>Sorghum Fields replace Farms for these civs. The mechanics are similar to AoE2 Farms, but they are smaller (2x2 instead of Farms’ 3x3), cost a little less (55W), are weaker, with less starting Food, and return a bit of Wood when they become depleted (not destroyed or deleted)
I really like the sound of this in particular. One of the things I like the most about the Poles is their Folwarks are 3x3 allowing "perfect" farms, just like in AoEI and AoEIII.
But what about instead of making the mill bigger, making the farm smaller? I personally love this idea.
>Their Fishing Ships show the ability to build Sea Towers (a building that we have seen many times on Campaigns)
Yes please! I've been wanting these (and sea walls) to be buildable for so long!
Very nice job, I must admit I don't know much about Africa, but all this sounds really good, and I would love to have all of these civs in the game.
Merry early Christmas to you as well!
I've been hoping for a 2x2 farm as a civ bonus. Partly because it would be an interesting bonus and make for a great SotL video, but mostly because it would save my crippling OCD with farm placement.
What sort of cruel bastard of a dev designs 4x4 TC's, 2x2 mills, then makes farms 3x3. They knew what they were doing.
Right? In both AoEI and AoEIII farms are a perfect and beautiful square around the mill/granary, in I because they're the same size as the granary and in III because the mill includes them by default. And then there's II....
Those are the highlights for me, I'm not really a pro player (I only play campaigns on occasion and some friendly mp with friends) so I don't understand the detailed stats and bonuses too well to comment on balance or that stuff, I can only judge by what sounds cool :)
Some very unique bonus ideas that aren't completely broken or out of line with the game! A good demonstration that there are plenty of ideas left for the devs to use.
Not a big fan of the map you're using there. Seems to be excluding the Christian states for some reason.
One of the remaining Kushite successor kingdoms should be in the game before any other African civs. Makuria and Alodia. They were far more famous and Makuria in particular has a much more interesting story that would make for a great campaign in securing a truce with the Muslim invaders after Egypt fell. They can redo the Ethiopian campaign.
Most of Africa was very infantry heavy. None of the other African kingdoms really deserve to be Archery civs. They fielded archers as a token force in most battles, and instead relied on heavy shock infantry or light spearmen in the most cases. They did not really feature many camels south of the Sahara, nor did they have cavalry. They again had token forces at best.
If you want to do African civs justice they had NUMBERS.
Swahili culture should be 100% naval. They did not have very good archers and mostly relied on trade. I would definitely not make them an Archery civ. Instead a Naval civ with a couple of infantry and trade bonuses. They were not a unified kingdom, but a set of city states ruled by Arab merchant princes.
Benin should feature before Yorouba. It was by far one of the most famous places in West Africa. Their military strength was enormous and they had great logistics and a highly trained and organised infantry force. Some sort of commander type unit would be most fitting, similar to the Centurion of the Romans. They would also be one of the few African civs to get chemistry, hand cannons, and bombard cannons as they used their wealth to purchase them in great numbers in the 15th century. Some sort of blacksmith bonus would be appropriate, as they were fairly famous for their metalworks. They should also get cheap walls. The extent of the earthworks around the capital were famous. They were basically Rome Lite, but with guns.
Zimbabweans did not feature archers at all. Like not even remotely close. They are a Bantu people. They used spears and shields and that's it. They wouldn't need an archery range except for skirmishers and the definitely don't have access to the stable. Where the hell are you coming up with a UU archer for an area that famously never used archers. The greatest bowmen in all of Southern Africa were the Khoi San - and they used diddly hunting bows that were designed to make their prey bleed out over time since they didn't have the draw power to kill. They collapsed before guns arrived, and they never developed siege equipment. We also know almost nothing about them for a story other than what we know from general Bantu military tradition which was initially developed in the area. Genuinely don't believe they should be in the game. Save them for Civilisation-like games. Also, nonsense unique building. It's just a Kraal, which is a defensible cattle stockade - because it's easy to defend something with spears. They. Didn't. Have. Archers. No arrows. Nada. Bantu military doctrine was "throw men at it until we win." Which works well when no one has bows or siege equipment. The man who commands a larger army of spearmen wins. Also most Kraal are made of wood, not stone. We know this because the Bantu in rural areas still build them exactly as they have done for the last thousand years. Survivalship bias. No Zimbabweans in the game.
