Cultures

[Endru1241]

That's a big one. It's related to first topic about national units and of course Nations.
Anyway - idea is simple - game engine already has mechanism to split units, buildings, tech in groups. AoF has races, AoW - nations, so AoS would have cultures/cultural groups.
Potential implementation would need:
1. Defining which units are core - the most important for balance and should be in every culture.
2. Adding more culturally neutral units in case of core units being too specific for nation/culture.
3. Defining which cultures would be used as main, balanced ones.
4. Defining additional unbalanced cultures for campaigns and for fun.
Disclaimer - balanced would be a switch set to cultures, so we can start implementation, even if there is not very many units/techs and culture would potentially be weaker. It could also be used for bringing big bundles of new things, which needs careful consideration about balance (e.g. egyptian units from map editor). Games could be set to be balanced only.
5. Defining which non-core unit/building/tech would be available to which cultures.
6. Defining additional innate (starting) bonuses to cultures.
7. Defining tech related bonuses.
8. Assets change - bringing the nations to json. Assigning cultures in unit jsons.

9. Additional idea - ancient switch. Just like balanced - some cultures can be set as ancient. On game creation there could be a setting: - no time period limit, - only medieval, -only ancient. Such thing would allow for better looking games, if someone likes.
10. Additional idea - there can be wider cultural groups, with less bonuses, but access to some main/most popular units of contained cultures
11. Additional idea - culture containing all current units (maybe not necessarily so in the future) - could be named travelers?

[Endru1241]

So, let's start.

1) Core units:
infantry - swordsman, shielder, spearman
ranged - archer, longbowman, skirmisher, horse archer, horse skirmisher, fire archer, poison archer
mounted - light cavalry, chariot
siege - ram, balista, catapult, siege tower
ship - transport, galley, trireme, ballista ship, catapult ship
other - scout, flying scout, banner bearer, worker, healer, missionary, monk, spy, assasin, wagon, money courier, miner

medieval only - foot knight, knight, lancer, shield knight, trebuchet, ornithopter, petardier, handgoneer (handcannonier - renamed musketeer), cannoneers, cannon ships, carracks, caravels

2) Samurai replacement?
3) No idea.
4-7) , includes 9) and 10)
Medieval:
European - lack any bonuses, but has access to most popular nordic, germanic, slavic, religious units etc.
Nordic - + 1 power to all melee units, additional + 1 power, +2 hp to medium infantry, +3/1 armor for ships on icewater
units: Axe thrower, Berserk, Vouglier, Axe Knight, Bard,
techs: Throwing axes, infantry armors lv3
religious/crusader - +5% conversion chance
units: Templars, Hospitallers, Teutons, Crusaders (should it be split maybe?)
eastern asian - + 5% conversion resistance, ?
units: samurai, yabusame, daimyo, onmyoji, ninja, turtle ship, hwacha
indian - ?
units: elephants
steppe - + 1 p.armor to mounted archers, + 3 hp to all mounted
units: mongolian archer, raider
techs: + 1 power to mounted archers, + 1 range to mongol archer
eastern european (slavic, baltic, magyar) - + 1 melee armor to all horse mounted non-chariot units (because of skill in mounted battles), additional forest bonus +1 power, +1/1 armor.
units: hussar, hungarian hussar,
germanic - +1/0 armor to heavy cavalry (or just knights),
units: Zweihander, Teutons
middle eastern - ?
units: sipahi, mameluke, saracens from map editor
Ancient:
roman
units: all roman
hellenic
units: hoplite
celtic
units: celtic warrior, highlander
persian
units: elephants (without mahout), without upgrades
egiptian
units: from mapeditor
primitive
units: maori, atl-atl, amazon blowdart

[Squirrel5555]

To core units maybe add:
labourer, ?mounted crossbow?
Should all factions have access to some basic mercenaries? Maybe only through a special building, or tech?

