I create educational content that explores the tactics and strategy of Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition. This consists mostly of tierlists where I examine and rank the civilizations according to their attributes and bonuses. Eventually, I will expand this content to assess civilizations independently and explore other themes.
Here's a link to my discord if you wanna jump into any of the conversation there: discord.gg/vUpYffPdeA
I've had this on my watch later list since it came out and FINALLY found time to watch it! Awesome build my friend. I think this might be my favorite one you've ever done. While I would go about this civ slightly differently, I think that this is the best I've seen your formula produce, reasonably well-grounded bonuses with extraordinarily well thought out gameplay implications. Favorite part was without a doubt the Team Bonus: enemy penalties are entirely overhated and very underrated! I love how this one in particular fits into the civilization's identity. One big question though: where the hell did you find the name for your unique unit? "Gadraught" is a fantastic word and not something I came across at all in my own research for this civilization.
There's two ways of looking at it in my view: 1. Forging is definitely better for killing spears b/c you can whittle them down faster and prevent a lot of damage. 2. Armor helps in both melee and ranged combat. So, there's a bit more versatility there. Spears are such a common enemy in 1v1s that I think there's a lot of reason to get forging instead, but it probably depends on what you're up against. You're probably running from spears regardless, so maybe getting armor to not get whittled down by archers or enemy scouts has a lot of utility. In TGs, I'd rather have armor. Spears will get shot down by archers, so you don't really see em.
Thumb Ring isn't actually the most important upgrade for Cavalry Archers. If you are fighting Knights, you will be employing hit and run tactics. That means you won't be firing as fast as possible which nullifies Thumb Ring's DPS advantage. And Knights' hatboxes are big enough that the accuracy loss isn't a big deal.
Hope your gain a lot of views accompanied by success. So here is a comment to aid in this. If I could create Age of Empires 2 DE Medieval to be as interesting and as fun to play as possible , This is how I would create DE2 Medieval. (Or if we get a proper Medieval AoE V) Emperors of East Asia DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1_vR_S6kblc-g-9WCYxviZGdq2LfyCrKozETyCRRG4-M/edit?usp=sharing
So I left a comment on Robby's Video (by the way this is the first time I've found all three of you) so instead of copy-pasting my comment from there, I'll put some other things here. The language I'd use for the Outremer would actually be Occitan or D'oc Vulgar as it was called. Why? Well first of all, one of the leaders of the 1st Crusade was Raymond IV of Toulouse and I'm also certain an Occitanian was the main representative of the Pope's interests. But honestly the main reason would be because it's a cool excuse to include this lesser-known language. Whilst of course I had the Crusader States in mind when I was theorycrafting my own Outremer civ (again, see my comment in Robby's video) they could also be used for the brief Latin Empire of Constantinople in the 13th century, as well as the isles of Malta and Rhodes. That being said, my design had them not having any gunpowder - including Bombard Ships - nor having Elite Fast Fire Ships. Water was going to be their weakness, for balance purposes.
haha, well, you found it now! It's a fun build and as long as you remember to make houses at home (to hide vills) and you stay active with your army, it can be pretty effective.
Nice vid. Great idea on Curia Regis. Liked how it makes use of the Relics. I think the game needs more bonus or Tech that makes use of Relics. I would like a civ for both the Hospitalls and Templars since the Teutons are in the game. But if u were to keep the Outremers, then maybe change name like maybe the Levants or Crusaders. Outremer isnt well know and part of games is name recognition.
Thanks for the comment! I definitely agree with you that name recognition can move the needle if the rest of the DLC the shows up with is good. Iron Kaiser, Robby, and myself are going to do a video at some point discussing our civ designs and I'm what the civ should be named will come up.
