The Zapotecs -- AoE2 Civilization Theorycraft

[@stevestrangelove4970]

Good info about slingers. They have always been misrepresented in video games as worst javeline throwers when a sling can basically pierce many armor types and it has incredible range, some reaching 300mts, way more than a bow and arrow. But it seems its biggest issue was aim, as even at half that range its way easier to miss.

[@stevestrangelove4970]

Also about the danzantes, their name come from the first perseption given to archeologist, but they later discovered than more than dancing they were being tortured as the parts with flowers mostly represent grievous wounds. The classical are the flowers in their genitals representing a chopped dck and the petals being the blood flowing out of it. So they arent dancing, but spasming in pain.

[@robbylava]

JESUS. Well that's certainly a tonal shift! Really appreciate you letting me know Steve, that's a great historical clarification. And I totally agree with you about the slang! I've been making and practicing with slings for over a decade now, and I can certainly attest that they are far more effective as weapons then they are typically portrayed! Hope you enjoyed my implementation, and the build more broadly my friend!

[@stevestrangelove4970]

@@robbylava thanks, btw its a theory, the danzantes is still highly contested about their meaning because we have soo little info. Anyway, hope for the day you make a HRE remake (not teutones) or Persia. Also, tibetans.

[@robbylava]

Duly noted Steve! And yes, all of those civilizations are on my list of things to do! The Tibetans are particularly interesting to me, though I know that the geopolitical situation gives it all of a 0% chance of happening.

[@jessepage6575]

Couple of comments on Meso civilizations in general (yeah, I know I'm a year late). I've always thought it would be interesting to redo the Aztecs and have their units upgrade based on the number of kills they had (Eagle, Jaguar Shorn Ones were ranks based on how many prisoners the warrior captured) although I realize that might be a tough coding problem. 2. Instead of having all your units in the archery range and barracks you could separate the various buildings. I forget the names off hand but the Aztecs had sort of a noble barracks (which could be like a stable) and one for the lower classes (like a barracks). Presumably the Zapotecs, Mayans and other Meso-American civs. 3. Yes. Make slingers common. (although I'd recommend closer to 50 or 60 food instead of 40, it seems too cheap). Maybe you could make the slinger a more expensive unit that ignores heavy armor or removes it like Dravidians or the Obuch. PS, not a fan of the monk converting on death. Seems a bit OP with other bonuses.

[@robbylava]

Never too late to give feedback on a build, it's always great to hear from you! That said, I did actually do a pretty substantial recraft of this one a couple months after it came out, so if you want to know what it looks like now take a look at the civilization document linked in the description. I think it may have solved the two concerns you raised pretty nicely. The military building for higher ranks idea it's quite a good one, I've considered similar things in the past. If you can find any inkling of a name for it I'd be extremely interested in hearing.

[@afz902k]

What a cool theorycraft! I'm originally from Mexico so I knew a bit about this civilization. I haven't visited any Zapotec archeological sites, but there is a Zapotec section in many of the museums I've visited. I always thought their style is quite characteristic, almost fitting right in between the Aztec and Mayan aesthetically, filling that niche in which was certainly a cultural continuum in the mesoamerican region. Most chronologists claim "the Zapotec" started even earlier as a civilization, but I see you went with the Monte Alban period as your starting point and that's honestly fine, as the period before that was formative and they were not yet a major empire. As for your new regional units, I really like them and I think this makes sense. I mean, if you check out the campaigns (and especially the "Dos Pilas" historical battle which I really love), most mesoamerican civs are given slingers and sometimes jaguar warriors in them. I can't speak for the balance though as I don't have enough intuition to know how they would play out unless they could be tested out :P I have some ideas about that cool villager sacrifice idea. First some context, there's a campaign mod you can download, made by Filthydelphia (aka PhillySouljah, great campaign creator) called "Blood for the serpent god" which has a similar concept, though I think in that one sacrificing villagers helps you research random techs. While playing that, and now while watching this video I remembered having considered another idea for this mechanic. The mesoamerican castle architecture makes it also look like a fortified pyramid, hence it would make sense for human sacrifice to take place there too. So there could be a button at the castle to "sacrifice garrisoned villagers", which could increase gather rates for some time, maybe you get some time per sacrificed unit? It might even be historically accurate without going supernatural, because in the 18 (and 13) months of the year (they had two different calendars with years of different length running simultaneously) there was an event dedicated to a "deity of the month" which required a particular sacrifice and this would always take place in a "religious festival" during which people were allowed to consume substances normally reserved for nobles and priestly classes, such as alcohol; I guess people were particularly productive a couple days after those feasts, and maybe leading up to them :D Edit: forgot to mention I've used an atlatl as my uncle has built a few of those including the projectiles, but I'm quite bad with it compared to the bow (which I'm also not that good at), so I imagine it takes a while to learn it well.

[@robbylava]

Holy shit Fergus, that is so cool! I had no idea you had a personal connection like this! And even more sick that you got a chance to try out an atlatl -- I've been a fair bit of archery, slinging, and axe throwing in my day, but I've never had the chance to try one of those yet I'm thrilled to hear you like the new regional unit ideas. And yeah, from what I researched it seemed like the Zapotecs were quite possibly the first true civilization in Central America! But that is so far before the AOE 2 relevant time frame that I felt like bumping up to the Monte Alban era was more sensible. You're sacrifice idea is actually pretty compelling. I love making use of the garrisoning button for alternative functions -- it's something I intend to explore a lot more thoroughly in other builds -- and allowing villagers to be sacrificed in that way does sound like a really fun mechanic. My hesitation was because I wasn't sure how historical the productivity bonus would be versus mythological, but you framing it as something of an incentive for workers to labor more vigorously actually makes quite a lot of sense! I have a great many ideas for a future Central American builds, so maybe we can put that sacrifice mechanic on one of them. Are there any other mesoamerican cultures that you would particularly like to see in a future theorycraft episode? Really a delight getting to hear from you my friend, you always have great insight but you are particularly knocking it out of the park with this one! Thank you so much for taking the time to watch and comment.

[@afz902k]

@@robbylava I'm always thrilled with your long responses to comments! As for which american civ theorycraft I'd like to see: - Tarascans (Purepecha) - probably "nuff said" as people always bring this one up. - Huastecs - interesting, but would need research, there's a lot of unknowns here. - Otomi - at first I thought they were a minor culture but after spending some time on it I think they might be worth taking a look into. Xaltocan and Tacuba are both apparently Otomi cities, but the latter was part of the "Aztec" triple alliance, who destroyed the former. They had a mercenary flair and there was even a rank in the Aztec army named after them. - Mississippi - I think it would be cool to have some more north american civilizations, this one seems to fit the bill. The Iroquois are also interesting but perhaps too late? They seem to have consolidating their power very near the end of what we can consider the AoE2 timeline

[@robbylava]

All excellent suggestions! The Purepecha are high on my list, so you can definitely expect to see those ones pretty soon! The Otomi we're also on my radar, but I don't think I've come across the Huastecs before -- what were they like? North American civilizations are definitely an interesting topic. I had a rather uncomfortable exchange with a commenter who seems to take great offense when I said that a number of North American civilizations, such as the Puebloans, would probably be better fit for aoe1. The Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee, are another good example: awesome civilization, but not quite the right time frame. However, from the admittedly perfunctory research that I've done, the Mississippians actually seem like the single best possible fit out of all of North America! Definitely excited to dive into them at some point in the future, though I think I might do some of the easier ones first heheheh Also, I feel very gratified that you enjoy the long responses I give. I sometimes worry it's too much, cuz I just throw on voice typing and walk around doing chores while responding to comments. I'm also starting to get a little overwhelmed by the sheer number of comments the channel is attracting! But regardless, it's wonderful to hear that you appreciate it Fergus. Thank you for saying so.

[@afz902k]

@@robbylava agreed about the timelines, I think of course the game is not super strict about this, since after all we do have Goths and Huns as playable civs, but I still think sticking to what is generally considered "medieval times" is better, especially when it comes to how likely a civ is to actually appear in the game at some point. That said, maybe more ancient civs would be worth theorycrafting once the mysterious "Return of Rome" DLC is released ;) Oh yeah also since I reckon I'll be commenting a lot on your videos, just out of courtesy I should say English is not my native language and I'll probably make mistakes at various points. I swear I'm not fishing for compliments on my English! Now about Huastecs, well they ruled a relatively large area between the Gulf of Mexico and the Sierra Madre mountains. But this is also the same region where the more ancient "Veracruz Culture" existed before 1000 CE. Problem is, the Totonacs also lived in this area at some point in between, probably alongside the Huastecs. There are some sites like "Teayo" that are definitely Huastec (apparently they liked to build smaller stone fortifications), but some sites like Tajin are disputed, could have been built by the Totonacs, or inherited from the older Veracruz Culture which apparently had a lot of Olmec influence (the plot thickens). Other places like Cempoala were inhabited by the Totonac by the time the Spanish arrived, because they were displaced from their lands by the Toltecs. But most likely were not built by them. It could have been again this mysterious Veracruz Culture (I mean, we don't even have a proper name for them!) or Huastecs? There's a lot of contradictory or just missing info about these peoples. Their material culture and architecture looks cool though and they definitely waged war. Apparently the Huastecs had mastered copper metallurgy by the 1200's, which shocked me as I thought only the Inca and Purepechans had accomplished this.

[@robbylava]

My friend, if you hadn't told me I would never have guessed English wasn't your native language. Absolutely zero worries! Your comments are always a pleasure to read. You're definitely right that the games timeline kind of plays footsies with whether it wants a late antiquity / Dark Age focus or a high medieval/renaissance-focus! My personal rule of thumb is that the AOE to relevant time frame extends from 400 to 1600 ad. Which is like truly a massive range! But it's the best that I got to try to stay consistent. And thanks for sharing that knowledge about the Huastecs! I legitimately never even knew they existed before. Hey man, if you're ever interested in doing a collab on one of these mesoamerican civs or any others, please don't hesitate to say! You seem like you'd be really fun to do a build with. And apologies if I've already asked you! I've been getting so many comments recently it's getting quite hard to remember who I've said what to!

[@nicolaaffatati5355]

Man, i really love Meso civs, especially the Aztecs, i feel them still like a novelty perfume since the release of the conquerors, however it will be clear that now we need a full overall of the existing meso civs in order to compensate the switch to regional unit of the Ocelomeh (jaguar warriors in Nahualt) and B'alam Ob (same jaguar warrior in yucatec) and probably replacing the silly plumed archer with a nest thrower, a kind of light artillery infantry that inflict damages over time in the blasted area, replace the eagle line of the incas with the Chasqui messengers and so on.... Love you contents!!!! ❤

[@robbylava]

Thank you so much for saying so man! I'm really glad you've been enjoying the bills! And I love the ideas that you've presented here too -- I've heard a lot about these Nest Throwers and need to dive into history to see what I can learn about them myself heheheh

[@nicolaaffatati5355]

@@robbylava Thank you for your availability and your interest, Sir, i hope you the best!!!

[@Grevnor]

So this is what you were working on? I knew a video was coming today, and I was pleasantly surprised at the subject. Mesoamerica needs more love! So far the doc looks great, still intrigued what "installed" means in game terms (which will obviously be explained in the video), but I am very well aware of what you are referring to, and it's great to see it represented. More thoughts when I've watched the video, obviously.

[@robbylava]

Hey! Thank you Johannes! Very glad you're excited by the prospect. Really looking forward to hearing what you think once you finish the video!

[@Grevnor]

@@robbylava Right. Time for that update. The Mesoamerican overhaul was fantastic, and very much necessary in my opinion. Nerfing the more open tech trees while giving them more thematically appropriate strategic options instead is probably the way forward. Mesoamerican armies were very different from pretty much anything else, and it's high time the game reflects this. As for the Zapotecs themselves, I love the defensive/monk theme, and I can totally see an Aztec vs Zapotec matchup with Monks trying to out-tank each other. Amazing.