Nordic: maybe reduce the bonuses to ships a bit, but make it have effect on all water tiles, seems a bit specific right now, and might not have much effect. Same for other cultures, better if the bonus is weaker but more likely to influence the games
For special units, will they be buffed slightly, now that only some factions can use them? Some are barely used because core units can outperform them

Crusaders: Maybe would be cool if they lacked even more of the core units, so you would have to make use of the plentiful amounts of crusader units as your basic army. This would also let you keep them as one culture instead of splitting them. It would also really play into their strength of having leaders like komtur with auras which give buffs to only religious units

Will there be a 'mercenary' culture? Access to all mercenaries, with maybe special ones e.g. swiss, landsknecht

Not sure which culture should be the 'base' others can be balanced around

[Endru1241]

To core units maybe add:
labourer, ?mounted crossbow?

Not sure - I was thinking if we shouldn't make labourer specific to cultures more set up on labour, maybe east-asian?
Mounted crossbow on the other hand can be unique to some other culture, but it can just as well be added to core.

Should all factions have access to some basic mercenaries? Maybe only through a special building, or tech?

I think they could be global. Or have regional equivalents in other cultures.

Nordic: maybe reduce the bonuses to ships a bit, but make it have effect on all water tiles, seems a bit specific right now, and might not have much effect. Same for other cultures, better if the bonus is weaker but more likely to influence the games

Actually - I have this thought to always have bonuses in four types - related to e.g. terrain and very rarely used, but pretty damn strong (the rarer use - the stronger bonus), normal bonus - increasing effectiveness of some type of units (which will then probably make much of the army, aside from cultural specific ones), specific tech - increasing effectiveness of non-core units - either weakest or those which had to have limited power, range, armor to make them at least defeat-able in early game, regular tech - similar to normal bonus, but has to be researched.
Besides nords were not very naval culture. They travelled - true, but most mediterranean nations were much more experienced in the ways of battle.

Crusaders: Maybe would be cool if they lacked even more of the core units, so you would have to make use of the plentiful amounts of crusader units as your basic army. This would also let you keep them as one culture instead of splitting them. It would also really play into their strength of having leaders like komtur with auras which give buffs to only religious units

Good idea - they could have no Knights, Foot Knights, Lancers.

Will there be a 'mercenary' culture? Access to all mercenaries, with maybe special ones e.g. swiss, landsknecht

You mean italian ? Because most cities/ countries on italic peninsula used mercenaries extensively - some had no standing army at all. Maybe.

Not sure which culture should be the 'base' others can be balanced around

By balanced - I meant a set of cultures. Some number, e.g. six, which will have balanced units/bonuses/ techs to be competitive with each other.
Or do You mean just now on the start?

[Squirrel5555]

1) Labourers are a large advantage I think, so making them culture specific would probably be one of that cultures main perk.
2) Yeah I think mercenaries (most of them) should be available globally, with some culture specifics maybe, however the italian culture should have buffs for them, as that is one of the things they are known for
3) I agree with that idea about bonuses
4) Yeah your idea is better, to have a set of balanced cultures, guess it doesnt really matter which ones you pick, but some that are already quite 'developed' are Nordic and Crusader, though more are needed

[makazuwr32]

I would really like to see eastern europe/slavic culture and can support some ideas for them if accepted.

[makazuwr32]

So, let's start.

1) Core units:
infantry - swordsman, shielder, spearman
ranged - archer, longbowman, skirmisher, horse archer, horse skirmisher, fire archer, poison archer
mounted - light cavalry, chariot
siege - ram, balista, catapult, siege tower
ship - transport, galley, trireme, ballista ship, catapult ship
other - scout, flying scout, banner bearer, worker, healer, missionary, monk, spy, assasin, wagon, money courier, miner

medieval only - foot knight, knight, lancer, shield knight, trebuchet, ornithopter, petardier, handgoneer (handcannonier - renamed musketeer), cannoneers, cannon ships, carracks, caravels

If i would choose than next "core" units for slavic culture must not be accessable:
Horse skirmisher, chariot, siege tower (main problem was in transporting those towers through their forests), missionary, maybe ballista ship and catapult ship.

