I feel like too many civs get BLOODLINES since The Forgotten expansion (2013) and beyond

[Philippe le Bon]

Many may rememember/know when Age of Empires II: The Conquerors was released in 2000, it introduced some new technologies and units into the game like Herbal Medecine, Thumb Ring, Halberdiers etc.

What I liked about Ensemble Studios approach back then, is that they keep their approach measured and honestly very elegant, by sprinkling the exciting novelties to a selected amount of civs
…Instead of giving the new stuff to almost all their new civs *cough* Supplies *cough* Gillnets *cough*

Bloodlines was no exception. As I recall back then, it used to be what I like to think of a "semi-niche" tech for Cavalry oriented civs, as I felt around half of The Conquerors (AoC) civs had Bloodlines, so I did the math and indeed, precisely half of the civs had Bloodlines.

I continued the calculations for each new expansion to see if my impressions were true, if Bloodlines was getting more and more "common"
(which both cheapens the tech and hinders strategical/unit type variety imho, which is obviously undesirable as AoE2 IS a strategy game, I mean what's more boring than every civ going hussar/cavalier…).

Worst thing is, it created a pesky feedback loop: the more civs are getting Bloodlines, the more NOT having the technology is detrimental for your civ.

And alas, the % of civs with Bloodlines are getting more and more common with every new patch, except the last two ones where both Burgundians and Bohemians don't have Bloodlines, thank God.
Anyway, tell me what you guys think, I'm curious to see if you noticed it, and if it bothers you or not!



THE MATH:
Age of Conquerors: 9/18 civs (50.00%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Byzantines, Celts, Franks, Japanese, Koreans, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Chinese, Goths, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Saracens, Spanish, Teutons, Turks

The Forgotten: 9/23 civs (39.13%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Byzantines, Celts, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Chinese, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese (balance change), Magyars, Mongols, Persians, Saracens, Slavs, Spanish, Teutons, Turks

The African Kingdoms: 10/27 civs (37.04%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Byzantines, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Berbers, Chinese, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese, Magyars, Malians, Mongols, Persians, Portuguese, Saracens, Slavs, Spanish, Teutons, Turks

Rise of the Rajas: 11/31 civs (35.48%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Byzantines, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Malay, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Berbers, Burmese, Chinese, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Magyars, Malians, Mongols, Persians, Portuguese, Saracens, Slavs, Spanish, Teutons, Turks, Vietnamese

The Last Khans (aka Definitive Edition): 11/35 civs (31.43%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Byzantines, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Malay, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Berbers, Bulgarians, Burmese, Chinese, Cumans, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Lithuanians, Magyars, Malians, Mongols, Persians, Portuguese, Saracens, Slavs, Spanish, Tatars, Teutons, Turks, Vietnamese

Lords of the West: 12/37 civs (32.43%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Burgundians, Byzantines, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Malay, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Berbers, Bulgarians, Burmese, Chinese, Cumans, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Lithuanians, Magyars, Malians, Mongols, Persians, Portuguese, Saracens, Sicilians, Slavs, Spanish, Tatars, Teutons, Turks, Vietnamese

Dawn of the Dukes: 13/39 civs (33,33%) don't have Bloodlines
Civs without Bloodlines: Aztecs, Britons, Bohemians, Burgundians, Byzantines, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Incas, Koreans, Malay, Mayans, Vikings
Civs with Bloodlines: Berbers, Bulgarians, Burmese, Chinese, Cumans, Goths, Huns, Indians, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Lithuanians, Magyars, Malians, Mongols, Persians, Poles, Portuguese, Saracens, Sicilians, Slavs, Spanish, Tatars, Teutons, Turks, Vietnamese

 

[Tarsiz]

Kind of a theme thing.

Last Khans revolves around civilizations that were famous for their cavalry and mobility, wouldn't make sense not to give them bloodlines.

Rise of the Rajas' focus was on elephant civs, again, would make sense to give them bloodlines.

In the older expansions it's a bit more debatable. Civs like Italians and Portuguese for example feel like "jacks of all trades" who can do a bit of everything and hence need bloodlines for gameplay purposes (otherwise they'd just be archer civs).

 

[chrummi]

I think if you want to discuss about that you should at least know which civs get the tech and which dont, i saw 3 mistakes at a quick glance.

 

[i_no_english]

Koreans don't get bloodlines. Please recalculate.

 

[GorLeon]

Burmese do have Bloodlines. Otherwise, they would be basically the most useless civ of the game (If they aren’t already).

 

[i_no_english]

Also you have to remember that the meso civs/total civs ratio becomes less and less with each update (after FE) which effects the bloodlines/civ ratio also.

 

[Philippe le Bon]

Koreans don't get bloodlines. Please recalculate.

Fixed now, thanks.
I knew it, but mindless copy and paste in an excel table surely numbs your mind. 11

 

[Philippe le Bon]

Burmese do have Bloodlines. Otherwise, they would be basically the most useless civ of the game (If they aren’t already).

Indeed, thank you I'm fixing that

 

[chrummi]

you also need to switch burmese and malay.

 

[i_no_english]

Also Franks don't get bloodlines anymore since (I believe) Voobly WK or the introduction of DE. So that would be either RotR or the Last Khans. They used to have both bloodlines and HP civ bonus am I correct?

The Japanese switch from no bloodlines to bloodlines was also effected in Voobly WK I believe, which I think is therefore more of a RotR change than FE.

 

[Philippe le Bon]

Kind of a theme thing.

Last Khans revolves around civilizations that were famous for their cavalry and mobility, wouldn't make sense not to give them bloodlines.

Rise of the Rajas' focus was on elephant civs, again, would make sense to give them bloodlines.

