, so you may say this. I think Tibet is the most unlikely Civ to enter the game, cause the Chinese gouvernment would then ban AoE2 and Microsoft does not want to lose that market. The CG might even ban other Microsoft games
Edit: Ah, there you said it
Yep! It is something I thought would be a serious problem. However, some other commenters have pointed out that there are other medieval games featuring Tibetan factions that Chinese censors have actually allowed. It seems like they might make an exception for pre-modern history, though I still think that such a policy could change on a dime and as such it would be a risky add.
Hope you enjoyed the build!
I also have an idea for a Timurid Civilization, being a mixture between Steppe, mid-eastern and Indian Civs and as a result have the absolute craziest Stable with fully upgradeable Hussars, Steppe Lancers, Battle Elephants and Camels, and even rudimentary Knights. On top of that a varied Archery Range; poor Archers & Skirmishers, but fully upgradeable Horse Archers and Elephant Archers, and of course Hand Cannoneers. In contrast I want them to have the Hands Down WORST Barracks; No upgrades for Militia and Spearman, and nothing really going for them there.
Their Unique Unit should be the Bombard Elephant - An Elephant with a Cannon on top
That could be quite fun! An interesting way to extrapolate the existing tatars.
And if any civilization were to get the bombard elephant it would probably be this one (or the Hindustanis)! From the research I have done, they were really only ever used (with debatable success rates) by the Mughal empire
Age of empires II dlc the peak of the sky, tibetans, dardics (kashmiri), nepalies and bai (nanzhao/dali).
Himalayans new building set : tibetans, nepalies, dardics and mongolians.
Reeskin of east asia architecture because looks neolithic and poor.
Chinese, bai and vietnamese building style
Japanese and korea another building style with unique elements.
And in future thailandese new civ with southeast asia building style, maybe a ahomization of assam campaign.
Bonus for the civ: Free dalai lama in Dark age 😀
Nomad civilizations often build fortresses in the steppe who's pourpose was to house caravans, nobles and Khans during their travels, have you considered adding a building like this? I would imagine it would work like an hibrid between a market and a castle. By the way, I think some northern asian civs, specially the more nomadic ones, should have movable buildings like in aoe4
If you look at the "tabled ideas" section, he mentioned the Caravancerai; a sort of fortress-like building that was used to protect caravans on the silk road. (regional building) It gives a buff to trading carts. Maybe it's not exactly what you mean but i think it is a cool idea.
Also the idea of movable buildings are dope.
Unique building idea; the Yurt! can be packed an moved like a treb. and then... idk functions like a house and gives an eco bonus to villagers in los?
Yeah, movable buildings are definitely something I want to try out in future! But it would be a pretty big change, so I think I'd want to dedicate an entire video just to that.
That mobile Castle though sounds really interesting... Do you have any idea what those might be called? And if you happen to have any links or sources I might take a look at to learn more that would be super helpful!
Thanks as always Lorddervish, and appreciate you chiming in too Merlin!
@@robbylava well, there's already a packed TC right?
Unrelated to all this, I just voted for the next RoR campaigns, my vote went to the Hittites and Yamato
Wait i just realized caravancerai is already in the game?? Lol i thought it was one of Robby's ideas.
Good votes! The Hittites would probably get my vote, I watched like a hour-long video about hittite history recently and it made me really invested in them
You really had to say that Sngags Pa Monks work by "cursing" at their enemies? I guess the latter fight back by shooting soap into the formers' mouths.
That's what they don't want you to know: secretly, every hand canoneer bullet is just a wad of tallow.
@@robbylava If Infantry takes bonus damage from tallow I do not want to know how they smell.
That actually made me laugh, best comment I've read in a while
Great video Robby!!
Why thank you!
I've been busy with work and life and haven't got a chance to watch your videos for a long time. You did an awesome job as always, and I really appreciate your civ build. Just a small correction, by Siam do you mean Nanzhao? Because Siam or Thai kingdoms hadn't been formed back then. The ethnicity of the ruling elite of Nanzhao is still hotly debated, some say they were proto-Tais but others say they were the ancestors of the Bai or the Yi. Whatever the case, I think the Dians or Nanzhao should be its own civ and should not be put together with Siam. Anyways, I hope to see more Asian civs in your future civ theorycrafts, I think the Dians/Nanzhao, the Chams, the Mons, the Khitans, the Gokturks, and the Tanguts are all pretty good candidates.
