New Civ Idea: The Armenians

[mickeyjim2]

Hey everyone. Here is my newest civ idea - the Armenians.

Note that I have also incorporated a few aspects of Georgia into this civ, since I believe that Armenia and Georgia are too similar in the context of AoE2 to warrant 2 separate civs, so this civ can be used to represent both. I went with Armenians simply because they seemed to have the more interesting story based on the stuff I read while coming up with ideas for this civ, with the creation of their own Crusader state and their constantly shifting borders due to being at the crossroads of so many different empires). I literally only starting learning stuff about Armenia yesterday to come up with this civ idea so please don't @ me with long historical paragraphs correcting me for something I missed or didn't know about. This is just for fun and who knows, maybe one day we'll get another DLC with new civs!


New Civilisation: The Armenians

Focus: Cavalry and infantry

Architecture - new Orthodox architecture to represent Georgian and Armenian architecture (could also be retroactively applied to Byzantines depending on how it looks, though personally I quite like the Byzantines having the Mediterranean set so I don't mind either way).

Spoken language - Armenian

Wonder - Noravank Monastery
-------------------------------------------------

Civ Bonuses:

Forage bushes last 50% longer (a bonus to represent how Georgia is one of the oldest wine producing regions in the world).

All blacksmith techs 25% cheaper

Unique Unit:

Ayrudzi - cavalry unit that can slowly regenerate health like a Berserker or Berber Camels after their UT. Slightly stronger than knights in castle age and slightly stronger than cavaliers in imperial age. Considering the Armenians lack of cavaliers and paladins they will need to rely on their UU if they require something stronger).

HP: 110, 130 (elite)

Attack: 10, 12 (elite)

Melee armour: 2, 2 (elite)

Pierce armour: 2, 2 (elite)

Cost: 70 food, 75 gold

Unique Technologies:

Castle Age: "Lamellar" - infantry get +1 melee & +1 pierce armour. Cost 300 food, 200 gold.

Imperial Age: "Azats" - knight line gold cost removed. Food cost increased to 100 food (maybe 120 depending on balance). Cost 600 food, 1000 gold. (This makes it the most expensive UT in the game).

Team bonus: infantry get + 1 attack vs archers (in Feudal Age where this is most significant it means that this bonus + Forging means Men-at-Arms can kill archers 1 hit sooner, from 5 hits to 4 hits).

-------------------------------------------------

Tech Tree

Barracks - all barracks techs available. Have Champion and Halbs. All infantry blacksmith techs.

Archery Range - missing Arbalest and Parthian tactics. Missing bracer and final archer armour at blacksmith. Have access to Hand Cannoneer.

Stables - have bloodlines & husbandry. Missing Hussar and both the Cavalier and Paladin upgrades. No camels, steppe lancers or elephants. Have all cavalry blacksmith techs. (They could potentially also lose bloodlines if the trash knights in imperial age are still too strong; the Ayrudzi would have its health increased by 20HP so that it effectively remains unchanged so only stable units are affected).

Siege Workshop - missing siege engineers, siege onager and siege ram. Have bombard cannon and heavy scorpion

Monastery - all techs. No bonuses

Dock - missing shipwright, dry dock, Elite Cannon Galleon. (Galleons also lack bracer).

Defences - missing arrow-slits and heated shot.

[Blegh]

cool

[FTWO]

Hmm, I don't know. The civilization sounds awesome, you really did a good job here. But I think this would really tip the scales a bit. Even if they don't have the Cavalier and Paladin upgrades, Knights alone are pretty useful, especially if they go from expensive to make a lot of them to becoming trash units (only meaning they would become incredibly cheap only costing Food with the Azats tech used) it would just completely throw things off, lol. Even with a Knight at 120 HP (Bloodlines), 10+4 Attack, 2-3/2-4 Armor/Piercing Armor, (fully upgraded of course), that is a pretty decent trash unit, I'd say. I mean it would be very interesting to see and play, but I think in the long run... this would throw a lot of ppl off. In a good way or a bad way, maybe 50/50.

[Whakahoatanga]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

This is just for fun and who knows, maybe one day we'll get another DLC with new civs!

Sure hope so. I'm personally hoping for North American and South/Central African civs.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by FTWO:

Hmm, I don't know. The civilization sounds awesome, you really did a good job here. But I think this would really tip the scales a bit. Even if they don't have the Cavalier and Paladin upgrades, Knights alone are pretty useful, especially if they go from expensive to make a lot of them to becoming trash units (only meaning they would become incredibly cheap only costing Food with the Azats tech used) it would just completely throw things off, lol. Even with a Knight at 120 HP (Bloodlines), 10+4 Attack, 2-3/2-4 Armor/Piercing Armor, (fully upgraded of course), that is a pretty decent trash unit, I'd say. I mean it would be very interesting to see and play, but I think in the long run... this would throw a lot of ppl off. In a good way or a bad way, maybe 50/50.