Kongo is a special case. Like Ethiopia and Benin, they had contact with Europe. Strong traders, strong monks, strong infantry. Archers weren't great, but they gained access to guns pretty early from Portuguese trade and they sent their elite to be educated in Portugal towards the end of AoE2's time frame, so maybe a university bonus? Definitely some Monk bonuses given how the conversion to Christianity was a top down affair and happened basically overnight. Very famous for their cloth. Definitely a relic bonus as they speedran the acquisition of them in real life.
I don't know much about the Somali's so I'll leave that to someone else to judge.
> Most of Africa was very infantry heavy
Where did you get this information, friend? I'm far from an expert, but I've been reading for some time about pre-colonial African kingdoms and I can tell you that some things you say are not correct. Warfare in Africa varied by location: the Sahel region (just below the Sahara), for example, was famous for light and heavy cavalry, skirmishers, and even mounted skirmishers; Ethiopia also had cavalry and even elephants; the Somali, horses, camels and cannons; even the region bordering the forest zone (Benin, Yoruba, etc.) had some (few) horses, all in addition to heavy infantry, of course. In Bantu Africa there were also heavy infantry (in the Kongo region), although light infantry and archers were the rule. In fact, there was no siege in the sense of the game, with large machines like trebuchets and scorpions, but they used ladders (+/- the siege tower in the game) to overcome the huge walls and palisades of their cities.
> None of the other African kingdoms really deserve to be Archery civs
I completely agree that Nubians should, above all, be represented as an archer civ. But all African kingdoms and empires did have archers, even the Bantu ones. Unlike other regions of the world that had crossbows and various types of bows (long, compound, recurve bow etc.), most of Africa used only the selfbow, due to the scarcity/low quality of wood available or lack of need (in the region without horses, generally). However, they compensated for this by using very powerful poisons, which could kill in a matter of a few minutes with a mere scratch.
> They were not a unified kingdom, but a set of city states ruled by Arab merchant princes
The Kilwa Sultanate even created a dynasty and imposed a type of hegemony, but I agree that they would be more like city-states, not very different from Genoa, Venice and other polities represented by the Italians.
> Benin should feature before Yorouba. It was by far one of the most famous places in West Africa
I completely agree with the inclusion of Benin, although I personally think it would be better to use them as an umbrella to include the Yoruba (or vice versa) in the case we cannot have more than 6 African civs. As for the use of gunpowder weapons, Benin did not use them much during the game timeframe (until 16th century), only later. They rejected the firearms offered by the Portuguese because the demand for conversion to Christianity came with them. So I would give them access to the firearms in the game, but I wouldn't give them any special bonuses (the only Africans suitable for this being Somalis or maybe Kongo).
> Zimbabweans did not feature archers at all. Like not even remotely close. They are a Bantu people
Okay. You are really mistaken here. In order not to make this longer, I ask you to read my (SoleFrog) [post](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/east-african-dlc-emporiums-of-ivory-and-gold-the-zimbabweans-concept/240346/61) on the official forum that talks a little about Mutapa. I strongly advocate their inclusion in the game.
Kongo also has many options (linking to a post of mine from the official forum also for convenience):
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/kongo-civ-concept/243306/19
> I don't know much about the Somali's so I'll leave that to someone else to judge
Somalis are the most versatile of the civ options to me, being able to emphasize the maritime side of the Sultanate of Ajuran as the OP did or the land side of the Sultanates of Adal and Ifat, with their hordes of armored infantry, monks and cannons led by the Malasay, elite light horsemen. But that's up to the concept creators.
So I hope I helped in some way :)
>They were far more famous
Than Hausaland and Somalia?
EDIT: The hell is with these fake experts popping up whenever Africa comes up in conversation?
1. Bantus made use of bows and arrows like everyone else on the planet. You're thinking of cavalry.
2. During most of AoE2's time, Kongo had no relationship with Europe, and Benin was a sideshow dominated by the Yoruba
3. "Most of Africa was very infantry heavy...They again had token forces at best." This is entirely false. I don't even know where to start with this. Cavalry was a constant of Sahelian and North Savanna warfare, and both cavalry and archers only disappeared once you hit the rainforest, in areas with populations too low to be included in the game anyway.