Oh on the contrary sir, I feel the civs need to be split further. I don't see every game you play as 1500 years passing until you obtain victory. I see every game as a single battle that spans over at most 3 years. And with all of the games we play collectively, therein lies the development/expance of time throughout the entire Middle ages ''Medieval'' Civ splits: Migration era /Early-High Medieval/High to Late Medieval. Black death 1346 AD Some civs need to be split between a Pre black death , Pre gunpowder / Early to High medieval civ and a Post Black death,Post gunpowder / High to late Medieval civ. All of these civs underwent such drastic evolution in technology, architecture as well as culture that the civs during the early to High medieval era differed extensively to civs from the late medieval era. Thus this gives us so much more to work with in terms of Historical settings and gameplay additions. These are just some of the much required splits: 1.Germanic Franks & Burgundians/Merovingians 300 AD - 600 AD Migration era infantry & Cavalry pagan civ with throwing axemen. 2.Norman Franks Carolingian/Norman Empires. Early to high Medieval civ Pre Black death to Black death Europe. Crusader (Kite shield+Nasal helm + chainmail) sword and spear infantry,Knights,crossbows, monk, Trebuchet civ 3.Late Kingdom of France/French High to late Medieval civ Post Black death Europe ,onward 1.Kingdom of Aragon/Navar/Leon. Early - High Medieval Civ Knight+monk reconquista civ 2.Kingdom of Castile/Spain. Late Medieval civ, Naval,gunpowder + Pike age of exploration civ 1.Norse/Vikings. Pagan, early aggression, raiding using Infantry, cheap trash,Strong Agnon Skirms, transported in longboats. Architecture: Norse architecture that resemble their beautiful Norse church wonder. 2.Scandinavian Crusaders 1080s AD - 1300 AD. (Offshoot of the Norse) Late Christian Norce High Middle ages. Aggressive Infantry + Crossbow + Naval Crusader civ 3.Swedes/Kalmar Union. Christian , late game focus, expensive units , using Hand cannoneers, Arbs, Knights + warhammer plated infantry to crush their enemies. Architecture: Current ‘’Viking set’’. 1.Genoa/Milan/ Pisa. Early to High Medieval Crusader/naval civ 2.Holy see/Papal States/Florence 700s AD. High to late Medieval Monk/Diplomacy civ 3.Republic of Venice. Post Black death,Post gunpowder / Hight to late Medieval Naval+Trade civ . 1.Holy Roman Empire.Early to High Medieval knightly Economy + Infantry+Cavalry civ 2.Teutonic Order/Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem Early to High Medieval Knightly Infantry + Cavalry medical civ 3.Livonian Order/Livonian Sword Brothers 1100 AD - 1562 AD. Offshoot of the Teutonic Order Knightly Crusader civ. (A Focus on the Northern Crusades) (Aggressive Offshoot German civ) 4.Swabian League/Hapsburgs/Babenburgs. Late Medieval infantry + cavalry civ. 5.Schmalkaldic League/Bavaria/Saxony/Brandenburg 962 AD. High to late Medieval Economy Protestant civ 1.Saracens Pre black death , Pre gunpowder / Early to High medieval civ 2.Kurds/Syrians. Pre black death , Pre gunpowder / Early to High medieval civ 3.Egyptians/Mamluk Sultanate. Post Balck death,Post gunpowder / Hight to late Medieval civ. 4.Afghans/Saffarids/Pashtunes/Kabul Shahi/Ghaznavids. Post Balck death,Post gunpowder / Hight to late Medieval civ. 1.Seljuks/Sultanate of Rum/Danishmends. - Early to High Medieval Desert cav archer civ 2.Karaman Beylik/Karamaninds 1225 AD - 1487 AD. High to late Medieval revolutionary Desert civ 3.Ottomans. High to Late Medieval Gunpowder Desert Civ. 1.Sassanid Persians - Early to high medieval Eco+land army Civ. 2.Kwarasmian/Safavid Persians - High to late medieval Centralised ecco Camel/Trade/Gunpowder civ. I'd love to have detailed battles with the Sassanid Persians and completely differing battles with the Safavid Persians. Sassanid encounters: Romans, Huns , Byzantines, Saracens,Kurds, Seljuks, Franks, Levanteens,Teutonic Order, Mongols,Khazars Order of Assassins, Tatars, Berbers, Genoise, Armenians,Georgians, Cumans,Sicilians and Britons. Safavid/Kwarasim encounters: Venetians,Portuguese explorers,Mongols,Tatars,Ottomans,Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate, Afghans/Saffarids/Pashtunes/Kabul Shahi/Ghaznavids ,Karamanids, Bengalis, Gurjaras,Kingdom of France, Hapsbergs and Berbers