Thank you. I understand the balance concerns. I actually did some scenario editor tests using Saracens (who only get knights as well, so they are exactly the same as the Armenian knights I am proposing) against a variety of units, and found that they still lose to cavaliers, get dominated by paladins and other powerful cavalry, and are still handled no problem by even generic heavy camels like the Chinese, let alone something like Saracen or Indian camels. Likewise halberdiers are still effective. The most interesting comparison I wanted to check was with the Magyar Huszar, which is of course also a trash cavalry unit. I found that "Armenian" (Saracen) knights are about 20% stronger than elite Magyar Huszars, hence I priced them at 100 food compared to the Huszar's 80. Like I said maybe it could be increased to 120 food (which is the same as a battle elephant so I don't want to take it any higher), or they could lose bloodlines noticeably weakening them.

[Icarus]

also add azerbaijan while we're at it lol kek

[RightClickClassic]

no point in suggesting civs, the devs are against adding new ones

there was a ton of similar threads for other crucial missing civs and nothing happened

[Dutchgamer1982]

just no.

this game runs from 472 (fall of rome) to 1521 (conquest of mexico city)

armenia was only once in it's history an empire.. 190bc - 165ad
after that it only excisted as a vassal to rome, and even that ended in 428 as it was split one halve becoming part of the sasinid empire and one halve becoming part of the sassanid empire.

all before the timeline of this game..

than we have the KINGDOM (not an empire) Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia
it did excist in the right time period.. but it was much smaller, and thus not an empire.. and it was merely a bufferstate between byzantines and arabs..

and once the ottomans steamrolled in.. that too ended...

so amenia never has been an empire in the time period of this game.. and as such is not a valid nation to play.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

just no.

this game runs from 472 (fall of rome) to 1521 (conquest of mexico city)

armenia was only once in it's history an empire.. 190bc - 165ad
after that it only excisted as a vassal to rome, and even that ended in 428 as it was split one halve becoming part of the sasinid empire and one halve becoming part of the sassanid empire.

all before the timeline of this game..

than we have the KINGDOM (not an empire) Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia
it did excist in the right time period.. but it was much smaller, and thus not an empire.. and it was merely a bufferstate between byzantines and arabs..

and once the ottomans steamrolled in.. that too ended...

so amenia never has been an empire in the time period of this game.. and as such is not a valid nation to play.

I am well aware of the time frame for this game, so please don't patronise me. Please show me where I indicated that this civ was based on the Armenia from antiquity? All of the sources I used to come up with ideas for this civ talk about Armenia during the 11th - 14th century, including the Armenian Kingdom and Crusader state of Cilicia. And since when has it been a requirement to have been an empire to be in the game? The Vietnamese, Koreans and even Japanese didn't have an empire within the AoE2 timeframe. Not to mention that several other civs were never referred to as empires within the AoE2 timeframe either. There was no medieval "Indian Empire," but there were several kingdoms like the Rajputs. Lithuania referred to itself as a kingdom, not an empire. Also, just because they were defeated by another empire doesn't mean they aren't worth including. The Cuman campaign is literally about their civilisation being destroyed during the Mongol invasion, and they are still in the game.

[Whakahoatanga]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

just no.

this game runs from 472 (fall of rome) to 1521 (conquest of mexico city)

armenia was only once in it's history an empire.. 190bc - 165ad
after that it only excisted as a vassal to rome, and even that ended in 428 as it was split one halve becoming part of the sasinid empire and one halve becoming part of the sassanid empire.

all before the timeline of this game..

than we have the KINGDOM (not an empire) Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia
it did excist in the right time period.. but it was much smaller, and thus not an empire.. and it was merely a bufferstate between byzantines and arabs..

and once the ottomans steamrolled in.. that too ended...

so amenia never has been an empire in the time period of this game.. and as such is not a valid nation to play.

I am well aware of the time frame for this game, so please don't patronise me. Please show me where I indicated that this civ was based on the Armenia from antiquity? All of the sources I used to come up with ideas for this civ talk about Armenia during the 11th - 14th century, including the Armenian Kingdom and Crusader state of Cilicia. And since when has it been a requirement to have been an empire to be in the game? The Vietnamese, Koreans and even Japanese didn't have an empire within the AoE2 timeframe. Not to mention that several other civs were never referred to as empires within the AoE2 timeframe either. There was no medieval "Indian Empire," but there were several kingdoms like the Rajputs. Lithuania referred to itself as a kingdom, not an empire. Also, just because they were defeated by another empire doesn't mean they aren't worth including. The Cuman campaign is literally about their civilisation being destroyed during the Mongol invasion, and they are still in the game.

Don't bother arguing with this people @mickeyjim, they won't even read the sources you provide.

They just don't want any new civs, full stop, which is sad.

Just show that there's interest for new civs, the rest is up to the devs to decide. It'd be sad if "The Last Khans" would be the last civ additions to the game, but so far they've shown no sign that it would be not the case. They'd rather add fluff like a Battle Royale mode I won't even bother to play.