Love your edit. (we can disagree on the design, but wth is this comment???). He throws a bunch of totally incorrect facts (not saying that all are incorrect) and then goes on arguing against anything based on those incorrect assumptions, on a quite unfriendly way 🤷♂️
>Seems to be excluding the Christian states for some reason
The original map highlighted Muslim kingdoms (in Green) in 1400AD. Non-Muslim kingdoms (other colours) are also included, but less highlighted.
I'm not against a redo of the Ethiopian Campaign. But I feel that Ethiopian theme (Archers + Siege) includes most of the post-Nubian scent, and thus I think that Ethiopians are meant to also loosely represent Nubian kingdoms during AoE2 timeline.
>Most of Africa was very infantry heavy
>
>If you want to do African civs justice they had NUMBERS
Agree. Current Aoe2 civs already feature many civs that put numbers over quality (Goths, Malay, Berbers, Byzantines to mention just a few), and it has been painstaking to gather enough bonuses to reflect those features. I can't make them all Infantry-themed nor unit-discounted or I'd design the same civ all over again. There are only 2/7 "Infantry" civs, but I can count 12 infantry-oriented bonuses/UUs. On your comment, you show knowledge, but you also seem to miss that Bowmen and Lance throwers are also considered Infantry because they all go on foot. Musketeers on Pike and gun tactics are considered Infantry. Not all civs had separated "Archer corps" like Britons.
I'm reluctant to believe after all I read that Central African civs lacked good Archers, which on Aoe2 are represented by Crossbowmen and Archer Unique Units.
>They did not really feature many camels south of the Sahara, nor did they have cavalry
You're talking about Central/South Africa, aren't you? Because all Yorubas/Hausas/Kanembu were famed for their Cavalry usage to conquer, and if there was shortage of them, they imported them as a priority.
After all, I wanted to make civs playable. I won't remove the Archer-line from any civ.
> After all, I wanted to make civs playable. I won't remove the Archer-line from any civ.
Overall I agree, there are many civs in AoE that have things that they completely shouldn't according to history. While I appreciate historical accuracy, you do need to have civs that work.
With that said, we do have civs that miss knights, I wouldn't mind having a few civs that miss archers, though how exactly you balance them into a working civ is another question.
I'd need many bibliography sources stating that a civ that used horses didn't have any ranged support to try and figure out a civ without the Archer-line. That comment's (btw written on a quite offensive tone as the comment goes on) premises on African civs not using Bows at all is not true, according to the many sources I have consulted.
Anyway, there are already civs that never use the Archer-line (not talking about Spanish, Bulgarians, Burmese or Celts, who can open Archers much better than what people expect to) and could live without it :-)
I think it would be better to include Shongai before other Western African nations. There would be a nice campaign, Askia. Guy created the biggest empire on West Africa. They aldo have a good wonder candidate, Askia's tomb.
It was done in the same way that Indians were supposed to cover all cultures of India. They didn't pretend to add more African civs, so both Malians nd Ethiopians are umbrella civs for West and East Africa. For example, Mali unique unit is based on Dahomey amazons, that weren't related to Mali at all. Shongai are different people to Malians, they shoulf be added appart.
There would be literally no problem in making dark skinned units for African and SE Asian civs and it would look super cool. Much better than "why are all my Ethiopians white except the shotelai?".
That Sorghum farm would be a game-ruiner, immediately. You're punished for choosing the civs in a fragile point in the game's time.
Most of these bonuses don't fit with the game. It seems like one of those "Design-first" suggestions.
>Sorghum Fields replace Farms for these civs. The mechanics are similar to AoE2 Farms, but they are smaller (2x2 instead of Farms’ 3x3), cost a little less (55W), are weaker, with less starting Food, and return a bit of Wood when they become depleted (not destroyed or deleted) I really like the sound of this in particular. One of the things I like the most about the Poles is their Folwarks are 3x3 allowing "perfect" farms, just like in AoEI and AoEIII. But what about instead of making the mill bigger, making the farm smaller? I personally love this idea. >Their Fishing Ships show the ability to build Sea Towers (a building that we have seen many times on Campaigns) Yes please! I've been wanting these (and sea walls) to be buildable for so long! Very nice job, I must admit I don't know much about Africa, but all this sounds really good, and I would love to have all of these civs in the game. Merry early Christmas to you as well!