+1 attack to all infantry units (melee and ranged), has access to some nordic infantry units, can build most or even all structures (excluding megas) in forests. Maybe if possible +1 cost penalty for all cav units excluding light cavalry (horses were rather rare in slavic forests and more valuable).
Additional armor/p.armor bonuses for units on snow tiles and no movement penalty on snow.

Additional accessable core-like units:
Knight, lancer, shield knight, foot knight.

Nation-specific units:
Cossacks (infantry melee, infantry ranged, mounted melee (similar to light cavalry but more healthy and more damaging, something between actual knight and light cav for 4 turns cost while knight will have 5 turns cost for slavic culture), worker)
Strelets
Druzhina (this one actually was purely mounted unit and one of the heaviest cavalry units in the medieval times)

Unique transport ship (2 carry capacity) that has wheels and can move on land (alas rather slow, 1 or 2 speed) - this ship was used on rivers and wheels were required to get ship through some tight or extremly dangerous places on them. Alas it was not useful for sea travelling thus it must have penalty in deep water.

[Morningwarrior]

very interesting, but it would be better to divide it into continents: like asia (troops from the asian part) europe (middle age troops etc) Africa (African troops or tribes) now i don't know if it can be applied to the upgrade screen or not: for example Continent ||| troops / technologies ||| melee, distance, cavalry, support and fleets. on the technology side: troop improvements and technology and knowledge. it would be really big but it would be in my opinion more organized.
But the endru ideia is better i guess.

[Endru1241]

Maybe if possible +1 cost penalty for all cav units excluding light cavalry (horses were rather rare in slavic forests and more valuable).
Additional armor/p.armor bonuses for units on snow tiles and no movement penalty on snow.

Additional accessable core-like units:
Knight, lancer, shield knight, foot knight.

This proves You are not writing about slavs as a whole, but specifically - northern countries of east slavs (Novigrod, Moscow, Sibir) - which later created russia.

Southern slavic people had excellent medium cavalry specialized in striking, thanks to access to greatest of horses and regular mediterrain fleet, while west slavs were either river people - specialized in water battles (polabian and sorbian) or employing heavy units - (czech and polish).
Poland itself had over 3000 heavy cavalry on the very start in 10th century. And regular fully armored knights from around 14th century
Czech knights fighting on foot had any glorious moments during the sieges.
So no - slavic people were not lacking in cavalry department.

very interesting, but it would be better to divide it into continents: like asia (troops from the asian part) europe (middle age troops etc) Africa (African troops or tribes) now i don't know if it can be applied to the upgrade screen or not: for example Continent ||| troops / technologies ||| melee, distance, cavalry, support and fleets. on the technology side: troop improvements and technology and knowledge. it would be really big but it would be in my opinion more organized.
But the endru ideia is better i guess.

The point is - with wider cultures employment - it sort of can be added too.
But I still stand with cultural approach, so e.g. egyptians wouldn't represent african - they were more mediterrain culture. And steppe cultures were widely different than, e.g chinese.
But widest cultures could be european, mediterrain, african, middle-eastern, steppe, east-asian.
African is the problem though - nobody on forum seems familiar with them (e.g. ghana, songhai, mali).

[Squirrel5555]

Will images of some core units be different depending on the culture using them?
Also I made a sprite for a polish heavy lancer a while back, could something like that be used for the west slavic culture? Maybe as a specisl unit or slightly stronger lancer replacement, as west slavs could be a cavalry culture?

[makazuwr32]

Hm you are right, endru, here.
Maybe if possible than change that to east slavs specifically?

Also additional trait i have found for them:
Exeptional fortifications due to the fact that they fought many times against southern nomads (Polovets) — additional 20% hp for fortification-type buildings, but -2 mend rate for laborers and workers due to harsh enviroment.

[Squirrel5555]

So many traits haha. I feel like a cultures bonuses should complement each other, not just some random things. How about east slavs can be a defensive culture, with the bonus to defensive structures health, and ability to build most structures on woodlands. You already gave some special unit examples, druzhina could be cost 5 or 6 super heavy cav with 4 movement only, and cossacks can replace some core units.
For downsides, all cavalry could take longer to train, absolutely no access to units coming from holy orders or any crusaders, and weak navy
Also i dont think access to nordic units is necessary, maybe some of their basic ones like maceman

[makazuwr32]

Many nordic units (as infantries) were mercenaries in the eastern slav cities. Thus i am thinking that 3 could be used with their base stats for eastern slav culture: maceman (maces also were known well among eastern slavs themselves a anyway), axe thrower, and upgrades for both of them.