For how good their military look on paper I’m shocked none them got an A on the civ grade lol
Heheheh it's a good question Daniel! My thought was that you are unlikely to ever focus on just one branch of their military, even more so than other civilizations. The civilization is trying to steer you towards using all three major types of units at once rather than just focusing on one, and because of that I didn't feel it made sense to give any single Branch a particularly high grade.
Does that seem reasonable to you?
28:39
A "bit" strong and similar to the Lithuanian civ bonus.
29:40
Ok, that's fine.
38:41
I'm thinking if it wouldn't make more sense for the tech related to the animist curses to come before the Buddhist military tradition one.
20:03
The Tibetans for the middle ages for me was quite mixed with the Mongolians, so I would already expect some similarities in terms of warrior culture.
My doubt was about when did Buddhism got there and how it influenced this culture.
Just reminding you, that I'm still hoping to see your Austrian build
Duly noted my friend! I have bumped it up my priority list, especially since a couple other people have requested it as well. Will probably be another couple months at the very least though, but I think I can promise you it won't be longer than that!
About the Sngags Pa, it bring an interesting discussion regarding witchcraft/sorcery on historical battles. While these werent common, many self proclaimed prophets and sorcerors did commanded armies (yellow turbant rebellion?) and many armies did performed rituals before battle (roman devotio?).
How much should a "historical" based game (in quotations as its not really 100% historical) should delve into faith, beliefs and magic?
An excellent question Steve! I suppose the best answer I would personally have would be "to whatever degree those beliefs could have impacted history".
In this case, the Sngags Pa were feared enough by both the Tibetans and many of their neighbors that I felt like them being able to actually drive off enemies purely through these practices was plausible. Similarly, my wisemen unit last week also has a pseudo magical power that I thought was reasonably grounded in the rumor networks and worldliness that many soothsayers maintained in order to deliver plausible auguries.
To summarize, I think it's largely down to taste, but I would personally never go so far as to put explicitly magical powers of any kind in the game, even ones that were reported such as a miraculous resurrection or similar.
@@robbylava If we go with the logic of "not adding anything explicitly magical" wouldnt it be better to give them some sort of dread aura? Like enemies around X tiles get their Att lowered by 1 or 2? Because draining life sounds magical (drain life) and the goal is to represent how feared they were.
Dunno, my 1 cent. But magic in a historical game is kinda complex because the division between science, technology and knowledge with beliefs get pretty blury in history.
It's a good question! My reasoning for it is connected to something I mentioned during my conversion overhaul in last week's religious video: I don't consider HP to be strictly a measure of health. Instead, I think of it even more as a combination of stamina and morale, both of which were typically more relevant on a medieval battlefield. And by this definition, the monk draining HP works quite well to reflect them demoralizing the enemy and compelling them to flee or fear for their lives!
But I totally acknowledge that this is just my interpretation, and I wouldn't fault anyone for going in a direction More similar to you.
我最希望看到投入AOE2未來DLC的內容
如果投入，我人生沒遺憾
我同意我的朋友。 感谢您的收看，希望您喜欢这个视频！
If i had to represent Monk culture of Tibet, id give them Lamas, not Llamas, Lamas, replacement for monk, they have +10% speed from normal monk, and heal +50hp per minute.
That would be a very reasonable way of doing it! As I mentioned though I was trying to stay away from the Buddhist era in my build since I signed the earlier history of Tibet to be so much more interesting and varied.
You’re going to need to do the Thai next.
You are quite the prophet, Alex
25:14
I like this bonus, but doesn't the Cavalry Archer cost wood and gold?
How would the Supplies discount affect them?
If it is a wood discount, it has to be explained.
Ola Robby What about Kurds and Armenians, they have a good history and for me they could be perfect for Age of Empire 2.
Ola Hussar! Both excellent suggestions, I've had a number of people suggest Armenians before but you are only the second who has ever asked to see the Kurds.
I definitely plan on tackling both civilizations though! You're totally right that they fit great with the game. I will probably handle the Armenians first though, since so many people have asked me about them. Thanks for the suggestions!
Awesome video. I love that you explain the historical bases for your theoretical units and upgrades - I never knew the Tibetans were considered so militarily potent back in the day.