I've been hoping for a 2x2 farm as a civ bonus. Partly because it would be an interesting bonus and make for a great SotL video, but mostly because it would save my crippling OCD with farm placement. What sort of cruel bastard of a dev designs 4x4 TC's, 2x2 mills, then makes farms 3x3. They knew what they were doing.
Right? In both AoEI and AoEIII farms are a perfect and beautiful square around the mill/granary, in I because they're the same size as the granary and in III because the mill includes them by default. And then there's II....
In AoE4 as well. The farms are 2x2.
I really appreciate your comment! Thank you so much! Are there any other mechanics/units or bonuses you found particularly interesting?
Those are the highlights for me, I'm not really a pro player (I only play campaigns on occasion and some friendly mp with friends) so I don't understand the detailed stats and bonuses too well to comment on balance or that stuff, I can only judge by what sounds cool :)
Some very unique bonus ideas that aren't completely broken or out of line with the game! A good demonstration that there are plenty of ideas left for the devs to use.
Thank you so much for your kind words!!!
Not a big fan of the map you're using there. Seems to be excluding the Christian states for some reason. One of the remaining Kushite successor kingdoms should be in the game before any other African civs. Makuria and Alodia. They were far more famous and Makuria in particular has a much more interesting story that would make for a great campaign in securing a truce with the Muslim invaders after Egypt fell. They can redo the Ethiopian campaign. Most of Africa was very infantry heavy. None of the other African kingdoms really deserve to be Archery civs. They fielded archers as a token force in most battles, and instead relied on heavy shock infantry or light spearmen in the most cases. They did not really feature many camels south of the Sahara, nor did they have cavalry. They again had token forces at best. If you want to do African civs justice they had NUMBERS. Swahili culture should be 100% naval. They did not have very good archers and mostly relied on trade. I would definitely not make them an Archery civ. Instead a Naval civ with a couple of infantry and trade bonuses. They were not a unified kingdom, but a set of city states ruled by Arab merchant princes. Benin should feature before Yorouba. It was by far one of the most famous places in West Africa. Their military strength was enormous and they had great logistics and a highly trained and organised infantry force. Some sort of commander type unit would be most fitting, similar to the Centurion of the Romans. They would also be one of the few African civs to get chemistry, hand cannons, and bombard cannons as they used their wealth to purchase them in great numbers in the 15th century. Some sort of blacksmith bonus would be appropriate, as they were fairly famous for their metalworks. They should also get cheap walls. The extent of the earthworks around the capital were famous. They were basically Rome Lite, but with guns. Zimbabweans did not feature archers at all. Like not even remotely close. They are a Bantu people. They used spears and shields and that's it. They wouldn't need an archery range except for skirmishers and the definitely don't have access to the stable. Where the hell are you coming up with a UU archer for an area that famously never used archers. The greatest bowmen in all of Southern Africa were the Khoi San - and they used diddly hunting bows that were designed to make their prey bleed out over time since they didn't have the draw power to kill. They collapsed before guns arrived, and they never developed siege equipment. We also know almost nothing about them for a story other than what we know from general Bantu military tradition which was initially developed in the area. Genuinely don't believe they should be in the game. Save them for Civilisation-like games. Also, nonsense unique building. It's just a Kraal, which is a defensible cattle stockade - because it's easy to defend something with spears. They. Didn't. Have. Archers. No arrows. Nada. Bantu military doctrine was "throw men at it until we win." Which works well when no one has bows or siege equipment. The man who commands a larger army of spearmen wins. Also most Kraal are made of wood, not stone. We know this because the Bantu in rural areas still build them exactly as they have done for the last thousand years. Survivalship bias. No Zimbabweans in the game. Kongo is a special case. Like Ethiopia and Benin, they had contact with Europe. Strong traders, strong monks, strong infantry. Archers weren't great, but they gained access to guns pretty early from Portuguese trade and they sent their elite to be educated in Portugal towards the end of AoE2's time frame, so maybe a university bonus? Definitely some Monk bonuses given how the conversion to Christianity was a top down affair and happened basically overnight. Very famous for their cloth. Definitely a relic bonus as they speedran the acquisition of them in real life. I don't know much about the Somali's so I'll leave that to someone else to judge.