Yes they were quite defencive but not only.

Agree about disabling holy units apart from healer for them.

Navy must be weaker indeed (no ballista or catapult ship, no upgrades for trireme) but with unique transport ship for them.

Cossacks should not "replace" units but they should fill empty roles like dual wielding melee fighter or 4 turn cost cavalry (because they normally would have 3 turn cost light cav and 4+1 turn cost knights and other cav).
Druzhina definately must have cost 6 or even 7 and must be extremly tough.

With gunpowder they will get strelets as unique gunpowder unit along with regular cannons and ridicilously heavy cannons (Ivan 4th had 2000+ cannons of different calibers and that was A LOT, even Napoleon had only 587 cannons during russian campain; the heaviest cannons — against heaviest fortifications — had caliber up to 600 millimeters (300-600) and projectiles up to 750 kilogramms).
Cost for each such Bombard should be 10+ turns i'd say and range should be 10-13. Alas it must have some cooldown for its attacks thus i'd say it must attack via ability with cooldown (probably 3 turns cooldown and possible tagrets only buildings).

Just in case:
Mortars, bombards and howitzers were known in Russia in the end of 14th century.
.
.
Oh. And one more thing maybe:
Disable for construction castles but make unique for them "Kremlin" 2x3 mega building that is constructible on forests as well (but slower than castles, around same base stats).

[Morningwarrior]

Many nordic units (as infantries) were mercenaries in the eastern slav cities. Thus i am thinking that 3 could be used with their base stats for eastern slav culture: maceman (maces also were known well among eastern slavs themselves a anyway), axe thrower, and upgrades for both of them.

Yes they were quite defencive but not only.

Agree about disabling holy units apart from healer for them.

Navy must be weaker indeed (no ballista or catapult ship, no upgrades for trireme) but with unique transport ship for them.

Cossacks should not "replace" units but they should fill empty roles like dual wielding melee fighter or 4 turn cost cavalry (because they normally would have 3 turn cost light cav and 4+1 turn cost knights and other cav).
Druzhina definately must have cost 6 or even 7 and must be extremly tough.

With gunpowder they will get strelets as unique gunpowder unit along with regular cannons and ridicilously heavy cannons (Ivan 4th had 2000+ cannons of different calibers and that was A LOT, even Napoleon had only 587 cannons during russian campain; the heaviest cannons — against heaviest fortifications — had caliber up to 600 millimeters (300-600) and projectiles up to 750 kilogramms).
Cost for each such Bombard should be 10+ turns i'd say and range should be 10-13. Alas it must have some cooldown for its attacks thus i'd say it must attack via ability with cooldown (probably 3 turns cooldown and possible tagrets only buildings).

Just in case:
Mortars, bombards and howitzers were known in Russia in the end of 14th century.
.
.
Oh. And one more thing maybe:
Disable for construction castles but make unique for them "Kremlin" 2x3 mega building that is constructible on forests as well (but slower than castles, around same base stats).

it would be quite unbalanced to have a range greater than 10, although it would be interesting if it would appeal to the European side, the Russians, despite using heavy gunpowder weapons, should have a long recharge period and well rewarded with damage and extension of the damage area. and when it comes to Nordics, a good part of the infantry has throwing weapons like jards, javelins, spears and the most iconic throwing axes, and perhaps each infantry could have a specific throwing weapon.

[makazuwr32]

I have made for 2 of such units topics in units siege.
Smaller one will have range 4-12 (3-9 for assault), can shoot only in siege/assault mode (must transfrom from transport form in which it can move), will gain range via ability that has cooldown 3 and lasts 1 turn (so you activate ability, shoot and wait for 3 turns).