[@robbylava]

Wow, thank you so much Johannes, I'm really honored that you would give the build such a glowing review. And I should be doing another mesoamerican build in the not-too-distant future that will also make use of these new regional units, so ideally we'll get to see them in a couple of different contexts going forward! Thrilled that you like to build my friend. Thank you so much for taking the time to watch and give me a review.

[@thomasfplm]

18:45 In AoE1 there are two infantry buildings. I think an idea would be to have something similar for the mezo civs, a "stable equivalent" that could train the Eagles and the Jaguars.

[@robbylava]

A few other people have mentioned this idea as well, and I certainly don't hate it. I have a far more ambitious idea down the line that would probably make much better use of this idea though, part of a total overhaul mod I have planned for the future.

[@simbelmyne1476]

Hello Robby! Very interesting ideas here, I will try to keep my thoughts on each as short as possible this time haha. *New Regional Units:* As you might suspect, I'm not one for huge overhauls of AOE2, so I'm not in love with all these changes -- seems like it could be very confusing for players new and old (especially with all the unique abilities / contingent bonuses), and I'm rather content with the existing meso set up. That said, some regional units for the american civs make historical sense and the ideas are interesting. I have a few specific thoughts / suggestions: -- Jaguar: If this replaces the knight-line for mesos (essentially) then just be careful with how you balance it for the sake of counters. Knights are balanced by having a readily available counters, both trash and gold (spear-line, camels, a multitude of UUs). Part of why the current eagle-warrior is so powerful is because it has few counters (militia-line is uncommon & slow, Hand cannons are restricted to certain civs and only in imp., anti-infantry bonus damage is somewhat rare in general). I won't speculate about the specifics of the stats you chose, but this is a general concern of mine. Maybe you've already taken this into account! -- If you are making jaguars the knight-equivalent, then I'd recommend going all the way and making eagles a true scout-line replacement. Shift most/all of their gold cost to food, reduce their base attack and pierce armor (maybe just -1 atk, -0/1 armor) and remove their anti-cav bonus. Then, voila! scout line replacement -- Speaking of scout line replacements, the slinger isn't that. I like the idea of the unit generally, so I'm not saying it shouldn't exist (although not sure if it needs to be regional, and I'm not sure what role it fills), but it doesn't replace the scout-line. Specifically, hussar are great as a high-HP raiding unit and skirmisher counter in trash wars -- a role filled by eagles much better than the slinger unit. -- For the Atlatl, a brief look at the stats makes me think it is too weak (too low attack) and perhaps too dependent on hard-to-quantify ghulam-pierce & bonus damage to be a true cav-archer equivalent -- For "Installation" I'd recommend going full AOE3 -- add a new meso-only building (the noble hut?) that builds Jaguars, Eagles (only unit available in feudal age), and perhaps also Atlatls. AKA stable replacement! But keep the Xolotl warrior stable conversion fun haha. Maybe when old-world civs convert a noble hut they could build native allies or something 11 *Zapotec civ itself:* Team bonus -- I like it! I had a similar idea for my Tibetan design (to represent Gompas / Dzhong monasteries). Only concern is if having a forward garrison point will be too strong for monk rushes -- especially in combination with the other monk bonuses, for this civ or for allies with monk bonuses. Also, will 5 garrison space affect relics? And will relics add arrows? I'd say yes! It is more fun that way. Bonuses: -- University bonus: this will work as an eco bonus. It isn't flashy, but it is there. Could be too strong in imp. though, if it affects farming by +15%? -- Slopes bonus: Seems to be a minor / low-importance bonus, but that is OK. I'd like to add one thing to it though, to make it a bit stronger: "Buildings build 50% faster on slopes, and building placement is not blocked by slopes" I hate not being able to place a TC because of a hill 11 -- Monk convert-on-death: This is OP as written. I'm especially thinking about arena mass monk-cheese and scout snipes of monks on arena and other maps. Guaranteed conversion of enemies sniping a monk would make them just unstoppable. Even just in general, 1 conversion is usually enough to make a monk cost-effective resource wise (-100 gold, but effectively +160 food for converting a scout? or +140 resource equivalent for a crossbow? or even +120 resource equivalent for a lowly skirm? and it is guaranteed? pretty game-bustingly amazing!). In my opinion, this would be ridiculously oppressive, especially in any circumstance where monks are already good (arena, vs. knights, etc.). And that is before taking into account any of the other monk bonuses and full tech tree. My suggestions: 1. Units that kill a Zapotec monk die (instead of converting). Reduces the oppressiveness a lot 2. Units that resist conversion (whether eagles / scouts, teutons / bengalis, or faith / first crusade) have a chance to avoid dying after killing a Zapotec monk. For scouts, probably as a high as 50% at base (increased to 75% survival odds by faith [ +50% conversion resistance]). Counters need to preserved, and scouts/eagles need to counter monks. 1/2 pop monks is not a problem at all, is interesting but small boost in most circumstances, I think. -- Masonry /architecture benefit Monks / Macaw warriors: This bonus is interesting, but I worry about the civ being utterly reliant on monks & the monks and the macaw warrior being too strong (110hp & 7/9 armor is.....very high). UTs: UT1: Pulque -- I don't see this ever being used, but it is cheap and plenty of UTs are very rare / situational, so it's OK UT2: Getting 25% refund is nice, no too much comment on this. It is a solid bonus for a civ in late-game, idk if it'd be too strong, maybe a lower percentage would be needed. UU: I think its can't-retask ability might be balanced game-wise but just sounds so irritating to play against, and otherwise the unit seems like either it would never be used (so slow....and slow attacking) or that it would crazy OP (110hp, 7/9 armor, no easy counters like pikes). So idk what to think about it, but given how teutonic knights ended up having to be balanced, I'm not optimistic this UU would end in a good place. Tech tree: Seems a little extra confining with poor archers, poor infantry (except perhaps the UU), poor siege, no cavalry. The eco seems OK, but not amazing (until maybe late-game, with +15% farming & the dead-unit refund), and the defenses are good, but not really that good? Besides their team bonus, I don't see there defense-orient bonuses really being that impactful until late game when their mostly full-tech tree will be helpful. That leaves monks, which are extremely OP as designed, I think, mainly because of the convert at death mechanic. Overall, I'm skeptical of their tech options being too one-sided and generally poor outside of monks and late-game eco. Suggestions: not sure, but I think allowing it to have either an archer or infantry sub-identity (by giving bracer for archers, or giving squires + blast furnace and maybe elite eagle [especially squires] for infantry) to be their go-to outside of monks could be good. Also, if a stronger defensive character is desired, maybe the available-one-age-early techs at the uni should be cheaper to incentivize people actually researching them, and provide a true defensive bonus (outside of the monasteries) before late-game. *Conclusion:* This civ is interesting but seems too one-sided and oppressively monk-cheese-y 111111. I think a lot of the individual bonuses are very interesting and good, but put together + the limited tech tree, I'm not sure. With a few changes to the monk-death mechanic I think the civ would be interesting, but weird to play and would have to depend on late-game eco and unit spam to compensate for bad unit options (unless the UU is super strong). This would be interesting, and maybe balanced, IDK! But let my curmudgeonly skepticism get in the way haha. The ideas are as always very unique and very historically driven!

[@robbylava]

WOW, what a review! Thank you so much for taking the time to share Simbelmynë! Apologies if I miss any of your input in this response, please remind me if I do! I was quite sure the regional unit proposal would be controversial, but I think your thoughts on the subject are very cohesive! The slinger was not meant to be a perfect replacement for the hussar at all, apologies if it came off that way! The comparison was more than it was a place you can dump your food late game and be guaranteed at least some damage output, even if the two units go about it in very different ways. Your thoughts on the eagle are actually really interesting! I personally quite like where they sit right now, because I think it's interesting how they fill a similar role to the scout line while still being so different. And like you say, they are quite strong, and I like that they are! Though I do think they would be less oppressive if there were more powerful infantry units to counter them, another project I have planned for down the line. I could totally see the atlatl being a bit too weak in its current state, much like you I don't know how its Pierce attack would actually play out in practice. But it seems okay to me at least! But you make a very good point about the Jaguar. I was hoping that their lower Pierce armor would make archers viable against them, but that might not be enough. Here's a thought: do you think it would help if they took a little bonus damage from knights and other heavy cav? Would be in theme historically speaking and also give a clearer a route to counter them! And thank you for the feedback on the civilization! I've had a bunch of other commenters mentioned the monk thing is probably too much, one fellow suggested having it be restricted to the imperial age and not affect scouts, eagles, and buildings, and I think that would be a great way to balance it while keeping my theming intact! I do see what you mean about the unique unit possibly being too annoying. My hope though would be that it would allow for some really interesting tactical gameplay while being too slow to really do anything truly broken with. It's true that the tech tree is a little confining... I really didn't want to push a specific sub theme for the civilization, instead hoping that their late game gold efficiency and powerful monks coupled with their incredibly tanky unique unit would keep them from getting steamrolled. I do really like your idea of having their University technologies be discounted though! What amount, percentage wise, do you think would be a good way to make it actually incentivized without being too much? Thanks again for all the great thoughts my friend! You are far from curmudgeonly, these are all very grounded ideas and I really appreciate you sharing them with me!

[@simbelmyne1476]

Figuring out the proposed Jaguar warrior is a thing beyond my prediction. Basically, I just voiced a concern (possible lack of an obvious counter like knights have) without offering any solutions or suggestions 1111. Playtesting would have to determine what exact stats, I think, or what bonuses other units should have vs. them. The knights bonus vs. Jaguar is interesting and it could work! But I can't really say yea or nay on whether that would really balance the unit or not. For the university discount, it should probably be large -- the techs I remember seeing in the doc as being available early are techs that are frequently not researched at all. And since the Italians have a bonus of -33% cost for ALL uni techs, I'd favor a -50% or larger discount on the selected early-access techs. Of course, for masonry/architecture this could be too cheap given the civ bonus applying these to monks / UU. On the monk bonus, besides what I've said here and in the other comment thread, I do have one last thought: what happens if you delete your own monk???? Do all your units convert tot he other team? Does your shirt change color? Asking the hard questions here.

[@robbylava]

Heheh not at all to worry man! Just you mentioning the potential problem with jaguars was great for prompting my own thought processes. I think I'm going to go with the night bonus for now and see where it goes. Good point on the University discount! I agree that it might make masonry/architecture a little too powerful, but since their beneficiaries really only kick in come Castle age I don't think a 50% discount will be super impactful. Could totally be wrong on that one though! Great suggestion my friend. I think the only logical conclusion is that if you delete one of your own monks then you have to resign. Easy as that.

[@peterlynchchannel]

I love your ideas about adding more units for the American civs to share, especially slingers, that just makes so much sense. I actually wish they would group ALL of the civilizations into regions, with civs from each region sharing one or more unique unit lines, like they do now with SE Asian civs having battle elephants and North Asian civs having steppe lancers.

[@robbylava]

Hey! Thank you so much for saying so Peter! And I couldn't agree more man, regional units are some of my favorite parts of the game, and I'm consistently delighted every time they add a new one. I have plans for an awful lot more of them in future builds, so I'd love to hear what you think of those designs once they come around! I have a Slavic civilization coming up in a couple of weeks that has almost as substantial regional changes as this American build does. Really appreciate you taking the time to watch my friend!