Good build sir and fun video, this is the civ I want most added to the game (Alongside a Norman Franks). Your civ is somewhat similar to my build. I made the Templar knight Cavalry & Hospitaller Infantry instead of Infantry Templars and ''Turcopolier?'' cavalry. I love your emphasis on strong Hinged counterweight Trebuchets (Frankish Great Trebuchets as seen in the castle) since that is a Crusader improvement on the Chinese Mangonel/Roman Onager and the addition for free devotion + Hoardings. Superb work there sir. I prefer a static heal ability thus I gave my Livantine build; Civ bonus 1: TCs act as field hospitals that can slowly heal units within its vicinity. Benefits from Byzantine Team Bonus. I gave the Livantines/Outrmere a higher focus on Hospitals/healing and creating of water sources and expanding on existing water supply such as constructing of wells and repairing of aqueducts as well as a focus on the blending of cultures and peoples by means of my Turcopoles UT and ME unit skins to certain units. My Turcopoles UT affect units already in game instead of adding more. I also made an emphasis on their lack of gunpowder and how the collapse of their realms came about due to the Mamluke Sultanates adoption and skilful use of gunpowder / handcannoneers to decimate the Crusader knights whom were unmatched in melee combat. I really hope we get to see them in game soon. As ever here is my take on the Livantines/Outremere/Kingdom of Jerusalem. Knights of Christendom DLC: docs.google.com/document/d/162BQ0Kx00CCovyNGZxyaAfNo-Bm7sO9q6xG9_ue_7KQ/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks! That means a lot actually. Because I look at these concept overviews as a public good for the devs/community, I spend a lot of time on trying to estimate what the balance would look like. It's hard to get it perfect because there are some testing limitations, but I try to get as close as possible.
Finally got around to watching this. Really nicely done Jimmy! I love how information dense your presentations are, and the emphasis on numbers and in-game matchups is really refreshing. My favorite parts of your build are, without a doubt, the templar attack bonus based on number of enemies (what a fantastic idea, I wish I had thought of it), and the imperial UT refunding dead unit gold based on relics. Very elegant! Only criticism I have would be how weak their siege is. It's not too surprising that our three builds all have a good number of parallels, but between yours and mine the similarity that I found most amusing was how our hospitaller-themed elements both reduced incoming cavalry damage. Sure, mine is a unit and yours is a technology, but how sick is that? Really great to have you involved with the project my friend. Hope we can do more theorycrafting together in future!
Much appreciated man. It's also interesting that we all went with multiple unique units. I think that says a lot about the diversity of Outremer. On the topic of siege, when we get together with IKG to chat sometime, how siege should play into this civ is something worth talking about and I forgot to include my thinking in the discarded ideas section. I feel like I read more mixed accounts of Crusader siege (especially early on), so I went with a more mixed bag. In retrospect, I wish I'd given them siege engineers though. That's probably an oversight no matter how you slice it. And yeah, I have a lot of civ concepts planned. Some I think you've already covered, so I may bounce some ideas off of you 11
Very cool design, Jimmy! Your version of the Templar is really cool (thematic + interesting gameplay concept), and your archer angle is very unique (gives their range power an edge while not impacting their weakness to enemy range). I also loved a lot of the conversation surrounding the design, like whether or not the civ belonged in AoE2 and if it counts as a culture of its own. I enjoyed seeing how our designs were very similar in some respects, but quite different in others. I'm glad I got to partner up with you for this collaborative release!
Links to IKG and Robby Lava's concepts are below: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6wUmio2UCXA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OZ9wTwt8XkI.html
I actually don't have a Discord. At one point I did, but no longer. Maybe one day again. I'm on a number of other AOE2 discords though. So if you are on Hera's discord, for instance, feel free to find me and reach out.