Bigger one will have range 5-14 (only in siege mode) and again will require ability to gain range and shoot. Ability has cooldown 4.

[b2198]

Reviving this topic since there were a lot of mentions to it recently... but to discuss some arguments against the implementation of cultures in AoS.

1. Having the game be split into cultures increases the difficulty of balancing the game in quadratic speed (because you have to check n*(n-1)/2 combinations): you have to make sure the cultures that are meant to be balanced are balanced against all others in that category, or else most experienced players would be picking the one with the fewest weaknesses against others, and players unaware of that, or that just like to play some other culture more would be at a disadvantage before the game even starts.
2. Another issue with balacing: if, in the future, on doing some changes, some arbitrary unit becomes stronger than it was supposed to, and that unit is culture-specifc, then only the players that play that specific culture would have the "op unit", as opposed to right now, where if a unit gets unintentionally stronger than it should, it's not a huge problem, because all players can make it and even the playing field. An example of this would be pre-1.153 zerks in small maps. You had to either rush them, or get rushed by them, and that was bad, but would be way worse if only 1 player was able to rush them and the others had no real means to stop it in time due to choosing other cultures.
3. About reducing the amount of units for newer players: I believe this could be done in a way better way through Age Techs, replacing the option of starting techs when creating the match with a starting age and a maximum age options, and moving around the upgrades so that upgrades that are accessible in earlier ages would be shown first, making newer players play on a similar field in regards to upgrades at least in the first 1 or 2 ages, and then learning the more advanced (and probably more complex) ages at a later point. Maybe changing the preset matches that show up to create in the join game list to only allow age 1 or age 1 and 2, or something like that, could also help newer players so that they tend to create more matches that are more fair for them.
4. About disparity in time period of cultures: imo this could also be solved with Age Techs, you could make the factions already in the game have some ages in which they are at their strongest. For example, primitives could be a very good early rush faction dominant in age 1, ancient and romans could excel in age 2, etc. This would also open some new ways to balance them in an easier way: since they are no longer required to be as strong in other ages, they could get higher bonuses from techs that are available in ages they excel at (or right off the bat for age 1 factions, maybe), and get purposedly outcompeted in other ages, so that choosing which factories to build could also become a choice of "when do you plan on attacking"/"how early do you expect to be attacked", and would place more value in the information game of knowing/discovering what the other player is planning in the short/long term.
5. Maybe a softer version of cultures would be better? Instead of hard-locking players behind what they chose before starting the game, you could (as you suggested in the TC roster rework thread) lock culture-specific unit productions behind having their factories. Imho this would be a way better solution than splitting the game into cultures as suggested here, because factories, while limited by TC count, can be chosen in a number of combinations that allow for a huge variety of strategies, and can be swapped in-game at (almost) any moment if they are not serving their purpose anymore or if better options became clearer in the match.

[makazuwr32]

Reviving this topic since there were a lot of mentions to it recently... but to discuss some arguments against the implementation of cultures in AoS.