[@LifVixen]

Hey Robby! It was a really neat surprise when I saw your video about the Zapotecs in my KZbin recommendations. Especially so soon. I was also genuinely honored that one of my comments inspired you to make a whole theorycrafting video. :) Anyways, I like your ideas a lot. Not only for the Zapotecs, but also for the American civs in general. I always thought they need more regional units, both to compensate the lack of cavalry and give them more flair. Speaking about regional units, I think regional religious units in Age of Empires II would be a welcome addition as well: for example Imams for Muslim civs, Brahmans for Indian civs, Buddhist monks for most East Asian civs, and so on. Which reminds me of your idea to give shaman women as a monk equivalent to some of the stepp civs. :)

[@robbylava]

HEY! The man himself! I'm delighted to hear from you Lif -- fantastic to hear that you like the build! Especially the proposed regional units, I had expected those to be the most controversial so the fact that you think they'd be a good fit is very heartening for me. Also HELL YEAH dude, I would love to do videos on some alternative religious units! That's one topic I've always felt like AOE2 kind of flubbed -- there is SO much potential for cool religious units and civilizations and we only get the monk! In any case, thank you so much for taking the time to watch and comment my friend. It's a pleasure having you participate in the channel's growth!

[@LifVixen]

It's me indeed... or kinda. I mean, I'm not a man actually. ^^ Not only did I like your build, but I also learned some stuffs about the Zapotec civilization, which makes me even more happy to have inspired you this theorycrafting concept. :D If the regional units really happened to be that controversial, then I guess I could be crowned Queen of the Unpopular Opinions, ahah! xD Another example, I don't really know whether your ideas about the Swiss' town center replacing castles or the milicia mechanics were particularly controversials, but I like those anyways. Partly because they reminded me a little bit of Warcraft 3, which is one of my favourite video games (alongside the Age of Empires games). ^^ Also, I would be excited to see what you have in store for alternative religious units theorycrafts. It would be especially interesting to imagine how they could differ from the current monk unit (outside of names and appearance). Speaking about religious units, I think more distinct religious buildings would be nice too, instead of having just monasteries for everyone. For example mosques for Muslim civs, and... I guess you see with what pattern I'm going on! ^^ In any case, I wish your channel to keep growing and thriving. And I wish you to have fun with many other theorycrafting ideas my friend! :)

[@robbylava]

OH gracious, my apologies Lif! In KZbin studio it shows you demographic information, and every time I've happened to glance at it it has assured me that my audience is literally 100% male, so I've gotten into a bad habit of assuming every commenter is the same! Definitely the last time I'll trust THAT metric lol, please excuse my rudeness. But hey! I'm thrilled to hear you learned something! I sure as hell did, and only because you requested the civilization. Regional units and regional variants are some of my absolute favorite parts of aoe2 as of now, and having even more variety when it comes to religious stuff would only be a step in the right direction in my book. There are definitely going to be some builds on that topic down the line! And it's funny that you bring up Warcraft 3, that was actually my favorite RTS game growing up, second only to AOE2. I must have spent at least 1,000 hours playing the mods alone, and some of my earliest experiences theory crafting were actually for Warcraft 3 mod communities! So there's zero doubt in my mind that the game influences my work on aoe2 now. You clearly have excellent taste in RTS's. Thank you so much for the well wishes Lif. It's always wonderful to see you in the comments. And you can definitely expect to see a couple more of your civilization requests making it into videos in the not terribly distant future! The Scots build in particular is one I am *greatly* looking forward to.

[@zoboe92]

I would play the hell out of a total conversion mod that adds all the complexity and richness you've invented into the game.

[@robbylava]

Not only is that extremely gratifying to hear, but I'm very proud to say that I'm actually working with an awesome team on actually producing a mod to implement some of my designs! They are far toned back than some of this earlier work of mine, but I think they are still well grounded in history and should be hopefully a lot of fun. Maybe if those do well I can even try my hand at something more expansive and boundary pushing too!

[@zoboe92]

@@robbylava that is such exciting news! I will definitely be staying tuned for news of this project. Thank you!

[@ivanstrydom8417]

Inca Should gain a UU in archery range : Quechua Bolas Warrior (Shared unit with the Mapuches) Quechua ranged infantry that hurls bolas for a wide area of effect. The bola slows down/ensnares enemies and does slight area damage (mostly against archers). Good against cavalry. Receives a free Chasqui each age. Chasqui - Inca scout with a great deal of utility. Can build outposts. When attacking, the Chasqui uses its quipu as a weapon.

[@pauloapaezjorgeemilio1772]

As a Mexican from Oaxaca (the state that covers the territory the zapotecs used to rule) I love this idea. To give a bit more of uniqueness to this civ, the symbol of the civ could be a yellow or golden tree on a black shield. The word zapotecs means people of the zapote. The zapote is a kind of tree which fruits are black, hence the symbol and the colors. Although I agree and really like the bonuses of the civ, I think they should have a bonus similar to the extra attack on the high ground that the tartars have. The zone where the zapotecs used to live is covered in mountains, to the point where if you want to move from the capital of the state to the coast, which is a distance that should be covered in 2 hours, turns into a vollage of 5 to 8 hours just because of the terrain. I can easily imagine the zapotecs practicing tactics of guerrilla to exploit the terrain and it would be a bit of a waste to not represent that in Aoe.

[@robbylava]

HEY! Great to hear from you Paulo! I'm honored and delighted to hear that you think I've done the civilization some justice! That's a really cool emblem idea. I did know about the zapote tree, but having it be part of the symbol never really came to mind. I do love the Bat God mask that I'm using now though, especially the beautiful Jade coloring -- can you think of any way we might be able to implement that into your design idea? Or at least part of the color scheme? I totally know what you mean about the elevation bonus. I was trying to represent that with the faster building on slopes thing! Do you think that bonus does a good enough job of representing that part of the history, and if not what would you prefer to see instead? Thanks again for taking the time to watch and comment my friend! It's a pleasure to have you and get your take.

[@pauloapaezjorgeemilio1772]

@@robbylava Hey man, first of all thanks for taking the time to read and answer to my comment, it means a lot. Regarding the civ’s symbol, I agree on the bat god’s mask being a beautiful piece of art, but using it as a symbol would have the same problems as using Saint Gorge’s cross as the italian symbol: It just represents too much people. In the anthropology museum of México City there’s at least one piece of art made of jade for every civilization displayed, and in the Aztec museum in the center of the city there’s a statue of the bat god of Teotihuacán origin. Did the zapotecs made that mask and can be associated with them? Yes. Where the other cultures doing something similar and can be associated with them as well? Also yes. The aztec symbol is an aztec war shield with the colors of the mexican flag, which the aztecs are strongly associated with. The mayan one is a symbol that can be found in a lot of mayan temples, painted with the most common colors used in mayan art. I just think the zapotecs deserve something as personal as their neighbors. On the subject of the bonus I proposed I have nothing to say, it’s just a cool bonus in game that’s not very common and this civ would have a valid reason to have it. But like you said, you kind of covered that with the building bonus, so I don’t really have complaints on that matter.

[@robbylava]

You know Paulo, that's an excellent argument! You are comparison to the St George's cross is particularly apt (it still bothers me that such a generic emblem is used for so many civilizations like the italians!). I'm definitely becoming a lot more sold on the tree idea. I think I have two lingering concerns that I'd love to get your take on: 1. I slightly worried that the ensign would be a little sparse with just the tree in the field. Are there any other smaller symbols I might be able to use to decorate it to add a little bit more flavor? And if so, are there any other colors I might be able to bring into the mix that would still be accurate? 2. What kind of Shield did you propose I use? I know that a lot of mesoamerican cultures use similar Shield designs, but I really don't want this to be too comparable to the Aztecs. Perhaps a little arbitrary, since so many European Shields are so similar, but if you have any thoughts on this I'd love to hear! Thanks for taking the time to help me out with this man.

[@pauloapaezjorgeemilio1772]

@@robbylava Hello there! Back from some reaserch. Personally, I don’t think it’s always necessary to make a really complex symbol. Take the Teutons for example. It’s just a black eagle in a yellow shield, but it works. However, if you still feel that it needs something else I investigated a bit. Like you said in the video, the zapotecs were the base for a lot of the other culture’s art and writing systems, so almost all of their symbols are either more associated with other cultures or are too primitive to be used as a war emblem. I also checked the Oaxaca’s shield (both the city and the state) for something that could be used, but they are too spanished to be useful in this case. The tree can’t be modified either because zapote doesn’t have flowers. The only idea that comes to my mind is to add a green bat flying over the tree or a bunch of green skulls at the roots of the tree to keep a relation with the mask idea and the importance of death in zapotec religion. Regarding the shield subject. There’s also limited options in this matter. The model the aztecs used was too popular at the time so almost all the cultures represented the same kind of shields. Having said that, I think there’s two options: Make it like the mayan symbol, a design crafted in stone. Or use the version of the shield that the zapotecs used to draw. It’s still a round shield, but the border it’s painted in yellow and the center of the shield it’s divided in tree vertical parts. The two at the sides white and the center red. You could put a black tree in the middle of the red part with a green bat flying over. I hope this has been of help. I have been playing AoE for 16 years already and it’s the reason I’m kind of obsessed with history today, so supporting a KZbin channel that likes it as much as I do is great for me, so thank you for making this kind of content.

[@robbylava]

DUDE those are fantastic ideas! I think a black tree on a yellow or red and white round Shield could look really fantastic! I especially like the idea of a green skull at the foot of the tree, helps tie in the thematics of my build since I put such a focus on death. You are totally right that simple can work quite well for many civilization ensigns, but in this case I just felt like a slightly more complex one would do the Zapotecs more justice. And I'm very glad I asked! This is a gold mine. I really cannot thank you enough for giving me so much material to work with. And I'm absolutely delighted to be making content that you enjoy! Just like you, this wonderful game is what got me into history when I was young, just six or seven years old. I'm hoping my kids have the same experience with it too.

[@darkranger116]

your videos are fantastic! putting in my vote in for a Tibetan Civ video!

[@robbylava]

You're the best Darkranger! Thank you so much for saying so my friend. And duly noted with the Tibetans! Expect to see a video on them at some point in the not terribly distant future. Great to hear from you mate!

[@lorddervish212quinterosara6]

Recommendation, do the Tarascos(Purepechas), Mixtecas and the Chichimecas By the way, the Eagle Warriors and Jaguars are Mexica, so technically they would only be available for the aztecs, chichimecs, Tarascans and Mixtecs. Zapotecs could have some kind of building like a Krepost, so could the Purepecha, since both built plenty of fortresses to defend from the aztec alliance

[@robbylava]

Purepecha build is in the works! And I plan on tackling the Mixtecs at some point this year too. You're totally right about the Jaguar being Mexica in nature! I mentioned in the build that, since the eagle warrior was too and yet is represented across all American civs as a placeholder for comparable local warrior classes, having the jaguar in that same role as an umbrella unit representing many types of fast elite infantry felt like a clean and well grounded way to approach it.

[@gurugru5958]

Nothing makes me feel like a real Mesoamerican emperor like commanding crossbowmen, mangonels, and trebuchets lol. I really like the taunt mechanic. I think that could be a cool way for infantry to counter to hit and run tactics. And the autoconvert on death could make for a really powerful UT I think.

[@robbylava]

Heheheh thank you Guru ! I was pretty pleased with the taunt thing as well. And I had another commenter voice concern about the auto convert mechanic -- I personally feel like it would not be too oppressive to have as a civilization bonus, but I did at one point strongly consider making it a unique technology. Do you really think it would be worthwhile to ever pick up? Great to hear from you man! Always look forward to hearing your feedback on the builds.

[@afz902k]

I like the taunt as well! Regarding the anachronistic or historically inaccurate techs, I think it's also pretty historically or time inaccurate that all these civilizations can fight each other at all. For that reason I like to think that AoE2 is in fact a historically accurate game, but not for our timeline. It represents a medieval time very similar to ours, but where (for whatever reasons) all of these civilizations and peoples had much more contact with one another, and therefore there was more technological exchange between them.

[@robbylava]

Thanks Fergus! Yeah, I would definitely agree that some amount of alternative history has to go into civilizations for balances sake, but that certainly doesn't stop me wanting to add as many historically accurate options as I possibly can! I do think Siege is a distinct exception though. From everything I've seen Siege weapons like we see in game were all but nonexistent in mesoamerica as well as a number of other aoe2 civilizations. So in that particular case, I like to think of it as "if these cultures fought against classic fortifications like we see elsewhere in the world, these are probably the sort of things they would devise to breach them". I don't know if that's coherent reasoning, but it's the best I have for now!