[Blegh]

Originally posted by Szaladon:

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

I am well aware of the time frame for this game, so please don't patronise me. Please show me where I indicated that this civ was based on the Armenia from antiquity? All of the sources I used to come up with ideas for this civ talk about Armenia during the 11th - 14th century, including the Armenian Kingdom and Crusader state of Cilicia. And since when has it been a requirement to have been an empire to be in the game? The Vietnamese, Koreans and even Japanese didn't have an empire within the AoE2 timeframe. Not to mention that several other civs were never referred to as empires within the AoE2 timeframe either. There was no medieval "Indian Empire," but there were several kingdoms like the Rajputs. Lithuania referred to itself as a kingdom, not an empire. Also, just because they were defeated by another empire doesn't mean they aren't worth including. The Cuman campaign is literally about their civilisation being destroyed during the Mongol invasion, and they are still in the game.

Don't bother arguing with this people @mickeyjim, they won't even read the sources you provide.

They just don't want any new civs, full stop, which is sad.

Just show that there's interest for new civs, the rest is up to the devs to decide. It'd be sad if "The Last Khans" would be the last civ additions to the game, but so far they've shown no sign that it would be not the case. They'd rather add fluff like a Battle Royale mode I won't even bother to play.

It's funny when people argue that isn't it? Seeing as Huns are in the game XD

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by bwcamp:

It's funny when people argue that isn't it? Seeing as Huns are in the game XD

What's wrong with the Huns being in Age 2? They brought about the end of the Roman Empire, signalling the start of the Dark Ages in Europe. That's a crucial event to capture in your historical game which stretches from the Dark Ages to the end of the Renaissance period. The Huns don't belong in Age 1 if that's your argument. Age 1 is more concerned with everything BCE, with the Roman Empire at its peak. The Huns appear far too late to be relevant to the Age 1 timeline.

[Blegh]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Originally posted by bwcamp:

It's funny when people argue that isn't it? Seeing as Huns are in the game XD

What's wrong with the Huns being in Age 2? They brought about the end of the Roman Empire, signalling the start of the Dark Ages in Europe. That's a crucial event to capture in your historical game which stretches from the Dark Ages to the end of the Renaissance period. The Huns don't belong in Age 1 if that's your argument. Age 1 is more concerned with everything BCE, with the Roman Empire at its peak. The Huns appear far too late to be relevant to the Age 1 timeline.

They appear far too early to be in AGE2 either. They were around long before the fall of the Roman Empire, doesn't matter that they caused it.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by bwcamp:

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

What's wrong with the Huns being in Age 2? They brought about the end of the Roman Empire, signalling the start of the Dark Ages in Europe. That's a crucial event to capture in your historical game which stretches from the Dark Ages to the end of the Renaissance period. The Huns don't belong in Age 1 if that's your argument. Age 1 is more concerned with everything BCE, with the Roman Empire at its peak. The Huns appear far too late to be relevant to the Age 1 timeline.

They appear far too early to be in AGE2 either. They were around long before the fall of the Roman Empire, doesn't matter that they caused it.

What does the fact that they existed before the fall of Rome have to do with anything? They are relevant for the reasons I just listed. The Dark Ages are important in AoE2; the Huns caused the Dark Ages, ergo the Huns are relevant to AoE2.

[Blegh]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Originally posted by bwcamp:

They appear far too early to be in AGE2 either. They were around long before the fall of the Roman Empire, doesn't matter that they caused it.

What does the fact that they existed before the fall of Rome have to do with anything? They are relevant for the reasons I just listed. The Dark Ages are important in AoE2; the Huns caused the Dark Ages, ergo the Huns are relevant to AoE2.

? They didn't exist during the Middle Ages, they barely existed during the Dark ages. They aren't relevant, they should only have a dark age, not Feudal, Castle, and absolutely not Imperial. Causing an event doesn't change the fact that you didn't exist after the event. Age2 is the dark ages to Renaissance, the Huns only caused the dark ages, they didn't exist past it

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by bwcamp:

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

What does the fact that they existed before the fall of Rome have to do with anything? They are relevant for the reasons I just listed. The Dark Ages are important in AoE2; the Huns caused the Dark Ages, ergo the Huns are relevant to AoE2.

? They didn't exist during the Middle Ages, they barely existed during the Dark ages. They aren't relevant, they should only have a dark age, not Feudal, Castle, and absolutely not Imperial. Causing an event doesn't change the fact that you didn't exist after the event. Age2 is the dark ages to Renaissance, the Huns only caused the dark ages, they didn't exist past it

So the Huns magically disappeared the minute the Roman Empire fell? I'm not going to bother responding to the feudal, castle etc. argument because its a redundant argument that has been going on regarding multiple civs for years now. The Huns aren't going anywhere, they're relevant to Age 2 and are a very popular civ at that. Bye.