guys incas were a not developed civ aoc used civs that some time they reach high army or eco or tec developement, in my historical knowledge put incas as a aoc civ would be ridiculous, they dont even have a language lol they only knew how to draw kids pictures so look for another civs.
About geen post having a uu that take gold each hit would be a big advantage
1. Palisade walls have 200 HP instead of 250.
2. Cavalry archers cost 40W 65G instead of 40W 70G.
3. Huns: CA cost bonus becomes -10% castle/-15% imperial instead of -25%/-30%.
4. Vikings: Warships cost -10% instead of -20%.
5. Saracens: Market costs 100W instead of 175W.
6. Koreans: Foragers work 10% faster.
7. Turks: Gold miners work 20% faster instead of 15%.
AoC RM fixed.
I think the topic was about new expansion, not if Daut is back for the money or not!? He is just a legend and no matter the reason he plays... it's a treasure for all of the community no doubt! That's why I hope the legend players and expert players and top players must be active in considering new patches or expansions. Especially with their opinion about existing civs.Dunno why poeple still consider daut as money whore.. there were many tourneys with money involved and many poeple was like: "he is back cuz of mone yand tourney but once it ends he leave" yea many times he left but then he came back ,he also said that AOC is his favorite game so why should he play just throu tourneys?..
When he is bored of AOC he goes to another game and when he is bored on another game he come back ,nothing wrong with it... :S
Bulgars? I don't mean disrespect toward your ancestors but they were always dominated and occupied in middles ages by the Byzantine Empire, already represented in game, and later by Turks. They were too tiny to count in wars.
Bulgars? I don't mean disrespect toward your ancestors but they were always dominated and occupied in middles ages by the Byzantine Empire, already represented in game, and later by Turks. They were too tiny to count in wars.
Maybe Lithuania, Poland were somewhat significant then. maybe kievan/russians too untill they got decimated by the mongols
Lithuania was russia since 1991? Could this be even more wrong?
Dunno why poeple still consider daut as money whore.. there were many tourneys with money involved and many poeple was like: "he is back cuz of mone yand tourney but once it ends he leave" yea many times he left but then he came back ,he also said that AOC is his favorite game so why should he play just throu tourneys?..
When he is bored of AOC he goes to another game and when he is bored on another game he come back ,nothing wrong with it... :S
Richard said:Sorry for the offtopic. Please write more ideas about the new expansion.
Lithuania was russia since 1991? Could this be even more wrong?
Yes I mean "until" not since... you are right guys
On 11 March 1990, Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to declare independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania
2 times in its known history, India was represented by one kingdom for 3 or more generations.
First with Mauryans, at the time of Alexander the great
Second with Mughals.
Both times Indian civ was in its peak.
And yes, persian tech tree would be close to it. And in fact persian elephants is funny coz, I dont think apart from Indian kings, anybody else used elephants in warfare.
2 times in its known history, India was represented by one kingdom for 3 or more generations.
First with Mauryans, at the time of Alexander the great
Second with Mughals.
Both times Indian civ was in its peak.
And yes, persian tech tree would be close to it. And in fact persian elephants is funny coz, I dont think apart from Indian kings, anybody else used elephants in warfare.
Elephants were used by Hannibal against the Roman empire in the ancient times for example. Did Persians rule at least some part of India during history?
Edit: you can find some examples here about applying elephants in combat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant
Not only Indians did. There are several civilizations mentioned, one of them are the Persians. I think Persian War Elephant is quite authentic.
What could you guys imagine as Indian UU?
Bulgars are one of the possible options for a Slavic civ indeed. It seems without doubt though that the Slavic civ will be cavalry oriented.civ: Bulgars
great cavalry and good siege weapons, I just telling you the historical facts. You can check wikipedia for more info but if you want suggestions
UU: Madara Raider - Cavalry unit with spear and sword for close fight – similar to Byzantium cataphract but faster
HP: 110 Atack: 10 Armor 2, Pierce armor 2; Range: 0
Elite upgrade:1200F 750G--->Elite UU: HP 150 Atack: 13
Bloodlines = yes
Team bonus: Cavalry +10% speed
Unique tech: Trachian treasure – must be kind of gold bonus!?
Farms +10% food in Feudal, +20 in Castles +30 in Imperial
You nailed it!Richard said:We should focus on balancing current civs and adding some new ones. Believe me, this will be enough of work.
I'm using modding tools, but not to modify existing units. I add new units with these tools to make sure I don't change anything of the old AoC. I also hex edit the exe file because otherwise I wouldn't be able to add more civs anyways.Richard said:Cysion, how can you implement this expansion? Is it "just" a mod?
True, but the same holds for many more civs in AoC. William Wallace wasn't the leader of the Celts, he was leader of the Scots. The Celtic civilisation has nearly nothing to do with the civ that we play in AoC. Goths is a big gathering name for all the seperate Gothic tribes. Teutons refer to the old Germanic tribe (the Teutons) and represent the Holy Roman Empire. The Teutonic order on which they seem to be really inspired wasn't even a civilisation, but more a military brotherhood. Spain didn't exist until 1496 (just within the time span of aoc).Dalv said:And India was separated in many factions back then... sultanates, kingdoms, empires, you can't talk about India as a whole in middle ages.
Slavs were not cavalry oriented. In times of Roamn Empire they were moslty light infantry, archers etc, cavalry units were very rarely or maybe were not at all. Slavs were not organised, peacefull poeple till Samo's empire and then "Magna Moravia". During Avar invasion they adopted cavalry techniques but backboen of their army was always light infantry. Things changed with time going on.. Slavs were threated by many nations.. from west there were Franks, from South Byzantine empire from east there were nomads (Avars ,Huns ,Magyars etc..) from north there were Vikings later Normans etc etc so they adopted every style of fighitng from infantry throuch archery to cavalry).Bulgars are one of the possible options for a Slavic civ indeed. It seems without doubt though that the Slavic civ will be cavalry oriented.
Sorry but this is really inaccurate :PEven your great idol, DauT himself said that there is no strategy any more (which is ridiculous in case of an RTS), the game is so simple, you have to mass only one unit.