[@gurugru5958]

@@robbylava Interestingly, there was one account of I think Vikings fighting Thule natives where it seemed like the Thule somehow fired at them with a mangonel type weapon from a boat. Highly unlikely, but interesting tidbit.

[@robbylava]

REALLY? Now THAT is a source I'd like to see! Any idea where I might look to find that?

[@kunstderfugue]

I think for the purpose of theorycrafting game mechanics, aoe4 is a good platform to use because the mechanical difference between civs is greater than in aoe2 and many classic rts games. You can support a civ that has mostly or all unique units in aoe4, like the Malians who have a distinct lack of armored units, but instead have unique counter units for infantry and cavalry which feel super unique. I think the Meso civs could take on a whole new identity when allowed more freedom for mechanical uniqueness.

[@robbylava]

Definitely hear what you're saying man! Since I don't play AOE4 I don't personally feel very comfortable designing for it, but I do think when they inevitably add a meso civilization to the game it'll be able to stand out and develop a unique identity far better than aoe2. Even though I prefer the latter, no shame in acknowledging where the newcomer gets it right!

[@thomasfplm]

22:50 I if you do those kinds of changes to units that affect that many other civs, I would suggest making an independent video just for those units and how they would be applied to existing civs. Because now we ended up with only one mezo civ, because the old ones don't work with the proposed changes. It would also allow you to focus this video just on what is specific for this civ.

[@robbylava]

Over time I have somewhat adapted to making my videos more like what you are proposing here. Though in my most recent videos I do bundle in regionals, I plan on proposing full replacements whenever something comes up that would step on existing civilizations toes. Keeps it nice and easy for me and hopefully doesn't clutter up the video feed too much. When you get to my most recent Civ builds, if you feel like they would behave from having regional units kept separate, please don't hesitate to let me know!

[@DigitalDiscDreamer]

Hey Robby! Wonderful ideas as always! The Zapotecs would make a great new civ to AoE2. Due to your proposed changes to the tech tree, will you make a video about what you would change in the current American civs assuming your expanded regional units? I would very much be interested in that.

[@robbylava]

Hey! Pleasure to hear from you David, I'm thrilled that you like the build! And couldn't agree more that the Zapotecs really deserve to be in the game. I mentioned a couple of the perfunctory changes I would want to make to the current mesoamerican civs, but if it's something that you'd like to see then that definitely makes me want to do a proper video on it! I'll put it on my list. Thanks so much for watching the build and commenting my friend!

[@DimitryDonskoy777]

Zapotecs unique archery range unit Poison dart blowgunner which will be available in imperial age and have a special ability that can decrease 2 health from an attacked unit per min and the ability can multiply depending on number of poison darts and Now plz suggest an castle unique unit

[@carlosmartinezcaballer8203]

my man Robby always providing :3 this gonna be great

[@robbylava]

Eyyy thank you Carlos! Really excited to hear what you think once you've seen it!

[@carlosmartinezcaballer8203]

@@robbylava i find interesting the new mechanics and units. To be honest i dont know if i like them or not yet. And thats when you know you have made a great video. You didnt impose an opinion, you made me think Hoping to see the commie feedback on zapotecs :)

[@robbylava]

You know Carlos, I honestly could not have asked for better. Thank you so much for taking the time to watch it through, and I'm really glad it was thought-provoking for you!

[@shanerooney7288]

*Idea:* A remake of the Japanese Civ that focuses on a "trash gold army". Replacing normal Gold units with weaker, but cheaper and more gold efficient variants. kanabō (metal club) replaces man-at-arms. Elite Kanabō replaces long Swordsman. 60 food 5 gold (was 20 gold) Samurai and elite Samurai from the castle act as Two-handed Swordsman and Champion respectively. Yumi (bow) replaces the crossbow. Elite Yumi replaces the Arbalester. 25 wood 12 gold (was 45 gold) Ashigaru replaces the hand cannoneer. 45 food and 15 gold (was 50 gold) Cheaper battering ram and capped ram (no fancy name) 160 wood. 25 gold (was 75 gold) The goal is to find that balance where the units are stronger than a true trash army, but more affordable than a true gold army.

[@robbylava]

That's a fascinating idea Shane. The Japanese are a topic I definitely would like to tackle at some point, but much like you my ideas for them would probably be a little bit ambitious! To me at least, my main concern with that particular direction would be about the historicity. I'm sure you've been able to tell from my videos, but I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to representing history in my designs! So I'd love to hear, what elements of Japanese history did you draw upon to come to this idea? Really appreciate you sharing!

[@shanerooney7288]

@@robbylava The simple answer is, all of the unique units chosen were based on historical weapons or historical infantry. The Ashigaru (hand cannoneer) is literally just common light foot soldiers. Cannon fodder units. First seen in the 14th century. Describing them as cheaper units makes sense. The militia line has always felt too European centric. And historically "Swordsman" was never really a soldier class. Spears and bows were the weapons of choice. The Kanabō (金棒), Tetsubō (鉄棒), Ararebo, Nyoibo, Konsaibo, Kanemuchi, Aribo, and Gojo... they are classical Japanese weapons. And were prevalent enough to have 8 different names for them! Saying a big club is cheaper to build and train with than a double edged long sword seems logical. The samurai unit still fills the role of Swordsman. Even though the Kanabō were also used by Samurai. The Yumi (弓) is the Japanese term for "bow". With daikyū (大弓) being larger and hankyū (半弓) being shorter. Like a war now and a practice bow. Modern translations call "Yumi" as the traditional Japanese bow. Which is large and asymmetrical. The earliest examples date from the Jōmon period (14,000BC - 300BC). With multiple "standard" design changes still happening in the 1500s, 1550s, 1600s, and 1650s. Showing it still was a common weapon deep into Japanese history. Thus why the Japanese Civ shouldn't get crossbowmen or arbs. I'm pretty sure laminate bamboo is cheaper to construct than carved wood with trigger mechanism and ratchet reloading device... Again justifying the lower cost. From what I can tell, the Japanese were not big on siege weapons as a whole. So cheap unsophisticated battering rams / capped rams is probably more historically accurate than over-engineered siege rams, trebuchets, or bombard cannons. Then we just fit it all together in a unified play style that is different enough to be interesting. ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ I also looked for a replacement for the knight line. Since "Knights" is very European. The Takeda Clan (武田氏, Takeda-shi) had notable mounted units. Although they came from the 16th century, which I think is a little late. If I could think up a good replacement for the knight line, I would. And on that note, mounted Samurai were cav archers.... You can dig deeper for Japanese cav options if you wish.

[@robbylava]

These are all good points and definitely merit reskinning for the civilization at the very least! I do wish we could see civilizations fighting with soldiers that actually looked more like how their historical armies might have looked! That being said, I don't really see the reduced gold cost being fitting for most of these units with the exception of the Yumi archers -- those definitely sound cheaper than crossbows! So maybe you can focus the bonus to just being for the Archer line? I have heard that mounted samurai were traditionally cavalry archers, so it would be cool if they got some sort of bonus stats to represent that. Or maybe they can swap to melee mode like the ratha! Regardless, tackling Japan is definitely something that I am interested in doing at some point. I'd definitely like to hear more of your thoughts on the topic if you have any!

[@shanerooney7288]

@@robbylava I honestly think the _Ashigaru_ are justifiable as cheap units. Wikipedia describes them with terms like "peasant foot soldiers" and "not well trained". You could justify an across-the-board gold reduction due to Japan's overwhelming militarism. The Shogunate were a military government, and the Samurai were both elite soldiers and political players. And mass mobilization via the feudal system.

[@robbylava]

Okay Shane, I'm becoming more convinced! At least for the ashigaru. Though I hardly think we could call samurai poorly trained -- you're right that the reduced gold could be justified by militarization, but if you want to keep them cohesive with the rest of your design and reduce their stats in comparison to a normal civilizations imperial swordsmen how would you personally go about justifying it?

[@danielacuna86]

You could a couple of Southamerican civilizations that did resist the Spanish and could never be conquered by them. The first are the Mapuches who in 1485 defeated the Incas who were invading their lands in Chile and who already in 1550 managed to incorporate the horse into their army. On the other hand are the Chiriguanos, who invaded Inca territory without being able to be defeated and in the same way attacked the Spanish in such a way that Philip II of Spain declared war on them. Both civilizations could only be defeated in the 19th century when Spain was no longer in control of South America.

[@robbylava]

Thanks for the input Daniel! Yeah, I've had a couple commenters request South American civilizations at this point. One fellow even said he had access to some potential University research sources that could really elevate the historical authenticity of the build! That being said, that particular commenter mentioned not being able to help until late spring. So though it might take a couple months to get a South American build on the channel, you can absolutely rest assured that there will be a few at some point! So much for the input Daniel. Really hope you liked the build man.

[@AxenfonKlatismrek]

If i had to implement sacrifices Americas were famous for, it would most likely be "Enemy's villager gives you 20% of its cost when you kill him"

[@robbylava]

It's definitely true that the majority of sacrifices were captives from war! Probably a lot cleaner way to do it than killing off your own guys lol

[@vicenteignaciodiaz7012]

Great video! I would like to suggest a couple of civilizations too! (I will write the comment in English and Spanish because english is not my native language, so if I murder a sentence in english at least it will be well written in spanish). In addition to the Mesoamerican civilizations, the Andean civilizations that shared territory with (and fought against) the Inca empire are also very interesting. >For example, currently in the Andean zone in addition to the Quechua people (culturally related to the Inca empire and associated peoples), there is the Aymara culture (a group of peoples that were called Collas by the Incas and Aymaras by the Spanish), which has a more rural emphasis in several aspects since they were (and are) agricultural and cattle raising groups. >Another interesting culture would be the Tiwanaku culture, who were a super influential and powerful in the Titicaca area (something like the Romans in the Mediterranean). Over time their empire fractured into several different kingdoms (and many claimed to be their direct succesors xD). >Finally, there are the Chimúes, the final antagonists in the Inca campaign. Its capital, called Chan-Chan (meaning sun-sun or "great sun"), was one of the largest cities in the world at its peak, and is one of the largest adobe cities in all of history. In general, I feel that there is still a lot to explore in the cultures of the Andean zone, since there are many weapons (many axes and maces) and war strategies in the area that have not yet been explored in the game. You could have the slingers as a regional unit of the Andean civilizations, since it was a very common combat unit. And a small tip: sometimes it seems that there is little material on the Mesoamerican and Andean cultures on the internet, but that is because there are publications from the universities here that are only published in Spanish, so looking for sources in Spanish one can learn much more. Greetings from Chile! c: Además de las civilizaciones mesoamericanas, también son muy interesantes las civilizaciones andinas que compartieron territorio (y pelearon) con el imperio Inca. Por ejemplo, actualmente en la zona andina además del pueblo Quechua (relacionados culturalmente al imperio Inca y los pueblos asociados) existe la cultura Aymara (un conjunto de pueblos que eran llamados Collas por los Incas y Aymaras por los españoles), la cual tiene un énfasis más rural en varios aspectos ya que eran (y son) pueblos agrícolas y ganaderos. Otra cultura interesante sería la cultura de Tiwanaku, quienes fueron un pueblo súper influyente y poderoso en la zona del Titicaca (algo así como los romanos en el mediterráneo). Con el tiempo su imperio se fracturó en varios reinos diferentes. Por último, están los Chimúes, los antagonistas finales en la campaña de los Incas. Su capital llamada Chan-Chan (significa sol-sol o "gran sol") era una de las ciudades más grandes del mundo en su auge, y es de las ciudades de adobe más grandes de toda la historia. En general siento que queda mucho por explorar en las culturas de la zona andina, pues existen muchas armas y estrategias de guerra de la zona que no se han explorado aún en el juego. Se podría tener a los honderos como unidad regional de las civilizaciones andinas, pues era una unidad de combate muy común. Y una pequeña recomendación: a veces parece que hay poco material de las culturas mesoamericanas y andinas en internet, pero eso es porque hay publicaciones de las universidades de aquí que sólo se publican en Español, así que buscando fuentes en Español uno puede aprender mucho más. ¡Saludos desde Chile! c:

[@robbylava]

HEY! Great to hear from you Vicente! Really pleased you like the video! I've certainly considered a number of the other South American cultures surrounding the Incas, specifically the Chimu and the Mapuche. But you are very right that there are so few sources available online in English that I've had an awful lot of trouble researching any of them! So here's a question for you my friend: would you be at all up for helping me research some of these civilizations? Having someone who can help me find and translate sources I normally wouldn't have access to would be a massive help, especially because Google very rarely shows you search results in other languages. Totally understand if you'd prefer not, but with your help it would be far more possible for me to bring some of these civilizations into my theorycrafting series! Regardless, I'd love to hear some more about those different peoples you mentioned! Thanks so much for watching and commenting my friend, and for teaching me a little bit more about pre-columbian South America!