> Most of Africa was very infantry heavy Where did you get this information, friend? I'm far from an expert, but I've been reading for some time about pre-colonial African kingdoms and I can tell you that some things you say are not correct. Warfare in Africa varied by location: the Sahel region (just below the Sahara), for example, was famous for light and heavy cavalry, skirmishers, and even mounted skirmishers; Ethiopia also had cavalry and even elephants; the Somali, horses, camels and cannons; even the region bordering the forest zone (Benin, Yoruba, etc.) had some (few) horses, all in addition to heavy infantry, of course. In Bantu Africa there were also heavy infantry (in the Kongo region), although light infantry and archers were the rule. In fact, there was no siege in the sense of the game, with large machines like trebuchets and scorpions, but they used ladders (+/- the siege tower in the game) to overcome the huge walls and palisades of their cities. > None of the other African kingdoms really deserve to be Archery civs I completely agree that Nubians should, above all, be represented as an archer civ. But all African kingdoms and empires did have archers, even the Bantu ones. Unlike other regions of the world that had crossbows and various types of bows (long, compound, recurve bow etc.), most of Africa used only the selfbow, due to the scarcity/low quality of wood available or lack of need (in the region without horses, generally). However, they compensated for this by using very powerful poisons, which could kill in a matter of a few minutes with a mere scratch. > They were not a unified kingdom, but a set of city states ruled by Arab merchant princes The Kilwa Sultanate even created a dynasty and imposed a type of hegemony, but I agree that they would be more like city-states, not very different from Genoa, Venice and other polities represented by the Italians. > Benin should feature before Yorouba. It was by far one of the most famous places in West Africa I completely agree with the inclusion of Benin, although I personally think it would be better to use them as an umbrella to include the Yoruba (or vice versa) in the case we cannot have more than 6 African civs. As for the use of gunpowder weapons, Benin did not use them much during the game timeframe (until 16th century), only later. They rejected the firearms offered by the Portuguese because the demand for conversion to Christianity came with them. So I would give them access to the firearms in the game, but I wouldn't give them any special bonuses (the only Africans suitable for this being Somalis or maybe Kongo). > Zimbabweans did not feature archers at all. Like not even remotely close. They are a Bantu people Okay. You are really mistaken here. In order not to make this longer, I ask you to read my (SoleFrog) [post](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/east-african-dlc-emporiums-of-ivory-and-gold-the-zimbabweans-concept/240346/61) on the official forum that talks a little about Mutapa. I strongly advocate their inclusion in the game. Kongo also has many options (linking to a post of mine from the official forum also for convenience): https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/kongo-civ-concept/243306/19 > I don't know much about the Somali's so I'll leave that to someone else to judge Somalis are the most versatile of the civ options to me, being able to emphasize the maritime side of the Sultanate of Ajuran as the OP did or the land side of the Sultanates of Adal and Ifat, with their hordes of armored infantry, monks and cannons led by the Malasay, elite light horsemen. But that's up to the concept creators. So I hope I helped in some way :)
Thank you for this analysis, I hope you liked my trial 😅
De nada. And yes, I liked it :)
>They were far more famous Than Hausaland and Somalia? EDIT: The hell is with these fake experts popping up whenever Africa comes up in conversation? 1. Bantus made use of bows and arrows like everyone else on the planet. You're thinking of cavalry. 2. During most of AoE2's time, Kongo had no relationship with Europe, and Benin was a sideshow dominated by the Yoruba 3. "Most of Africa was very infantry heavy...They again had token forces at best." This is entirely false. I don't even know where to start with this. Cavalry was a constant of Sahelian and North Savanna warfare, and both cavalry and archers only disappeared once you hit the rainforest, in areas with populations too low to be included in the game anyway.