An idea for a future Civ Theorycraft episode: Mississippi Mound Builder Civ. It fits within the AO2 timeframe and I’d love to hear your take on this (relatively) obscure American civilization.
Hey, thank you so much for saying so Someone! Really glad I could introduce you to them!
I think the mississippians might be the second most requested civilization on this channel, right after the tibetans! You are totally right though, they fit better into AOE2 than every other North American civilization I've researched, and I'm really glad to hear you'd like to see my take on them! Can't promise it will be soon, but mark my words, it WILL happen!
On the armor civ bonus, is it that the cost of the tech would cost what say fletching would cost or what the archer armor would cost? I haven’t watched the full video yet but I was thinking maybe the cost should be slightly higher than both the attack and armor upgrade but less than the combined cost of both of them
Right now I have the combined armor technology costing the average between all three armor upgrades available per age! All details on it can be found on my linked civilization document if you'd like to see the exact numbers.
Good stuff! for the UU why not just add a charge attack to the melee weapon choice to represent the lance? Historically once a cavalry charge impacted its target, either it got locked into close order melee combat with hand weapons or disengaged, & regrouped for a second charge. They probably didn't use their lances much longer after that first charge. It'll be awkward trying to switch between the 3 different unit types. The Ratha already isn't great with 2 attack types.
Thanks for saying so Harpo!
I wanted to go with a three weapon system for two reasons: one because I wanted to build off of the existing framework we have for the Ratha and take it to its logical extremes, and two because for this civilization it actually is pretty important what weapon you are wielding at a given time.
You're definitely right that many cavalrymen would have fought that way, I was kind of alluding to that as well while also trying to give the player more autonomy. Another commenter mentioned that this mechanic would probably work better if there were three buttons, one for each weapon, instead of one, much like we have for stances. Well there are other logistical problems with this idea, if it were hypothetically possible do you think it would be a decent solution to this issue?
@@robbylava yeah, three buttons would work better if you were adding functionality to the game engine. The formations, unit commands and abilities in AOE 2, they all could use control scheme updates for modern sensibilities and engine attributes.... like defensive stance! That should really be shield wall and add pierce armor, units grouped together should gain attack bonuses or defensive bonuses, archers should be able to mass fire on a map location and still generate damage or friendly fire. Or you could gamify things even further, adding unit buttons as those tactics/abilities could be represented by techs. So you'd research add-ons to your units. Like parthian tactics should enable a parthian circle for cav archers.
These are all such cool ideas. I love the idea of certain stances being made available through research! And let's be honest, how many times has the box formation button ever been clicked? Just feels like a lot of wasted space on the unit card that we can transform into something more interesting and useful like what you've mentioned!
On the second unique tech for monks, will it mean you will have to micro the way you would if you wanted to convert a unit or is it like a ranged unit on attack ground and will automatically start draining HP of the nearest enemy unit in their line of sight?
It would work automatically! Much in the same way that a month will automatically try to heal, it will effectively make them waddle out and automatically try to drain HP. They would even prioritize it over healing so that they wouldn't get distracted too easily!
So, by destroying and rebuiling a Barrack I make a better wood exchange than the market?
Seems very abusable and can quickly escalate in late game.
What about something like "the first Barrack/Range/Stable built in each Era grants XX food & gold", which not only solve the previous problem, but also incentivizes building all 3 of them, which is the theme of the faction?
GENIUS. I am 100% going to use this idea, thanks so much Chris! Hope you enjoyed the rest of the build
It's a very good point. Their bonus is twice as good as bottom market prices without guilds.
However, the fact that they don't get Bow Saw does limit the effectiveness of the bonus. And you'd have to do more micromanaging to actually utilize it. Also, their trash isn't very good.
Personally, I'd prefer reducing the bonus to 10/20/30/40 or something, if it really needs to be nerfed. But that's just me.
edit: I added the numbers in my other post, if you'd like to see them.
Bjarke's mathematical analysis was really fantastic! I'm super torn on which of these two changes I will end up going with, but suffice to say that both of them will be strongly considered and whichever I don't go with and I will put in table ideas for use in future!
Thanks so much lads.
Just to double check my understanding: the cooldown for the UU switching is to prevent rapid switching, but it doesn't delay the initial switch, right?
Yep, exactly right!
26:36
I like them
I havn’t watched it yet but my guess is incendiary monks and the imp tech is a one time button called reincarnation which brings all the monks back to life. Am I close?