[@carlosmartinezcaballer8203]

Me encanta la idea Vicente. El problema es que rompe en ciertos aspectos la estructura que hay detrás de Age of Empires. Incluso deformando lo que entendemos como imperio, toda civilización representada en el juego o en estos theorycrafting tiene en común dos cosas: un común y un gobierno. Y las civilizaciones que no lo han cumplido se corrigen (indios) o se van a corregir (rumores de eliminar los italianos y hacerles un rework). Y soy consciente de lo mucho que se ha degradado este unitarismo, porque me cortaría un brazo antes de afirmar una unidad ontológica de los "mayas" o gubernamental de los hunos. Pero el estudio de esas futuras civilizaciones no sería sino a través de una lupa de colonización, lo que daría civilizaciones poco realistas al ser un reduccionismo de organizaciones no federadas en un gobierno, y lo que es peor, nos daría civilizaciones extremadamente racistas. Algo que se puede corregir empleando el consejo de nativos pero que siendo realistas no lo van a hacer porque Ensemble quiere ganar dinero. Por eso es mejor si se alejan de este tipo de asuntos Con eso dicho, tu idea de civ está basadísima y me encantaria que fuera muchisimo mas facil moddear nuevas civs para probarlas

[@carlosmartinezcaballer8203]

Por cierto, que webs hay en chile de publicaciones universitarias? Me encantaría usarla y salir del europocentrismo universitario Jajajaja. (Si quieres alguna española dialnet.unirioja esta bien y cuando pasas la primera capa de derechismo rancio hispánico encuentras cosas chulas)

[@vicenteignaciodiaz7012]

@@carlosmartinezcaballer8203 ¡Hola Carlos! Efectivamente, como bien dices es difícil definir civilizaciones americanas sin incurrir en reduccionismo o a veces peor aún, en mitos y creencias racistas popularizadas durante la colonia. Por ejemplo, Robby dijo en un comentario justo arriba que estaba considerando hacer un capítulo basado en el pueblo Mapuche, pero eso sería todo un desafío de realizar sin antes "reworkear" gran parte de las mecánicas del juego, debido a que los Mapuche no se organizan de la misma manera que culturas centralizadas. Aun así, es muy divertido hacer los ejercicios mentales de imaginar cómo se verían estos pueblos traducidos al medio del videojuego (me encantaría tener la arquitectura de adobe de los chimúes en el juego, por ejemplo). ¡Saludos! pd: acabo de leer tu otro mensaje. Me temo que no conozco páginas buenas en español, para buscar info suelo revisar los repositorios de las universidades, revisando por ejemplo los trabajos de tesis. En Perú se hacen muchísimos trabajos interesantes de arqueología en español. Yo acá tengo acceso a la biblioteca del museo de arte precolombino (donde he participado en talleres en los que enseñan las técnicas utilizadas en las piezas arqueológicas, tienen un grupo de arqueólogos y artesanos dedicados a rescatar esos conocimientos), en esa biblioteca suelo hallar lo que me interesa. Por último, si no pillo nada en internet o en la biblioteca, me dirijo a un amigo que estudia historia. Yo no estudié historia, soy físico de profesión, pero la arqueología me encanta así que tomo ramos cuando puedo. Tengo raíces atacameñas (abuelo), pero debido a que en chile hasta hace unas décadas estaba mal visto "comportarse como indígena", esto se ha ido perdiendo y por lo tanto no hablo ningún idioma nativo y heredé poquito culturalmente.

[@vicenteignaciodiaz7012]

@@robbylava Hi! I would love to help with sources written in spanish! But after april's 10th, because I'm preparing an important exam for that date (I study physics). Meanwhile, I can offer some sources in english: > The youtube channel Ancient Americas is pretty good to get an introduction about some cultures. > Some years ago I did a presentation about Chan-Chan (my university allows me to take courses on topics other than my degree), so I have some sources in english: "Pattern and Meaning in Prehistoric Peruvian Architecture: the Architecture of Social Control in the Chimu State", by Jerry D. Moore "Some Formal Correspondences between the Imperial Architecture of the Wari and ChimuCultures of Ancient Peru", by Gordon F. McEwan "Imperialist Expansion in Peruvian Prehistory: Chimu Administration of a Conquered Territory" by R. W. Keatinge & G. W. Conrad "Fortaleza de Quirihuac: A Chimú Fortress in the Middle Moche Valley", by Patrick James Mullins. "Armas de metal en el Perú prehispánico" by Carmen Perez Maestro. This one is in spanish, but it has images of metal weapons from the Andean region. > Lastly, while I do not have sources for the Mapuche right now, I know a history professor from the university that works with Mapuche communities and knows lots of their arqueological history. I think I could ask him about some good sources, he's a very nice person so I think he would love to help xD Greetings, and thanks for the video and the nice comment c:

[@Xastor994]

Ho boy are you prolific these days or what Actual comment incoming when I actually watch this thing later, just wanted to check in and say that I'm glad you're willing to take on another American civ when there is seemingly not a ton of design space left there, and that I feel like the Zapotecs are a good choice inside of that theme space (so excluding North America basically)

[@robbylava]

Thank you for saying so Xastor! I'm very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this one!

[@Xastor994]

@@robbylava Hey, I didn't forget about this, but I wrote like 2000 words and then my browser tab crashed so we can maybe just discuss this on Discord?

[@robbylava]

Ah damn! Sorry you wasted your time Xastor -- yeah, you can always hit me up on discord

[@JackOpulski]

That slope building bonus sounds like a shoo-in for the craziest castle drops yet XD if you fear it would be too random, perhaps it could be coupled with an ability to build on uneven terrain (although THAT would almost definitely make it OP; but maybe the Incas could have this particular idea given their architectural prowess...).

[@robbylava]

Hoooo boy, that does sound pretty scary! But it could be a great fit for a civilization balanced around it! I'm really trusting that buildings with big foundations like castles will be hard enough to place on elevation that the build bonus won't just be absolutely disgusting. But if we ever get a chance to actually test it, that would be something I would be more than happy to know if it proved to be too oppressive! Great to hear from you Jack. Hope you liked the build man!

[@weifan9533]

Very interesting ideas, though I have a small suggestion regarding the new regional units for Meso civs. I think the Aztecs can keep their Jaguar Warrior unique unit since it was their most iconic unit in history, whereas the Knight equivalent regional unit could be called something like a Coyote Warrior or Coyote Runner, since to the best of my knowledge the coyote was worshipped by a lot of Meso-american peoples in history.

[@robbylava]

Hey there Wei, thanks for the input man! You know, I've never heard of anything like that before! Sounds really interesting. Can you recommend any videos or sources I can take a look at to learn a little bit more about what a unit like that might look like? Glad you sounded the build interesting man! Hope you enjoyed.

[@weifan9533]

@@robbylava I believe in AoE3 the Aztecs have a unique unit called the Coyote Runner, which basically serves as their Knight equivalent, and my reference was drawn mostly from there. They would have a similarly fashioned animal dress to the jags, but instead of wearing jaguar skin they would wear a coyote skin.

[@robbylava]

I see! Just looked it up and did a bit of digging on the history. From everything I can see I'm not sure the unit is historical enough for my personal tastes -- it seems like Aztec warriors were all sorts of different costumes, and the coyote was just one of many without any particular meaning or unit designation. But I can definitely respect aoe3 using it, and I really appreciate you mentioning it as a possible option!

[@divicospower9112]

Always great to see new theory craft. I like to discover other stories (I must admit that I don't know the American history as well as other continents). For the campaign, let's compare to the other 2. In the Aztec's, you fight other Aztecs and the conquistadores. In the Inca's you create the Inca empire but doing so, you only face Incas. That's a bit boring (even if I understand this downside) For the Zapotec's you should go for a campaign that involve Aztecs and/or Mayans but without the Spanish to avoid to make a double campaign on this topic. I really like the meso American new units. I think that it suits them well and it gives them a flavor more exotic. Their economic bonus could be too powerful I think. While interesting, it's like joining the Slavic bonus, the Celtic bonus, the Turkish bonus and the Korean. It's too much. The monastery bonus sounds good. Just imagine the Byzantine monasteries with a Zapotec ally.

[@robbylava]

Hey there Divicos, great to hear from you man! Really glad you like the video, and especially glad you like the proposed regional units! I definitely agree with your thoughts on the campaign. In that case my first and third options, especially the third, would probably be the best picks. And I do see what you mean about the University economy bonus possibly being too strong. I really like the flavor of it though -- do you think that by retuning the numbers it could be made more fair? Great to hear your thoughts as always my friend!

[@divicospower9112]

@@robbylava Keep making these video! It's always a good moment to discover new civilizations. I like the idea behind the university bonus. Maybe making it +5% would solve it (but is it too low?).

[@robbylava]

I certainly will Divicos! It's my goal to release one a week during the month of February, and I really look forward to hearing your thoughts on all of them! So right now the university bonus starts at only 5% in the feudal age and goes up to 15% of the imperial age. Do you think instead I could make it such that it goes from 5 to 7.5 to 10%?

[@divicospower9112]

@@robbylava Yes it would be better. In imperial age it would even the Slavic bonus and would be even to a faction with 2 men saw. That's fine. The monk bonus is also very strong.

[@robbylava]

Excellent! And yeah, a couple other commenters have brought the monk thing up and have proposed some pretty interesting solutions to tone it down.

[@Keygentlemen]

With the thought you've put into this, I'd love to see you revamp the Maya sometime.

[@robbylava]

Well thank you for saying so! It's certainly on my list, but now that I know you are interested in it I will bump up the priority

[@AlphaSquadZero]

Converting killers on death is a very powerful ability. Though I think the monasteries becoming trash towers might be a bit much balance wise, they would need to do like 1 damage an arrow and even that could be problematic and that is not even considering monks just hopping in and out to get conversions. Granted, in 1v1 Arabia it will be an uphill battle with no DA eco bonus.

[@robbylava]

Hey alpha! I've had a couple other commenters mention the conversion effect being a little too strong, but I've got some great input that should hopefully tone it down while keeping the flavor of the bonus. The monastery bonus I'm personally not as worried about, since it's locked to Castle age and only gains an attack if you garrison it with villagers. My hope was that it could be more of a defensive utility bonus that could sometimes have aggressive implications if you're doing a monk rush. Do you think I'm missing something there?

[@AlphaSquadZero]

​@@robbylava Have you ever seen pros have monks hopping in and out of TCs to try to get conversions on raiding knights? Players could do that anywhere they put a couple of monasteries. The monastaries can be used as a follow up to a regular feudal age tower rush once you get to caste age, so you can stop using any of your own stone while burning through the opponent's. Since the monks will be so tanky, they might be able to run until they are under towers that you are vill rushing and convert/distract repairing vills too.