1. Having the game be split into cultures increases the difficulty of balancing the game in quadratic speed (because you have to check n*(n-1)/2 combinations): you have to make sure the cultures that are meant to be balanced are balanced against all others in that category, or else most experienced players would be picking the one with the fewest weaknesses against others, and players unaware of that, or that just like to play some other culture more would be at a disadvantage before the game even starts.
2. Another issue with balacing: if, in the future, on doing some changes, some arbitrary unit becomes stronger than it was supposed to, and that unit is culture-specifc, then only the players that play that specific culture would have the "op unit", as opposed to right now, where if a unit gets unintentionally stronger than it should, it's not a huge problem, because all players can make it and even the playing field. An example of this would be pre-1.153 zerks in small maps. You had to either rush them, or get rushed by them, and that was bad, but would be way worse if only 1 player was able to rush them and the others had no real means to stop it in time due to choosing other cultures.
3. About reducing the amount of units for newer players: I believe this could be done in a way better way through Age Techs, replacing the option of starting techs when creating the match with a starting age and a maximum age options, and moving around the upgrades so that upgrades that are accessible in earlier ages would be shown first, making newer players play on a similar field in regards to upgrades at least in the first 1 or 2 ages, and then learning the more advanced (and probably more complex) ages at a later point. Maybe changing the preset matches that show up to create in the join game list to only allow age 1 or age 1 and 2, or something like that, could also help newer players so that they tend to create more matches that are more fair for them.
4. About disparity in time period of cultures: imo this could also be solved with Age Techs, you could make the factions already in the game have some ages in which they are at their strongest. For example, primitives could be a very good early rush faction dominant in age 1, ancient and romans could excel in age 2, etc. This would also open some new ways to balance them in an easier way: since they are no longer required to be as strong in other ages, they could get higher bonuses from techs that are available in ages they excel at (or right off the bat for age 1 factions, maybe), and get purposedly outcompeted in other ages, so that choosing which factories to build could also become a choice of "when do you plan on attacking"/"how early do you expect to be attacked", and would place more value in the information game of knowing/discovering what the other player is planning in the short/long term.
5. Maybe a softer version of cultures would be better? Instead of hard-locking players behind what they chose before starting the game, you could (as you suggested in the TC roster rework thread) lock culture-specific unit productions behind having their factories. Imho this would be a way better solution than splitting the game into cultures as suggested here, because factories, while limited by TC count, can be chosen in a number of combinations that allow for a huge variety of strategies, and can be swapped in-game at (almost) any moment if they are not serving their purpose anymore or if better options became clearer in the match.

It wi not be as close as age of fantasy though with completely different cultures in literally everything.

[Endru1241]

Actually I have been thinking about last point of my first post and possibly discussed it.
It could be good idea for AoS to remain with basic, default ALL culture.
And it's also possible to have all specific cultural bonuses as techs, limited in effect to those culture units.
If very powerful - with ridiculously high requirements.

So then overall plan to make cultures would be mainly for easier campaign creation, flavour, and fun.
If there could be something like map options switches to limit selection, then there could be some thinking about balancing them out.
But still - ALL culture would probably remain better.
If they would be brought in now it would mean having a huge nerf by selecting a culture and it's not entirely bad, but would need something to prevent multiplayer abuse.

[godOfKings]

What about this idea

At beginning there wont b any cultural unit, when i build a building of a particular culture, the relevant cultural units will once again b available in other factories and tcs as they r currently available

In this way, at beginning we can start only with non cultural units and later unlock other cultures after building the relevant cultural buildings

If i dont build the building of a particular culture, its units wont b available to me throughout the entire game

[Endru1241]

What about this idea

At beginning there wont b any cultural unit, when i build a building of a particular culture, the relevant cultural units will once again b available in other factories and tcs as they r currently available

In this way, at beginning we can start only with non cultural units and later unlock other cultures after building the relevant cultural buildings

If i dont build the building of a particular culture, its units wont b available to me throughout the entire game

This doesn't solve what I really wanted to see.
To have player (or AI) only limited to units fitting particular culture setting.

Unless you mean that as a way yo decrease ALL culture usefulness- but that wouldn't be good as requirements are tied to unit, so then potential culture units would need duplicates just for availability.

[b2198]

And btw. one note - stratego wants cultures in AoS, without any option to use old, that would forever disallow this unit going along with winged hussar, just like any other mixing culture specific units.

Wait, but wouldn't they be able to both be trained by the "AoS" culture, that has the current roster? If we are talking about complete separation of cultures this would become another game entirely imo. One of the things I like the most in it is that you can mix and match different units from a wide variety of cultures to adapt your strategy, so a complete separation would be a downgrade imho.

[L4cus]

this is clearly confusing

[Endru1241]

I moved posts to more proper topic.

And btw. one note - stratego wants cultures in AoS, without any option to use old, that would forever disallow this unit going along with winged hussar, just like any other mixing culture specific units.

Wait, but wouldn't they be able to both be trained by the "AoS" culture, that has the current roster? If we are talking about complete separation of cultures this would become another game entirely imo. One of the things I like the most in it is that you can mix and match different units from a wide variety of cultures to adapt your strategy, so a complete separation would be a downgrade imho.