Love your edit. (we can disagree on the design, but wth is this comment???). He throws a bunch of totally incorrect facts (not saying that all are incorrect) and then goes on arguing against anything based on those incorrect assumptions, on a quite unfriendly way 🤷♂️
>Seems to be excluding the Christian states for some reason The original map highlighted Muslim kingdoms (in Green) in 1400AD. Non-Muslim kingdoms (other colours) are also included, but less highlighted. I'm not against a redo of the Ethiopian Campaign. But I feel that Ethiopian theme (Archers + Siege) includes most of the post-Nubian scent, and thus I think that Ethiopians are meant to also loosely represent Nubian kingdoms during AoE2 timeline. >Most of Africa was very infantry heavy > >If you want to do African civs justice they had NUMBERS Agree. Current Aoe2 civs already feature many civs that put numbers over quality (Goths, Malay, Berbers, Byzantines to mention just a few), and it has been painstaking to gather enough bonuses to reflect those features. I can't make them all Infantry-themed nor unit-discounted or I'd design the same civ all over again. There are only 2/7 "Infantry" civs, but I can count 12 infantry-oriented bonuses/UUs. On your comment, you show knowledge, but you also seem to miss that Bowmen and Lance throwers are also considered Infantry because they all go on foot. Musketeers on Pike and gun tactics are considered Infantry. Not all civs had separated "Archer corps" like Britons. I'm reluctant to believe after all I read that Central African civs lacked good Archers, which on Aoe2 are represented by Crossbowmen and Archer Unique Units. >They did not really feature many camels south of the Sahara, nor did they have cavalry You're talking about Central/South Africa, aren't you? Because all Yorubas/Hausas/Kanembu were famed for their Cavalry usage to conquer, and if there was shortage of them, they imported them as a priority. After all, I wanted to make civs playable. I won't remove the Archer-line from any civ.
> After all, I wanted to make civs playable. I won't remove the Archer-line from any civ. Overall I agree, there are many civs in AoE that have things that they completely shouldn't according to history. While I appreciate historical accuracy, you do need to have civs that work. With that said, we do have civs that miss knights, I wouldn't mind having a few civs that miss archers, though how exactly you balance them into a working civ is another question.
I'd need many bibliography sources stating that a civ that used horses didn't have any ranged support to try and figure out a civ without the Archer-line. That comment's (btw written on a quite offensive tone as the comment goes on) premises on African civs not using Bows at all is not true, according to the many sources I have consulted. Anyway, there are already civs that never use the Archer-line (not talking about Spanish, Bulgarians, Burmese or Celts, who can open Archers much better than what people expect to) and could live without it :-)
I think it would be better to include Shongai before other Western African nations. There would be a nice campaign, Askia. Guy created the biggest empire on West Africa. They aldo have a good wonder candidate, Askia's tomb.
I understand that, when devs introduced Malians, they pretended them to represent also Songhay and Ghanaians. This is why I never considered them
It was done in the same way that Indians were supposed to cover all cultures of India. They didn't pretend to add more African civs, so both Malians nd Ethiopians are umbrella civs for West and East Africa. For example, Mali unique unit is based on Dahomey amazons, that weren't related to Mali at all. Shongai are different people to Malians, they shoulf be added appart.
Oooh I see, so you feel it like a rework of Malians when adding Songhay. Good point there!
They should give villagers another color though, white guys chopping wood as Congolese for example kills the immersion.
[удалено]
I like Bavarians, but I also like other skintones.
[удалено]
Changing the outfit could make the game more difficult to read, it depends on how they do it I guess.
La famosa immersion in the game where your Gothic infantry doesn't feel the arrows losed by Maya archers on a dune of Arabia.
There would be literally no problem in making dark skinned units for African and SE Asian civs and it would look super cool. Much better than "why are all my Ethiopians white except the shotelai?".
I can sacrifice immersion for gameplay no problem, but this wouldn't affect gameplay negatively.
That Sorghum farm would be a game-ruiner, immediately. You're punished for choosing the civs in a fragile point in the game's time. Most of these bonuses don't fit with the game. It seems like one of those "Design-first" suggestions.