[@robbylava]

Hmm, that does sound like a bit of a nightmare scenario when you put it that way. I had no idea that monk micro was entering the metagame these days! Can you think of any way to keep the feel of the bonus without it being oppressive? What if it only gained the attack starting in imperial age? Or do you think that it would do better to not have an attack whatsoever? Really digging the dialogue man, thanks for the input!

[@AlphaSquadZero]

@@robbylava Well, if you limit the monastery garrison ability so that it can only garrison villagers and give their monastaries a negative armor bonus to tower attacks, then that would nip that strategy in the bud completely.

[@robbylava]

Oohhhh, I REALLY like the tower weakness! That allows for excellent counter play. Really good suggestion alpha, thank you so much!

[@dominusblandus]

I think a funny hero would be Emil "the locomotive" Zatopek (famous long distance runner) :D

[@robbylava]

Hehehehehe His in game model would definitely have to be an eagle warrior! Or that one cheat unit, the naked man who can cross the entire map in 2 seconds

[@thomasfplm]

32:53 A problem I see with this bonus is that you usually don't make more than one university, so it would be a not as practical to use. It might be interesting to add the ability to serve as a universal drop of point too.

[@FM-ce1ek]

Hi! Love the concept! Can you create one of the Muiscas from South America? Maybe a potential andean civ along with incans.

[@robbylava]

Thanks for saying so! I'll add it to my list.

[@Edelweiss1102]

Ah yes, who doesn't love to ride into battle as a mesoamerican warlord with 2 handed Swordsman, Arbalests and Trebs. This video pretty much encapsulates the age old debate of unique attributes and historical accuracy vs streamlined and easy to understand game play that concerns the Meso civs especially, but goes for all of AOE2. Ensemble studios tried to find a middle ground between giving the Meso civs some unique attributes while also keeping them tied to the core mechanics of the game and easy understand, being fully aware that it makes no sense for Meso civ to have European units/skins, but that's what the game was based around and still is. My biggest concern with the Zapotecs build is that they are just way too gimmicky for both new players and veterans and that their play style might get swept aside by then even stronger Aztecs, Mayans and Inkas. I thinks one of the big bonuses of the current Meso civs is that, while they miss a lot of stuff, they are very streamlined and easy to learn. Aztects have amazing infantry and monks , and siege if you need it, Mayans have an amazing economy with cheaper/faster achers and the best eagles, Inkas have solid defenses and counter units. Todays Meta is faster and more aggressive than ever and I'm not sure if a Meso civ that has a slow build up and push and needs you to memorize some fundamentally different game mechanics to even work would appeal to many people. I'm also not a big fan of giving the Meso civs distinct cavalry replacement units outside of the Eagle warrior. They were designed to function without them and work just fine. More regional units I can get behind any day, but they should have their own roles and quirks. Some thoughts on the proposed bonuses/techs: - university techs one age earlier sounds interesting and I think it would help the Zapotecs to get to their slow push in late game. The faster working villagers in LoS of the university is amazing on paper, but I think it does get balanced by being staggered and the vils having to be within the LoS of a university. The benefits likely wont be worth to build 10+ universities everywhere you have villagers working. - the slope bonus feels impossible to quantify, starting with the question what even counts as a slope. A one tile evelation change? Two tiles? A slope that is completely flat or has bumps in it? Building castles on hills 50% faster could be broken, but evelations are random and you can't place any buildings that are more than 2x2 tiles on a full slope, so it could also be broken - the instant conversion upon death sounds potentially broken to me. Yes you lose a monk but potentially gain one ore multiple strong units in return, it also takes away the need to micro your monks and the chance of your opponent to get away within the random conversion time. I think at least it shouldn't affect buildings, siege before redemption, if the opponent has Heresy they die instead and it shouldn't stagger (like if you kill 5 monks with a Siege Onager, you only get the Siege Onager and not 4 neighbouring units as well), then it may be somewhat balanced, but even then, having to sacrifice at least one units to kill an enemy monk still sounds pretty strong. - Pulque sounds like an interesting concept and would have to be tested on how effective it is. The effect of Danzantes may be underwhelming on the other hand. The Saracens used to have a tech that returned 33% of a monks gold cost upon death and it was largely seen as useless. Of course if it affects most units it may be a different story, but even then you get essentially one additional unit for 4th deaths, not to mention the cost of the tech, this would have to be tested as well. - Finally I'd consider giving them either Siege Ram or Siege Egineers so that they have at least one semi reliable option to take down buildings outside of Trebs, who are locked behind Imp and Castles and can be snipped easily. Otherwise pushing buildings in castle/early imp seems nearly impossible. The Monk + Macaw Guardian Deathball sounds like fun, but it will die hard to any defensive structure. Just my 2 cents.

[@robbylava]

Don't undersell yourself Edelweiss, your two cents are always valuable to me! You make some good points about the bonuses. Per the slope bonus, I specify in the civilization doc that at least half of the buildings foundation needs to be on the slope for it to work, so there will be some buildings that will be much harder for it to work for, which I think is probably good! And I was personally worried that danzantes would be too powerful, so the fact that you think it would be underwhelming is if anything a bit of a relief to me! I think it will end up playing out like the Portuguese bonus, which is often considered one of their strongest elements from what I understand, but of course it will be limited to late game to compensate for being notably stronger. Couple other commenters have brought up the Monk bonus, one fellow suggested having it be limited to the imperial age so it doesn't make for an absolutely oppressive Castle age monk Rush. I personally really like the idea! It allows me to keep the bonus, which I'm very fond of, but helping tone down it's most unfun use case. I totally respect your opinion on the whole regional unit debate. And I certainly respect ensemble's decision to keep the game streamlined when it was released! But I personally feel that streamlining can be taken much too far, and I would also argue that it has been taken too far in a number of elements of how the game works right now. Easy for me to say, cuz I don't sell the game! Hence why I keep myself completely to the theorycrafting side. But I would argue that there's plenty of evidence for games that take the route of increased options over streamlining actually having a good amount of success! I would also personally disagree with you that the regional units I introduced don't have unique roles. While I did try to frame them as being comparable to some horse units, if you take a look at their stats and abilities you'll find they are very different! They are both generally slower and squishier while being cheaper on the gold front, and both have some unique effects that should help them stand out from their cavalry equivalents and introduce what I think would be a really interesting set of playstyle options to the American civilizations. But that's just my opinion of course! And if you have specific suggestions on how to adjust them to help them stand out more, I would be very interested to hear. Great to hear from you my friend! Really hope you enjoyed the build, even if you disagreed with some elements.

[@Edelweiss1102]

@@robbylava I tend to be rather defensive/trying not to come off too strong, that's why you might see me maybe underselling myself or other things sometimes. The half of the building needs to be on the slope seems like a fair middle ground. In the end it's just one of the things that would have to be tested out as it's really hard to quantify and depends on the map and where it places slopes. A slow trickle/return of resources is equally hard to quantify and balance as seen with the Portuguese's Feitoria and its often seen as either not worth the investment or broken. Feitorias were seen as too expensive and coming in too late for a long time, until the Portuguese got their getting wood from foraging bonus last summer, which turned out to be the Dark Age Bonus the Portuguese needed to be able to pull a fast castle and people realized that a fast castle into 20% cheaper Organ Guns into Feitorias and Full 20% cheaper Imp army is pretty good. The Dazantes would have to be tested out to see how it works out in the game. But it being an Imp tech an the costs could limit the potential snowball effect. I do think the Monk Bonus does have the potential for some fun gameplay, but it really should be fine tuned so it doesn't become too broken/obnoxious. Having to sacrifice half your army with it coming right back at you to kill some monks or losing towers cause they killed one monk is ridiculous. I also respect your opinion on streamlining and do think that the game could use some more flavor. But there should always be a fine middle ground between trying out new things and keeping the familiar core mechanics of the game alive. You can go absolutely wild in theory crafting, which is part of the fun, but if it's supposed to be viable in game you may have to make some compromises. One of the big strengths of AoE2 is that the core mechanics are the same for all civs and it's easy to pick up. An people generally don't seem to like gimmicky civs as seen with Burgundians and Silicians, with especially the later seemingly broken beyond repair at this poinrt. And I may have taken your comparisons to stable units a bit too literal, apologizes for that. I'm all for more regional units, for example I'd give battle elephants and elephant archers to all Asian civs and maybe even Persians, same with the Steppe Lancer to more nomadic civs just to flavor up things a bit. And I'd appreciate the same for the Meso civs, so Jaguar Warriors as heavy infantry or Slingers as trash unit, yes pls. I'm just not a fan of units that have the sole purpose to fill out the role of another unit a civ lacks, unless it's absolutely nescessary. And pls never take my comments as me not enjoying your videos. I'm a person with many interests and a short attention span. I wouldn't invest 40 mins into watching these videos and another 30 min to write these comments if I didn't have fun with it. I enjoy your ideas a lot, which is why I comment on them in the first place.

[@robbylava]

Edelweiss, my good man, I can absolutely promise you that it didn't come off as unpleasant in any way. I really enjoy feedback, and I have a lot of fun debating the pros and cons to different bonuses with people, even if all of this is just in our heads for the time being! And I very much hope that my response didn't come across as passive aggressive. If so, I truly apologize! The pros and cons of streamlining in aoe2 is such a fascinating topic. The more I think about it the more I want to discuss it in further videos, just because I feel like there's so much ground to be covered in how to do it well versus how to do it poorly! Take the Burgundians and Sicilians for example. The former, if you exclude Flemish Revolution, is possibly my favorite civilization in the game. The latter, without question, is my LEAST favorite! To me at least, this says that certain gimmicks, like one time effect technologies, are pretty much always bad in the context of AOE2 (hence why I pretty much never use them in my civilization designs) BUT other gimmicks can work really well! Like the Cumans feudal age TC. Designing for this game is such a delicate dance, figuring out which innovations people like versus which ones they are innately averse to. Part of the reason why I have so much fun doing it! And while I do plan on making a couple more radical proposals in future, I also plan on clarifying for all of them that they should be 100% OPTIONAL. One of the beautiful things about this wonderful game is how players of different skill levels and interests can have such dramatically different experiences all while still enjoying the game just as much as each other. And so by ensuring that a lot of the more radical changes can be opted out of, I would personally consider it to be a pure win-win scenario. That doesn't apply in this case of course! Just wanted to share my mindset for some of the wackier stuff that I plan on discussing in future.

[@ValerietheLovelyDeadlyItalian]

Civ idea: the Khazars: cavalry and monk civilisation The Khazars were a Turkic group, living just north of the Caucasis region. At some point in the early medieval era they converted to Judaism, specifically so that they could trade with both the Islamic powers in the Middle East and the Christian powers in Europe, while not having to directly answer to either. This could be represented in a number of ways, such as relics having some effect on trade units, or being able to more easily trade with all players in the game somehow Aside from the regular CA/ Steppe Lancer/ Hussar comp that some other steppe civs have, the Khazars also made some use of ballistas and catapults, so a seige bonus might be a good idea as well. Although you would definitely need to look intonthe history some more

[@robbylava]

Great idea, Italian! I've been quite interested in the Khazars for a while, but I had zero idea about those elements of their history! Plus, any opportunity to get more Siege civilizations into the game is a good one in my books. Hope you enjoyed the build my friend!

[@Crossil]

Aight, so, I think I'm getting the hang of the general lineup of these Mesoamerican civs and, I think that the Zapotecs would only really appear in the Dos Pilas scenario. The scenario occurs further back in the time period when the Nahua peoples were only just arriving in the region and this could offer the Zapotecs to take over their role in the region, especially along the borders with the Mayans in the east, namely taking over the Raiders faction. It should be noted, however, that this is primary Maya territory well off in the east almost to the eastern coast of Yucatan peninsula and modern Belize, so the cities should all be Mayan. Montezuma 1 might be designed as a showcase of the Mesoamerican civs, but its city allocation is actually cities along the southern coast of Lake Texcoco, far removed from the Zapotec territories. In theory this could be changed to allow these other civs to appear, but that's considering renaming the settlements present in the scenario rather than using what's already there. Still, such a renovation of this scenario is really the only way for the Zapotecs and the Purepechas to appear in Montezuma without it being forced. As far as other Montezuma overall goes, all natives are Aztecs except for Tabasco in Montezuma 3, which is supposedly a Mayan settlement by the time of the Spanish conquest. One more thing, from what I gather the Zapotecs are actually located more to the southeast. To the south-southwest are the Mixtecs, and then west of the Aztec Empire are the Purepecha.