In the older expansions it's a bit more debatable. Civs like Italians and Portuguese for example feel like "jacks of all trades" who can do a bit of everything and hence need bloodlines for gameplay purposes (otherwise they'd just be archer civs).

It makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand Byzantines who were here since the beginning are also considered as a civ with a lot of options, without excelling in any area, and they do lack bloodlines (+ no blast furnace for good measure)

 

[Philippe le Bon]

you also need to switch burmese and malay.

done thanks

 

[Philippe le Bon]

Also Franks don't get bloodlines anymore since (I believe) Voobly WK or the introduction of DE. So that would be either RotR or the Last Khans. They used to have both bloodlines and HP civ bonus am I correct?

The Japanese switch from no bloodlines to bloodlines was also effected in Voobly WK I believe, which I think is therefore more of a RotR change than FE.

Japanese Bloodlines was introduced in The Forgotten according to wiki

Japanese (Age of Empires II)

ageofempires.fandom.com

 

[i_no_english]

Ok maybe I am wrong. I thought it was a community effected balance change in WK.

 

[Philippe le Bon]

Ok maybe I am wrong. I thought it was a community effected balance change in WK.

As for Franks, they never had Bloodlines ;
But their Knight-line recieve +20% HP since The Age of Kings, then it was changed to +20% HP for all their cavalry units since The African Kingdoms

 

[i_no_english]

I believe you are right about this kind sir, my bad.

 

[vince]

teutons get bloodlines

they miss out on husbandry

 

[vince]

but for me it doesn't bother me, because a lot of those civs that have bloodlines still end up missing other key techs such as husbandry, blast furnace, or plate barding armor

 

[SouFire]

You finally realize balancing has turn into a clown fest this late?

Not only bloodlines, but also; bracer, redemption, BBtower, BBC, Bombard galleon, full eco upgrades despite early eco bonuses, naval upgrades, etc.

But hey lets keep telling each other "we have the best balance ever"

 

[mangojuice]

But hey lets keep telling each other "we have the best balance ever"

I know this is a troll answer but I've seen it repeated often enough to expand on this. Yes, the current balance is indeed good. But balance is not everything.

Ideally we have a world where

• civs have identity: each civ feels unique regarding playstyle
• civs are balanced: civs feel equally strong in general and there should be no unbalanced civ matchups

In general, focusing on giving civs identity leads to very tricky balance situation (think spanish without crossbow, or turks without skirms/pikes).

On the other hand, slapping bloodlines on every civ is a very lazy way to ensure balance. The generic unit combo of knights with bloodlines, xbow, skirms, pikes, monks, mangos should be able to match every other unit combination. If something is missing there, you need to provide other ways (like how britons/vikings need good infantry to deal with eagles, or how indians have the hussar/HCA combo against eagles).

But please don't confuse lazy game design with balance, those are two independent issues.

 

[huntskiki]

This is a direct result of the knight/xbow meta that has developed. The devs have nerfed almost every unique unit to the point that knights and xbows are the only viable units and in that world, most civs are going to need bloodlines to be able to compete.

 

[Influenza]

Rise of the Rajas' focus was on elephant civs, again, would make sense to give them bloodlines.

?? no one bred elephants for war

 

[Influenza]

This is a direct result of the knight/xbow meta that has developed. The devs have nerfed almost every unique unit to the point that knights and xbows are the only viable units and in that world, most civs are going to need bloodlines to be able to compete.

incorrect, knights and xbows were always the best combination of units in open map TG. The main reason UU builds are harder to pull off is due to walls being nerfed so xbows can bust in more easily as well as people picking civs in every single game. Not to mention the increased micro potential for xbows due to lack of latency.

All if takes is a few games on maps outside of TG arabia and you will find out that many UUs are extremely oppressive... In fact, I would say random civ 4v4 nomad in 2021 is based mostly around which team has more terribly broken UUs.

 

[SouFire]

I know this is a troll answer but I've seen it repeated often enough to expand on this. Yes, the current balance is indeed good. But balance is not everything.

Ideally we have a world where

• civs have identity: each civ feels unique regarding playstyle
• civs are balanced: civs feel equally strong in general and there should be no unbalanced civ matchups

In general, focusing on giving civs identity leads to very tricky balance situation (think spanish without crossbow, or turks without skirms/pikes).

On the other hand, slapping bloodlines on every civ is a very lazy way to ensure balance. The generic unit combo of knights with bloodlines, xbow, skirms, pikes, monks, mangos should be able to match every other unit combination. If something is missing there, you need to provide other ways (like how britons/vikings need good infantry to deal with eagles, or how indians have the hussar/HCA combo against eagles).

But please don't confuse lazy game design with balance, those are two independent issues.

Lazy civ design and poor balancing is tied, how come that a civ that is supposed to be a cavalry civ, has paladin line above other knight civs, cavalry UU above the rest, so maybe ok with that alone but, they also have full water, full economy, decent militia and speedy halb line and skirms with 11 pierce armor and faster, they also have full artillery at their disposal and if that's not enough they have the most important monk upgrades with a small bonus there oh and an early eco bonus, that civ has not a real weakness, not a single hole in their tec tree, like if their identity was just to be perfect.

FE has gave the most important and vital upgrades to like 85% of their creations and after african kingdoms they don't really have holes in their tec trees, just look at all the BBtowers civs we have now, we have 3 times more than the original civs with it, so it isn't only bloodlines.

 

[Ajajp_Alejandro]

Lmao I had the same feeling for Crop Rotation. In the Conquerors, 8/18 (44%) civs had Crop Rotation. Now, 26/39 (66%) civs have Crop Rotation. Not like that technology really affects gameplay, but still, the new civ designers have some kind of weird fetish with it.