The Migration period is a facinating one, we 100% need more Migration era civs to ad as factions to battle the Romans and one another. This is my Vandals build. Marauding Migrations DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1GWg8u2qPA3iYBGh1CzBRd4__31SlTp3AIm5-AE8KZXI/edit?usp=sharing
Welcome back to doing these kind of videos. Great video and like how u keep on improving on the format. Definitely liked the build and its very unique with great ideas. Liked the first bonus where it was less effective in later ages. Different and unique idea. Great idea on gambesons effecting light cavalry and camel riders. I wonder if the Vandals could get a new unit that would be regional that kind of represented an ealier version of Fire Ships similar to how Dromons are early versions of Cannon Galleons. Really liked the team bonus. Having bonuses that are negative towards enemies are great and I think more civs should have. The unique techs where great ideas and i like how u tied them to the history. Awesome with the unique unit. Definitely unique with its ability. I think u could have added a second UU for the idea about infantry pillaging. I personally think more civs should have more than one UU. For what its worth liked the Vandal Bowman idea. Moorish Auxiliaries could give the Vandals a trash unit in the Genitours similar to Persian archers not costing gold. Looking forward to ore civ concept vids. Giving Robby a run for his money lol
I think having an abysmal archery range like that goes against the aoe2 pattern of all civs having something viable from each building. Having no xbow OR elite skirm makes it more like an aoe4 civ, 11. But I liked the idea of the gambsons cav and tc trickle.
Thanks for the feedback! I do think it's worth keeping in mind that they do have fully upgraded genitours. Yes, they're forced into a more population efficient skirmisher, but it does at least scale well. So, they do have an option, albeit an unusual well (the TC food bonus should help get those out).
Well they do have the Genitour, but you may have a point, Burmese are basically unviable against strong archer civs because they lack the 2nd archer armor tech, so this could amount to something similar.
Genitors die to halbs. And I know, you can add the uu or swordsmen, but you have to keep in mind that those are gold units, while halbs are trash. So the civ kind of dies to full halb spam in the late game. Also, the tech that disperses the enemy relics seems incredibly overpowered and even cheesy. Imagine you have a Lithuanian enemy and they spent all of Castle age trying to get the relics, only to immediately lose them. It would be sooooo annoying they would rage quit. The tech is too cheap, it should cost like 1.5 to 2x as much. @@jimmyjames5953
Hey man, great video. I really liked how your bonuses were unique but not gimmicky. The civ definitely feels like it would shine in Castle Age, before falling back in the late game, sort of mirroring their history, which I always like. I like how the UU has a high skill ceiling without being useless at lower levels. The Imp UT perhaps seems the most gimmicky, since it's mostly a one-time effect and a lot of people don't like those. All in all, it's good to discover more people in the AoE2 theorycrafting space, so keep it up.
Yeah, I really debated the Imperial Age tech. I think where I came down on it is that, yes, it's a one-time effect, but it can lead to long-term persistent changes if you can flip the relic advantage. Really appreciate the kind feedback!
Haven't watched the video in full, but I think it is difficult to engage with these civilizations which were active only in the dark ages/early medeival period, say up until 500 AD. In some sense they didn't have an "imperial age". There are of course exceptions to this already in the game as you point out. interesting ideas anyhow and aoe has always been forgiving with the historical aspects
Yeah, I'm totally sensitive that the Early Middle Ages is probably not the ideal era from which to draw too many civs. When it comes to that, I think there's got to be a compelling case. I ask myself, "Is this civ interesting historically and in terms of gameplay?" If I can answer yes to both, then I'm willing to venture forward with it. And the Vandals seem like one of the few civs that fit that bill.
''Imperial age'' The age a civ reaches when they can build and sustain and Empire/Kingdom. Every civ has ''Imperial age''. Romans,Egyptians, Britons every civ. ''Imperial age'' does NOT equate to 1500s AD.