[@robbylava]

Extremely reasonable points! Definitely agree with you that there aren't many good places for them to appear, and dos pilas is probably the most rational candidate. I can't believe that I goofed on the location so bad. I just looked it up again and you're totally right, maybe I just flipped it in my head after I read it or something! Good catch.

[@paweborkowski6959]

Zapotecs. Cool name. If it was Age of Mythology, I wish to think one of their TECS would be to ZAP people.

[@robbylava]

I just spent the past 15 minutes trying to think of a clever retort to this and I still got nothing. Well played Pawel

[@paweborkowski6959]

I feel flattered that you spent some time on one of my brainfarts. Here's another: After looking at the word Umayyad I thought 'oh, why not pronounce it similarly to "oh my god" (ooh-my-odd)' I apologise in advance :) my brain works differently (or maybe it just... doesn't)

[@robbylava]

Abbreviate it to UMY. Think it'll catch on like OMG did?

[@PhoenixAlaris93]

Zapotecs be so old, they could be an AOE1 civ

[@robbylava]

They absolutely could. In fact, I fully endorse them being added along with the Olmecs! As one of if not the longest contiguous empires the world has ever seen, if any civilization deserves to be in both games it's them!

[@PhoenixAlaris93]

@@robbylava One idea involving the scrapped sacrificing vills at the monastery mechanic would be to just have it apply to any unit that wasn't a boat or siege weapon. My mindset is that it would give you an incentive to use monks to convert units you normally wouldn't be interested in converting then send them to the monastery for the bonus. (though I guess you could have the whatever resource you're given be dependent on the unit's original cost)

[@robbylava]

I think that could be a fantastic mechanic. Oh, it could maybe even give you bonus effects if you specifically sacrifice a converted unit, since mesoamerican peoples actually quite rarely sacrificed their own and instead far preferred prisoners of war and slaves! At some point I'm thinking about doing hyperextended civilization builds, adding more than two unique technologies and giving them far more elaborate civilization bonuses, and at that point this mechanic could be a great contender for something regional that all mesoamerican civilizations gained access to. Cuz it was very pervasive as a practice!

[@jamalsonicova2509]

I assume the guardians are themselfs weak to siege. So if you group them with your monks they get destroyed by mangonels first before their monks and then they only autoconvert (+1 or 2 conversions during the initial engage). So you wouldnt want to group them together but on the other hand they get increased healing so you would want to.. I like the idea but it feels like a bit of self countering in 2 of their bigger unit comps. But it would historically probably make sense that they just loose a lot of people to invading siege.. Edit: But I would love to see trush strategies on akropolis or pro players starting to relocate their universities for wood efficiency😂

[@robbylava]

A very thoughtful analysis! The weakness to Siege is absolutely intentional, and if it was found to be too much in practice I would definitely be willing to shift it up a little bit. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!

[@jamalsonicova2509]

@@robbylava Ty great video, you put a lot of effort in it. But what i meant was is weakness against siege is good and all but when i would face a siege civ with that i wouldnt even build the guardians cause i just spend some gold on monks to guaranty to steal more expensive units. And then refund gold to build more monks. So people would rareley play the units together of which it seems like you would want them to be played together..

[@robbylava]

@@jamalsonicova2509 well thank you for saying so! And that's a very fair point. I think I was more intending the guardian to be used against civilizations where monks would be less impactful, especially against Archer Civilizations for example, while the monks would be a lot more impactful against Siege and heavy cavalry. Though admittedly, I haven't thought about this build for many months now, so I'm honestly not sure what exactly I was going for! Can you think of a clean way of making minor changes that might resolve this issue that you're seeing?

[@jamalsonicova2509]

@@robbylava I thought about some but all kinda come to the conclusion that the instant convert is probably pretty broken😅 In my head it is maybe something like only a 50% chance (or even lower) and the monk has to be assigned to a unit (like as if he would heal but starting at full hp) and then if the unit dies the monk does too (at 50% rate) but the killer gets convertred. So i would imagine like a group of 20 guardians and 5 monks. You would then have every 4th guardian assigned and you get like 2-3 auto conversions while the assigned units might live a second charge before that. So both your monks and your units survive a little longer which makes the initial conversion attempt a little more rng and then still get a few for sure. Seems a bit more balanced since you want a civ that has strong heal and strong conversions which is cool but needs strong balancing since afaik other monk civs only specialise in either or. It would still be pretty strong but makes it so you actually want to pair these units together. Also now that i think about it the taunt mechanic probably needs a cooldown otherwise enemy units just stand still after a kill which seems pretty unfair😅

[@robbylava]

@jamalsonicova2509 you're absolutely right that it's too strong, I've been thoroughly convinced of that by other commenters! I've actually updated this civilization fairly extensively since this original video in my recraft series, which I do as live streams. I do put out videos about them if you'd like to see, but if you'd prefer not to watch through all that I do have the most recent version of the civilization as the first sheet on the attached civilization document. Hopefully the changes that have been made will amend some of your concerns! And the taunt effect is meant to cancel immediately on death, so hopefully it shouldn't leave enemies sitting there pointlessly after killing the guardian.

[@thomasfplm]

25:40 I would say that 100% chance of converting is a bit strong. I would give a chance of it happening and scouts having a smaller chance.

[@diegoramirez7901]

Nice video once again. You should try doing Mapuches.

[@robbylava]

Hey, thank you so much for saying so Diego! I've been fascinated in the Mapuche for a little while now... I was always unsure I would be able to do them justice, but you requesting it definitely makes me want to give it a crack. My list is pretty full right now, but I'd say keep an eye out over the next couple months and you might just see a build for them! In the meantime, thanks so much for watching my friend. Hope you continue to enjoy!

[@diegoramirez7901]

@@robbylava Certainly you receive a lot of suggestions. Keep the good work!

[@thomasfplm]

43:05 I find it a bit hard to evaluate, because of all the changes to the mezo tech tree coming with it.

[@weifan9533]

And I'd also like you to react to my new Chams civ theory craft. The Chams civ is based on the historical Champa kingdoms (137/192 to 1832) Chams - Navy and Archer civ Civ Bonuses: Fishermen and fishing ship require no drop-off site (if too OP then just apply this to one of these units and not both) Destroyed enemy ship and civilian units (a new armor class that includes villagers, trade carts, fishing ship, and trade cogs) return 10% of their cost back to the player (if too OP we can tune it down to 5%) War galleys have 5 population spots and can transport units (when they have units inside them they would have a small flag on top) Trade cogs +2 LOS and +2 pierce armor Team Bonus: Archers +3 attack against ship Unique Techs: Jarai Crossbow: crossbowmen have a secondary weak projectile (similar effect to the Hul'che Javelineers of the Mayans, though applied to crossbowmen rather than skirms) Guerilla Tactics: Battle elephants and their unique unit the Haluwbilau can traverse forests. This unique tech is a bit controversial and I'm not sure if it's applicable to the current game engine, but basically the idea is that their BE and UU can travel across forested terrains directly without the need of onagers cutting down tress, and land a surprise attack to any unsuspecting enemy base behind the woodline. When traveling across the trees, these units would only be shown with a silhouette like if they were behind a building, and to make things a bit balanced when moving in the forest their speed is reduced to half of their normal speed. Unique Unit: Haluwbilau: an infantry unit that throws a javelin at range and automatically changes to melee mode when closing in. It has a bonus damage against monks and civilian units (villagers, trade carts, fishing ship, and trade cogs) and has a speed of around 1.1 which is on the fast side for an infantry and thus is suitable for raiding, however they are countered by cavs and archers. Tech Tree: Haven't thought of it that much, but they should have strong navy, decent archers, okayish infantry, and mediocre cavalry.

[@robbylava]

More than happy to take a look Wei! This build looks really cool to me. Main concern with this design is that it would be particularly weak off of water maps. Plenty of good water civs in the game right now, especially stuff like the Vikings, are also quite strong on land maps, so I think you might want to try to retool a couple of the bonuses to be applicable to land as well! That being said, I love the creativity of these bonuses. The returned cost on eco units seems excellent, I don't personally think it would be overpowered at all, but I think the ship component WOULD be! That bonus alone would probably make them incredibly dominant on water maps, so maybe it can just apply to Eco units but be buffed up a little to compensate? I'm also a big fan of the forest walking mechanic! I strongly considered it for a couple builds in the past and fully intend to use it at some point in the future, but the way you have it applying to battle elephants here is extremely cool. The one suggestion I might have would be to say that units cannot attack while in a forest in addition to moving slower. That way they have to expose themselves to threat if they want to actually deal any damage. Overall, great creativity and absolutely oozing with flavor. Thank you so much for sharing my friend! Love seeing your work.

[@weifan9533]

@@robbylava Thanks for your suggestions, though I don't think this civ is necessarily weak on land. Well, maybe it's only weak on pure land maps but if there's some water mixed in then their civ eco bonus would give them an edge. And they do have access to battle elephants and elite battle elephants, and their archers are also on the stronger side after researching their 1st unique tech. Those are viable assets on land maps. Yes and I agree with your suggestion that units cannot attack while in a forest.

[@robbylava]

Totally agree with you that they're military should probably still be very strong! The forest bonus alone will be a huge asset on land even more than water. But I do worry that their economy will be particularly weak on pure land maps. Might I suggest you make the remote drop off bonus apply to foragers and fishermen instead of fishermen and ships? I do think that it applying to ships would probably be too strong! So this might be a way of solving two problems with one change. Regardless, I really like the build. Thank you so much for sharing Wei.

[@weifan9533]

@@robbylava Thanks so much for the suggestion. Yes I agree that changing the civ bonus to "foragers and fishermen don't require drop-off site" would be better and would help the eco of this civ on land. I'd really like to see your take on the Chams, the Dians, the Tanguts, and the Siamese. Looking forward to your future AoE 2 civ crafts.

[@robbylava]

My absolute pleasure Wei! I will most certainly tackle one of those civilizations in the not too distant future, and eventually I'm sure I'll do all of them! In the meantime, I'm really glad you're enjoying the content. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on other videos! There will be a new build releasing this Friday that I will definitely be curious to hear your take on.

[@thomasfplm]

26:44 It seems that Microsoft was watching your videos again (Mountains Royals) 😂

[@thomasfplm]

41:10 In Brazil, Cacique is a indigenous tribal leader (more political than religions), so I think it would be better not to use that one just to avoid confusion.

[@DanielGalllego]

i do like and don't like the meso units revamp the eagle is already a "cav replacement" type of unit while still having that infantry swarm gameplan being another option for infantry civs (aztecs and maybe incas) along side militia, a very fast high pierce armor infantry unit that can punish archers like knights do while still being victims of anty infantry units and from the militia line themselves. adding the jaguar warrior like you propouse breaks a lot of interactions cause if that is the knights equivalent it would mean the eagles have to search another identity as the scouts equivalent making elite eagle warriors as spamable as hussars could be on trash wars with a food only cost. slingers should be a regional unit, yes, but i don't see them like you do, i would say that they could definitely work in castle as an anty infantry specialist with a lower bonus than hand cannon (about +5) and an elite upgrade in imperial (bonus up to +8 i would say) so they don't step on top of archers being the main elite unit from the archery range and skirmishers being the anty archer specialist. the atlatl unit i liked but it makes me wonder if meso even needs a cav archer replacement, a fast archer with less range, fast movement, +1 base attack and more hp on civs that usually have the archer line already as their elite? this is not a steppe civ that has heavy cav archers ar their only fully upgraded (or close) archers in imperial for an archer focused civ. but the idea of a powerfull javeline thrower is wonderfull for a unique unit. i would actually go throug their siege workshop to see what can be touched to make it trully mesoamerican the civ itself needs nore work, only very anoying monks are a bad idea and their uu is also depending on anoying the enemy instead of being actually a menace, pulque may be a good idea in paper but pulling villagers off resources to do poor healing is more expensive than helpfull. i can't actually offer any alternative ideas at the moment, having powerfull monks is already done in meso, same with good infantry woth the aztec eagles and jaguars, archers are already taken by maya and their plumed archer replacing the arbalesters, incas are the unique civs with the defense uu and slingers, the only thing meso don't do is focus in militia swarm or siege units being the actual focus.