I was so far off 🤪 I like the idea of the heardables being discovered but it is very op because it would also give away the position of the enemy tc and the enemy scout as they take heardables. You would have to offset it with a slower scout or laming would be so good, people would Insta gg.
Heheheh nice try!
You're very right with the herdables thing. I'm not sure how exactly I would end up needing to balance that, but I do quite like the idea!
oh lord were do we start.
again with a hand of resources when you do x that isn't farming of gathering resourcess and isn't linked to the actual resource it costs, rng even if determknistic is still rng, oh god that supply and gambesons bonus hurts! here my thing considering both your history class and desing overview:
tibetans: a monk and steppe lancers civilization
-military land units that cost gold have a slight discount
-monks train and move faster
-steppe lancers are trained faster
-herdables move faster
-all armor techs from the blacksmith cost less
UU: Zhang pa: a cavarly warrior with a lasso, very cheap, low damage to the point of doing consistently 1 damage to most things with a base armor, 3 range 1 minimal range, reduces the target's speed by 50% when struck for some seconds. elite upgrade gives more movement speed and longer slow efrect.
ut: earth-tarma: minks regain faith faster while within 5 tiles from a monastery
ut: khor gaum: militia line gets bonus damage against archers, steppe lancers gets bonus damage agains infantry, cav archers get bonus damage against non archer cavalery
team bonus: initial position of all herdables are revealed (just the tile, still kn fog of war)
important tech tree stuff:
spear line gets to pike, militia line gets to 2hand swordsman, get supoly, gambeson and squires
archers uot to crossbow, full cav archer, full skirms, thumb ring and partian tactics
full hussars, full steppe lancers, knights do not upgrade, bloodlines but no husbandry
onager but no siege onager, caped ram, regular scorpion
do not know enough about monk techs to really know bug i would say give then all techs
blacksmith will all archer damage and melee damage 2, all infantry armor, all cav armor, archer armor up to 2
in university gets all defense except last tower and bombard tower, chemistry but no gunpowder (even if bombard canon could be fun), ballistics, no siege engeniers
everything in castle, even sapers.
dock don't get any imperial uograde period and that's just it.
lack of every imperial eco upgrade and even castle age stone and gold upgrade making thenolayer relly heavyly in relics and maybe trade if posible.
loved the arquitecture and would like kt in just the steppe lancer civs, huns are considered roman nowadays.
Thanks a lot Daniel! I'm really glad you like so many elements of the design!
That being said, I honestly don't understand why you dislike things like the bundled armor technologies so much. The resources gained on military building construction is definitely a bit extreme and I do plan on toning that down in my next recraft, but other than that it's not really clear to me why you made the changes you did. Would you mind elaborating on the other elements of the build that you changed?
@@robbylava mostly to keep balance for all three lines posible independant, there is a reason why some civs get all armor techs for cav but not infantry even if elite medieval knights were trained to fight both on foot as well as on horse back in general, same as the archers having techs so separated from the melee units.
keeping all balance knobs separated can assure the tuning on one won't change the state of another so specific intrraction can be pinpointed, that's a game desing trick i've picked when looking at most videogames i played as a totally amateur self taught designer
I mean you're absolutely correct, I wouldn't want to play a game where this was the default across all units, but given that this is one of the primary bonuses of the civilization and is part of what makes it unique I don't see it being an issue.
That being said, I of course respect your own take on the civilization! Just doesn't necessarily convince me to change my own.
13:15 Tbf it's easier to create static building sprites for HD than the animated models that DE uses, especially considering how much reusing these mods do.
OH yeah, no doubt about that! Though I will say, much as I love the collapsing building animations, I for one would have zero problem going back to instantaneous piles of rubble if it meant we got more architecture sets. Especially for things like mods!
Nice! I like the "anti-healing" monks, which reinforces their monks and give them more use. Also: is that on purpose that their bonuses seem to synergize so well with Burmese? ;)
Thanks a lot for saying so my friend!
And you know, I honestly didn't even consider the synergies with the Burmese until you just mentioned it. Completely unintentional, but I'm actually really pleased with how that came out!
I LOVE including more "sub-Chinese" civilisation (and tbf, the concept of Chinese is not first introduced until Ming or even Qing dynasty. What's more, should we name Yuan and Qing dynasty as "China" when we usually refer ancient China as Han people civilisation? It is debatable I would say). But I do agree Microsoft won't take the risk coz this violated the ideology of the majority of Chinese people and their historical view.