That is the problem.
Stratego doesn't want such culture or anything similar to it.
All core units accessible to every culture with only small percentage of forbidden as a specialty disadvantage.
For culture-specific units complete separation apart of few exclusions, where unit is actually multi-cultural.

And also no intentionally weaker cultures too (which I wanted for campaign and flavour reasons - things like outlaw, savage or primitive (most things from current primitive culture would be moved to American, leaving only maceman, duplicated atl-atl, wolf warrior).

[Stratego (dev)]

we need to decide we want cultures or not.
currently the game is a mix of mayn cultures - that can be weird fighting together a samurai and a norse warrior.

i originnally wanted like in AOK

many common units
and some cultural.

but as it got always postponed to make cultured now here we are.
---------
but as i said endru: the "mix" is out of cultural thing - i mean when we talk about cultures ww dont need to talk about the mixed "nation" as an option.

that is a separate "decision" if we have that.

[DreJaDe]

we need to decide we want cultures or not.

currently the game is a mix of amyn cultures - that can be weird fighting together a samurai and a norse warrior

The essence of them fighting is weird in the first place.

But isn't that part the flavor of AOS from the start?

[Endru1241]

we need to decide we want cultures or not.

currently the game is a mix of amyn cultures - that can be weird fighting together a samurai and a norse warrior

Can't we have both?

Implement culture assignment for units, but still allow culturless (null culture) games in map options?
That is imho the perfect solution to satisfy both:
- those wanting separated armies
- those wanting mixed armies


Besides strictly historically speaking, while those two examples are really out of place, many others are not.
Mixed armies were common.
Today enemy could have been tomorrow ally if it was beneficiary to both parties.

[Stratego (dev)]

i updated earlier post.

"Can't we have both?"
also i dont even understand -> than simply we should not make cultures and keep only the mixed

why work on something that is not the game "spine" logic.

(also many double work on balancing both - and also implementing double things to be good for both)
-----------

also as i said: it is out of "civilizations how to "question: as literally the "how not to" question. It can be decided later if we want a mixed - i dont like the idea btw.

[DreJaDe]

The problem with mix is that, it's way too powerful. And most people are just using the best of the best of each faction.

Limiting those now creates so much more strategy and go to build order. This addition of so much more strategy for me is something really great.

[Stratego (dev)]

yes, that would be the point of civs.
also civs will have their own special extra attributes: like
- briton archer +1 range (or only +1 attack)
- frank cavalry will have eg. +1 armor or something.
- japanese melee units can have extra power
- nord axe weilding units can have extra
- some nation might have extra production capability maybe
and so on

[phoenixffyrnig]

Personally, I really enjoy doing an xxxxx culture playthrough, it brings some variety and novelty into the game, but can be very difficult against a best of all worlds approach.

The problem with a best of all worlds approach is it will become rather formulaic, people may well settle on their own optimum mix and seldom deviate (and it will probably be a horribly anachronistic mix, eg Vanguard Shield Knights, Hatamoto, Celtic Warriors, Zerks, Condottieri etc). Although Endru makes a good point, this mix only seems horribly anachronistic/ unrealistic because of the way history played out

The problem with a hard line one culture only approach is we would probably need at least double the number of current units for each culture, and it would probably lead to unit copy-and-pasting just to fill roles. And then of course, we have the issue of well over 100 units that are neutral in culture, core units such as swordsmen, knights, spearmen, archers etc that are essentially unaffiliated.

A good compromise would be making it harder to pick and choose from all races, thus maintaining the possibility of mixing, but somehow rewarding the choice to specialise or use "stock" troops. The already intended step of having buffer units only effecting their own kind would be a good step in this direction, as would a req faction building spec for almost all faction units.

Thinking out loud here, because I know this would be a pain in the backside, but what if each faction building gave a population limit for units of that faction that improved as the numbers went up, eg 1 Roundhouse = 5 Celts, 2 roundhouses = 12 Celts, 3 Roundhouses = 20 Celts (this number could be a modifier of overall population limit if needs be, or even of TCs owned).