Celts with trashbow is quite interesting, but only if they have access to thumb ring in the imperial age. In the castle age it would be too good: * strong wood bonus * + thumb ring (new) * siege workshop producing faster and with siege units attacking faster ..................................... Bulgarians right now need some love. They don't have xbows like Spanish, but Spanish at least have all ranged units ups in the blacksmith + HC + a mounted gunponwder unit as a UU. Bulgarians don't have HC, no last armor up and no extra ranged unit besides the ones from archery range and siege workshop. Mongols stepp lancer raids are hell, they should receive some nerf here. Burmese should receive thumb ring starting in the imperial age and the 2º archer armor in imperial as someone suggestes on reddit. Turks should receive elite skirm in imperial age; it's atrocious not having both the pikemen and elite skirm. Teutons right now are so good against weak archers/CA civs: * cheap farms (36w, before 40w), which greatly helps to go fast to the castle age after some good fights in feudal * knights and infantry receiving extra melee armor per new age * extra resistance to monks * new tech "Devotion" make them even harder to convert. It's hell Incas are too strong now, really damn opressive, great eco, great units, nice discounts, bonus house is too strong. Should probably be 7 pop space instead of 10 (u only get houses if u want with 10 pop space).
With regard to Celts, remember that since this is a tech from the castle it would only be coming to play in late Castle Age and, most likely, on the way up to Imperial Age, to set up a support unit for infantry. For that reason, I don't think thumb ring access would be much of a problem.
@@jimmyjames5953 it's possible to get thumb ring much earlier by not immediately picking bodkin arrow. This helps a lot vs knights since it grants a higher damage boost than the second attack upgrade, and taking into account Celts have a strong wood bonus, this helps to get all the important upgrades even quickier. A lot has been discussed in reddit about balancing civs regarding giving to them some castle age techs in the imperial age such as thumb ring for some civs, or the second armor for E skir for Burmese, or the elite skirm upgrade for Turks. I personally quite liked those ideas.
@@ramonantoniolli7379 I am definitely interested in the idea of some civs getting access to certain techs in different ages, and maybe even scaling performance as well. For instance, on my Georgians Civ Concept a year ago, I had bloodlines be accessible later but it granted a bit more HP. So, yeah, I think that's a great idea overall to shake the game up just a bit. When it comes to getting thumb ring instead of bodkin arrow I have neither heard nor seen anyone do that. And thinking about the math, I'm a little skeptical in that decision. Bodkin should give about 16% more damage and thumb ring should increase archers' attack rate by roughly 17%, so very similar. Bodkin, however, is also giving extra range, costs gold at a time when gold isn't scarce, and is also almost half the food cost. So, Bodkin feels like a much better investment at the start of Castle Age.
@@jimmyjames5953 it all depends on what you going to fight. Vs ranged units, bodkin is the right choice, then ballistics. Vs knights it can be either bodkin or thumb ring. The extra range doesn't do that much vs the mobility of knights. The food and gold of those techs could also be used to do pikemen instead, so a mix of xbows + pikes vs knights, great if they are purely on cavalry units. If knights have all the armor upgrades, then bodkin will probably be a little more useful because archers will do 3 dmg with a lower attack rate. Doing 2 dmg with a higher attack rate doesn't seem great vs a good number of knights, unless the Xbow player also has something to help (monks, camels, pikes).
@@ramonantoniolli7379 I'll be on the lookout for someone taking that route since I've literally never seen anyone go xbow and get thumb ring before bodkin, haha. I'd be interested to see how it plays out.
Dravidians buff: something simple would be just switching the unique techs, getting Wootz in castle age and Medical core in imp (I mean, who the hell even goes elephants in castle as Dravidians), and of course adjust the cost of Wootz steel.
Not a bad idea at all. I actually think Dravidian elephant archer probably peak in Castle Age. The extra wood can help you get early thumb ring and they become like 200 HP machine guns. It's tricky to stop. I think I have a build order video from a couple years ago where I play scouts into elephant archers. It's an unusual strategy, but I've definitely had success with it.
What I would like to see is nerfing power creep civs by removing techs instead of making their bonuses weaker and more vanilla. And adding techs to those that are too unpopular. Mongols losing knights would be great rather than messing with their lancers.