On the other head, as an architecture student, I am not so sure if we should name the architecture set as "North Asian Architecture". I think actually North Asian region, like Jurchens, Mongols, Japanese and Korean, they are more influenced by the Han Chinese architecture. Meanwhile, the Tibetan architecture should be more influenced by the geographical location: Mountains. I think that region, like Tanguts, Nepali or any nearby mountainous region will share similar type, which is very high stone base, rectangular shape, terracing topography. So I guess it might be not too accurate to put Jurchens, Mongols and Tibetans together as one architecture set.
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment my friend! I hope you like the build!
So on the architecture front, I went into the build thinking much like yourself, but the more I learned about the architectures those three civilizations the more similar to me they looked. Particularly Tibet and Mongolia, who have kind of an uncanny number of similarities. Both ended up looking quite Chinese in many ways in their Golden ages, but they were more similar to each other than you might think at first! The Jurchens are definitely the least fitting and would probably shift to East Asian architecture in Castle or imperial age, but I do like them starting as North Asian.
Either way, lumping civilizations together with regional architecture sets is always going to lead to many inaccuracies: I still feel like the ideal future will be one in which every civilization has a completely unique architecture set, as unrealistic as that may be to wish for!
Really appreciate you sharing your thoughts NotAScandinavian. If you happen to find any sources or research materials on the architecture subject then please do send them my way!
@@robbylava I totally see the point! Just like East Asian architecture set uses Japanese architecture as the base set, I totally understand the game use regional set for efficiency. I just think the Imperial set looks a bit too similar to East Asian set, which I think in a game mind set, it is not unique enough. That's why I think go all out to Tibetan architecture as reference will be better.
Besides, the Imperial period reference used here is mostly from Qing Empire period (17-18th century), whenthe central Chinese influence spread along with the strong and board influence of Qing, I guess it is not doing justice with the uniqueness of the surrounding regions/civilisation of China, especially before Qing Empire spread their "Chinese" uniformity that far becoz of their power. That's why I think it is more appropriate to lean on the Tibetan side.
After a bit more research, it seems Tibetan architecture is really unique that only Nepal share similar architecture type. They actually mutate Indian and Chinese architecture to adapt to their geographical context. It is such a difficult decision but maybe I would make Tibetan and maybe Nepal as one unique architecture set.
A Himalayan architecture set? That's quite a cool idea, very tempting! I could definitely see implementing that once I added the Nepalese for sure, though for now the laser option is probably best considering how few civilizations are candidates for this architecture set in the first place.
And are you sure that the green roof style was mostly used by the Qing? My research, I'll be at a little perfunctory, seems to indicate that it was a Mongolian style adopted at least two or three centuries earlier during Mongol rule of china. If you happen to have any sources or links please do send them my way!
And thanks again for carrying on this conversation.
@@robbylava I love how you are so eager to constantly communicate with your audience! Thank you so much for your patient reply to share your idea and thinking process!
Haha indeed after diving deeper the green roof buildings, I guess you referenced some from the Karakorum during Mongol Empire right? Indeed I think North Asian architecture is way more influenced by the Chinese style. As someone briefly studied a bit of Chinese architecture, I honestly cannot tell much the difference for the imperial buildings. I guess what differentiate them are the vernacular buildings. If there is Jurchens, Mongols, Khitans and maybe Tanguts, it is really a worth investing architecture set!
Just it is a bit of a pain to me to see Tibetan architecture set will fall into the set coz Himalayan architecture is too different from the Central and Northern Chinese region. But I understand the concern haha. It would be fantastic if we could include more Himalayan civilisation in the future!
Well thank you for saying so my friend! The fact that you appreciate it means a lot to me.
Definitely much more of a Chinese building style! I definitely agree it doesn't fit perfectly with the Tibetans, and down the line when I add more Himalayan civilizations I'm definitely up for changing it. Appreciate you hearing out my reasoning here!
That's a very interesting build! I do have a question - why did you not already take into account your temple/monk changes? I'd love to see what you'd come up with for Tibetans with those included.
Other than that I wonder if there are any "mountain" bonuses to be had. Something with elevation or cliffs (would be inconsistent - perhaps make their starting TC start on a little elevated square, maybe even some other building creating elevation), might be too ridiculous but seeing as you like to push the boundaries I thought you'd at least appreciate the idea.
Great question Monk! I've mentioned it to other commenters but I don't think I've ever shared it with you before: I'm a little hesitant to include my units, buildings, etc in these standard civilization theorycrafts for now since I think it would make them a little too inaccessible for normal viewers just looking for a vanilla aoe2 builds.
HOWEVER, in future I could definitely see revisiting a bunch of my old designs and putting expanded builds out that include all of the additions I've proposed to the game! Just want to wait till I'm a little better established first. Does that sound reasonable?
And an elevation bonus sounds like it would make sense, but in all the sources I checked I never once found any specific references to specialized styles of mountain warfare among the Tibetans! Totally could be wrong of course, so if you happen to see a source or anything that might indicate it then please shoot it my way and I'd be happy to include it in the build!
@@robbylava That is very reasonable and sorry for missing the answer in the other comments. Thank you for reiterating.
The elevation thing was just infantilely (is that a word?) pulled out of my behind just because of the mountainous terrain lol.
No need to apologize at all! You are always more than welcome to ask, I totally don't expect you or anyone else to read through all the comments looking for the answer to one basic question!
And I think that mountainous terrain can be a great justification for civilization bonuses in many cases, I just didn't happen to see any research basis for it for this one.
There should be "Afghans"..as well....
A blend of Persians, northwest Indus, Early Turko cuman/ kipchak warlords and.....
The mighty mongols
Excellent suggestion! I will add it to my list, but I can't promise it will be anytime soon -- I've had a lot of viewer requests!
Thank you so much for taking the time to watch and comment. I really hope you enjoyed the video.
27:30
Why not a 1 range melee like the Steppe Lancer?
My voice has been heard! :D And I made it into the video! I'm truly honored. Haha. That aside, excellent build. This would be the quintessential Tibetan civ for me. Let's hope they decide to actually add them into the game in the future. It's long overdue if anything.
Heheheh thanks very much smaoproducts! Really glad you enjoyed it mate, that's very heartening to hear.
And don't be surprised if more of your requests make it onto the channel down the line, you've had some really good ones!
@@robbylava I await with bated breath. Hahaha. The next request I see posted I'll be like PSYCH! LMAO.
37:05
And you get a little $ for building the buildings to make the rush.
Another stellar build! I personally like the fire emblem style counter system :)
Why thank you Fergus! Really glad you enjoyed!
And as a long time lover of Fire Emblem, it really hurt not to include that mechanic. Next time, perhaps! I'm sure there will be other combined arms civilizations in future that it would make sense for.
I'd love to see your take on a Saxon Civilization :)
Oohhh excellent suggestion Fanggard! A few others have requested it before, but this makes me even more interested to tackle it. Thanks!
UA-cam is not allowing me to comment on this video.
Holy shit, I'm so sorry to hear that Ivan. Just checked my settings and it doesn't look like it's anything on my end. If it's anything that you want to make sure it gets through to me then please do send me an email and I will be sure to read it in full
So sad that we can't have Tibetan because of China.
Never say never! I assumed it was hopeless as well, but a couple other commenters have mentioned that Tibetan factions have appeared in other medieval style games that have been approved by Chinese censors, so there's always a chance AOE2 might be able to as well!
F for the tibetan civ, too many chinese players :c
Thank you for listening to my recommendation, wonder when you will make a video on the haudenosaunee Or Iroquois
My pleasure Sailor! I hope you enjoyed the build my friend!
The Iroquois are definitely a tricky one, since their civilization really only got up to scale towards the very end of the aoe2 relevant time frame and they had virtually no contact with any other relevant civilization. I'm really not sure if they would be a good fit for the game! But future research may change my mind, and I certainly won't ignore the civilization outright.
What I DO plan on doing however is another North American Civ that a great many people have requested! Depending on how that goes it may change my mind on how viable the Iroquois or other North Americans are.
Oh, and if you have any suggestions for sources I could read to learn more about the medieval Iroquois, please do send them to me!
This would result in instant ban of AoE2 in China :(
I thought so as well, but another commenter brought up a very good point that there are several other medieval themed games featuring Tibet that ARE actually allowed in China! It seems that they might only censor depictions of modern Tibet, which might mean that this civilization could actually make it in.