I completely disagree with you on your ideas for the Romans,Celts and Persians. Looking forward to see your ''new civ'' ideas. There is so much they can do with each current existing civ as well as all future civs. Here is my complete list of AoE2 DE / AoE V Ideas. DE2 NEW DLC Request/Ideas complete list. docs.google.com/document/d/1cOxwbjKAvEntnKvUS_P9FapgG028rcnFmc01rteqm_I/edit?usp=sharing Nomadic architecture set for the Nomad civs, Mongols get Yurt houses and steppe Nomad architecture. Tartars + Cumans get Yurts for dark age houses and Huns too get steppe Nomad architecture. The Mongol Yurts should have less HP but also be much cheaper. With their Unique tech 'Nomads'' if their cheap , low HP Yurts goes down, then they need not create more. It will be perfect. Nomad tech should give you the opportunity of packing up your tc (and yurt houses) and rebuild it for free. (Moving ox cart) Steppe civs should gain access to the Mule cart. (Mobile nomadic dropoff points.)
Great video!, I hope we get a new balance soon, the changes you listed are very good!, about the +1/+1 armour for mongol CA, is a good one but it overlaps with tatars castle age unique technology.
Ah yeah, didn't quite think about it since both affect CA. But there's at least some difference so, eh, no big deal. The real point is that the nomads tech offers a nice spot to re-balance the civ if it would even be necessary given that removing the knight-line would be a big deal.
Yeah more civ concepts. Definitely need more regional units. Knight should be a regional unit with other regional units taking the Knight's place. Similar to ur idea about Mongols losing Knight line since they have Steppe Lancers.
I think a good idea would be to break up Northwestern Europe. Add in the Normans, English, Welsh, Irish, and Scots. Britons being reworked into the English, the Celts into Scotts. New identities: Paladin for the Normans, a fast moving Long Pike for the Welsh, Irish being light armored Gallowglass swordsmen. Another idea could be adding in the Hospitallers/Templars/Knights of Santiago
I think these make a lot of sense. I'm heavily against heresy being changed as it has the potential to totally kill monk play. Like eliminate it from open map play.
Yeah, I wish I had the time to upload more, but things in life prevent such. That being said, when I do release a video, everyone's been really supportive and the channel metrics are surprisingly similar to what they were when I was uploading 2x a week. So, folks still seem to be enjoying things. Hopefully I'll be able to upload more in the future!
I really think Japanese were doing just fine and do not need any buff whatsoever. With this bonus they arent weak to anything at any stage of the game....Cav hard dies to both CA with micro and halb, on top of this skirms , archers and other CA hard die to these new CA. What are we left with now...only onagers and heavy scorps?!? in the worst case scenario Japanese can go redemption monks...that is if for some reason their army isn't able to stomp the units that are supporting the siege. I am totally fine with the Japanese army being slow and not CA oriented, I would say that the civ design with strong towers and halb to defend should promote a slow pushing play style.
If we are sticking with this attack bonus(or a similar version of it), I would suggest removing husbandry . This would tie in well with the slow army style and give the opponents some hope of outmicroing the units.
Maybe give jp ca more pierce armor, they apparently had arrow nets parachute things to catch arrows while riding - or mb just more pa when the unit is moving. Not related but I thought maybe instead of persian cav generating gold that they get double the effect of parthian tactics. Makes them 1 pierce and melee armor more than tatar ca and double the bonus vs spears - not sure if that would be op, could even consider removing last armor for archers depending on what wants to be done for skirms and kamandaran bois...
I love the Celt and Japanese Updates! Although I would rather that the Japanese CA bonus damage be kept the same against enemy foot archers but be weaker vis enemy CA (As well as Skirmishers). Magyar,Seljuk Turk, Mongol,Tatar CA should be stronger than Japanese CA. If I could create these civs to be as interesting and as fun to play as possible , This is how I would create DE2 Medieval. (Or if we get a proper Medieval AoE V) Emperors of East Asia DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1_vR_S6kblc-g-9WCYxviZGdq2LfyCrKozETyCRRG4-M/edit?usp=sharing