[@robbylava]

Very respectable thoughts! I disagree with some of your reasoning, but that isn't to say that your opinions here aren't valid. In many ways they're much more practical! Siege is a really sticky topic. I want to go into it further in future, but there's a lot of pieces that I'd like to address, both for the mesos and for everyone else! Really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. Hope you're enjoying your binge of the builds!

[@jasonsmith1950]

I think that the monks automatically converting on death would be way too powerful. A mass monk push can be dangerous because any units the opponent makes just get converted. Having monks convert when they die makes that much easier (particularly since there was no mention that the monks needed to have 100% faith for this extra conversion). I also think that scouts/eagle and buildings would need to be immune to this effect (similar to siege before redemption) so that scouts can keep their role of countering monks (and buildings for even more obvious reasons - just imagine converting a tower from a distance). Without these changes, the best counterplay may actually be atonement monks (which is problematic since Zapotecs can just convert those monks and not every civ has atonement). Even with these changes, I still think that this bonus would be too strong.

[@robbylava]

Thanks for the feedback Jason! I can see where you're coming from with this, and I fully acknowledge that my opinion is completely speculative, but I do not personally think it would be too bad. Monks are generally a really weak unit, and while I do think this would make them viable I still think there would be a lot of counter play to the strategy, if nothing else then because monks are very expensive, slow to train, and still need to take time to replenish their faith. Does that seem coherent to you? I do really like your idea of it not working for scouts, eagles, and buildings though! That adds a lot more counterplay. And if you're still worried about the bonus, I could see it possibly being shifted to imperial age only to make the castle push less powerful! Thanks so much for the feedback man, always good to see you in the comment section.

[@afz902k]

While watching the video, I was thinking about this unique mechanic of monks converting units on death. I think if we try to be "accurate" about this, with units being converted because of influence from the priest they just killed, it would make more sense if they didn't convert instantly, but the conversion was delayed (to represent the time it takes for that unit to "convert" religiously out of reverence and probably fear). That way, the player who owns the unit has some time to decide if they'd rather delete the unit before it converts! In that case it could be both a bit more fair and also prone to cool "gamer moments", like a player deleting a whole group of units because about half of them were about to turn against them, or something :D

[@robbylava]

Hoooo Fergus my man you might be on to something! That would very likely help remedy Jason's issues, and for balances sake we can say that scouts, eagles, and buildings are all exempt. I really love this idea man! Super elegant, and like you say it lends itself to high skill moments while still helping zapotec monks stay very viable! Fantastic input. Really great getting your take on stuff like this Fergus!

[@jasonsmith1950]

@@robbylava I consider monks to be a powerful unit. 1 conversion is often enough to pay back the cost of the monk. Converting a knight is not only gaining a unit that costs 135 resources, but depriving the enemy of those same 135 resources. Then you can heal the knight afterwards if it was damaged (if the monk survives, or if you get a different monk). Monks also have long range, which makes them a serious threat to ranged units as well. The issue with monks is that they don't scale like other units do. 10 knights is more than 10x as powerful as 1 knight. It's very difficult to get the same benefit with 10 monks (micro is very intensive, even after theocracy). When I see a high-level game where a player goes for a monk mass, the monks end up being extremely difficult to eliminate, so long as the player is paying attention. Often times, the monks are only eliminated at high cost (ex: losing half the units you sent to conversions). But the monk-push is also fragile as it only takes a few seconds of inattention to lose the monk mass. I do think that the Zapotec monk-siege push would be stronger than a celt monk-siege push (though not as early) as the monks would effectively have guaranteed conversions (even against Teutons). And the extra hp on the monks would make the monks even more difficult to kill. And healing means that monk injuries won't remain long - it's kill the monk or watch them return with full health. I think shifting it to the Imperial Age would help balance it out. Onagers would be able to flatten multiple monks at a time (but a converted Onager still wouldn't be ideal - cue the self-delete after firing), opponents would have time to get the Heresy tech (if available), and the bonus would then be unavailable for a castle-age monk-siege push (where it is really OP).

[@robbylava]

I largely agree with your analysis there Jason. My hope with the bonus was to make it so that monks didn't have to be microed nearly as much, ideally making them more viable to mass later game. To that end, having it just kick in come imperial age seems much better! What do you think of fergus's idea to have conversion timer linger after death rather than auto converting the killer? Assuming we bumped the bonus up to imperial age, do you think this would make it better? Or do you not think it would be necessary as much? Really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me! You have great insights as always.

[@muhammadnuralhafiz]

No eagle warrior and skirmisher improvement?

[@robbylava]

Hey Muhammad! I felt like I was making enough major changes with my new regional units that could make the civilization stand out without having to alter their skirmishers and eagle warriors. Those two units are focused on by literally every other mesoamerican civ, and I really wanted to see whether I could make this one stand out by not doing so!

[@thomasfplm]

41:37 I like that one, but I would limit to certain units, not all of them.

[@Weatherhead3D]

Ever thought of doing a Maori civ?

[@robbylava]

Hey Nathan! I hadn't really considered the Maori myself, but it's an interesting idea! If you have any suggestions for sources I would happily take a look -- research for this build was quite a challenge, and I can only imagine the Maori would be as hard if not harder. Thanks for the input man! Hope you enjoyed the build.

[@simbelmyne1476]

@@robbylava Have you considered a Polynesian / Tu'i Tonga civ? These would be similar, but not the same as a Maori civ. I am very excited by the idea of adding a civ like this to the game, primarily because of the wildly different architecture set it would need, the whole new area of the world a DLC with this civ could be themed around, and the somewhat unique gameplay for the civ (water friendly meso-civ?!). Personally, I'd favor a Tu'i Tonga civ for the AOE2 timeline, while Maori/Hawai'i civs would be perfect in AOE3 just because of the historical timing of when these existed. The main challenge for a Polynesia is the historical issues of bringing a very different & technologically limited empire into the game as a reasonable civ -- which is why I bet whatever bonuses you'd come up with for a Tu'i Tonga / Polynesia civ would be truly fascinating! I also attempted to make a Polynesia civ, with a pretty conservative / standard AOE2 design: docs.google.com/document/d/1JM0Zh9vfaE3N_4Lsw-QNUfjLE7P4Cnyh_fwC70696A8/edit?usp=sharing In fact, making a Polynesia civ design was the first impetus for me to dabble in AOE2 civ design (what is linked is a updated version of the original, the original being my first ever attempt at civ crafting). On this link, you'll also see further links to some of the posts where I discussed the history / campaign / other possible flavor for this civ.

[@robbylava]

Hey, that's so cool Simbelmynë! An extremely clean design man, very nicely done. I like how you use the scaffolding of existing American regional units to give them a tech tree that feels unique. Also, I think the Los and wood/fish lasting longer bonuses are excellent. So were you able to find a bunch of available sources online detailing their history and military? That's always the biggest issue when going into bills like this, since as a history purist that's pretty much the most important part of the build for me. Thanks for sharing man!

[@simbelmyne1476]

Thanks! As far as sources are concerned I drew on a number: docs.google.com/document/d/1aKh_vTbo_Oq_kQU6b2zzSmNqJfcbsxEt4eUVCqibwXU/edit?usp=sharing You'll see I happily utilized wikipedia a lot for convenience, but I recall other sources readily available online also saying similar things but in less direct / less easily accessible ways, so citing / using wikipedia was simplest. I also happily mixed and matched a bit from separate polynesian groups that may or may not have had contact with / been part of the Tu'i Tonga Empire (I really want a pufferfish-helmet warrior 11), but I suspect that this wouldn't be necessary if you wanted to avoid it. One thing for sure about this region of the world is that medieval historical conclusions largely depend on limited source & oral traditions as well as extrapolating from the present back to the past (+ a bit of archaeology), so it might be hard to do.

[@robbylava]

Holy shit, this is an absolute gold mine. Thank you so much Simbelmynë! Seriously, this is extremely generous of you! I forget whether I ever mentioned this to you before, but if you're interested I'd love to do a build collab with you sometime. And since you have all of this info on the Polynesians, maybe that can be what we could work on! Again, apologies if I've already asked (comments are rolling in like crazy, starting to get hard to remember all of them), but if you're up for it I think it could be a really great time.

[@ponchopalmera4917]

Here's a Mexican historian. NO WAY the zapotec state lasted 2000 years, some people would even argue that there was ever even a Zapotec unified state, much less an empire. Just a recommendation for mesoamerican civs: most cultures in the Americas didn't organize as central Unitarian states but a small City states closer to a feudal system with main political centers. But yes, they didn't last that long neither they were so influential. Sorry.

[@robbylava]

No need to apologize at all! I love hearing from historians and really appreciate your feedback. I'm happy to run a correction on this once I revisit this civilization in the future. Are there any other details you would recommend I add to that correction? Additionally, are there any good sources you would recommend on Central American states, preferably in English, that I could find on the internet? It can be really challenging for me to research some civilizations, such as this one, within the time limitations that I typically have for these videos.

[@juanm8582]

Make the unique imperial tech the 1/2 pop - conversion on dying for monks. Also that team bonus...too much. Make their monks have another benefit. Looks good tho.

[@robbylava]

You know Juan, you're not the first to say it but I think this comment just might be the last little push I needed to be convinced to make the change. Thanks a lot for the feedback my friend. Glad you think it looks good! Keep an eye out for a recraft video of the next couple of weeks, this build will definitely be getting some love there.

[@thomasfplm]

23:21 Or 3 weights making a Y.

[@andym87]

Feudal Age ballistics?

[@robbylava]

Hey Andy! Ballistics would still be restricted to the castle age -- only about four of the more defensive oriented University techs would be available in feudal. I would love to see a civilization that gets ballistics earlier at some point, but I think that would be more than a little bit broken (even by my standards lol) the civilization was better designed around it!

[@hareshneeraj998]

Its once again a civilization with bad economic bonus till castle age. University costs 200 wood, wouldn't cover the entire working area and puts you behind. 5% in feudal age within the university LOS might take 7 or 8 mins to just payback its cost. Once castle age is reached, base needs to be expanded. This means more universities have to be built which is further utilization of wood which can otherwise be used for farms or other units. Monks converting units upon death and monasteries being able to garrison monks is broken. Monks are addressed only using light cav or eagles because of their conversion resistance. If a group of monks stand near the monastery, light cav or eagles keep getting converted, there's no way to actually handle the monks once produced. Like Swiss, its a civ which needs to rely on one unit. Most of the times the civ would get destroyed before it gets there but if it doesn't then it becomes broken. Civ designing should be moderately inclined towards history and more towards game balance. Economic bonuses for 2 different ages, military bonuses that are good usable and don't make any military line broken, unique unit that fits the tech tree, types of maps which the civ is designed to be good at. Lastly the jaguars you propose are not a knight equivalent by any means. Knights are powerful because of their hp, speed, pierce armor and dps. Historically they might have done the same thing as a knight did in Europe, might have had the same shape of swords or whatever. It doesn't matter. Its an RTS and stats on the unit is the only relevant thing. And hypothetically if the unit is as good as a knight, its a terrible idea to give them to civs which contain eagles. Eagle civs are well compensated for their lack of cavalry by giving them very strong economic and military bonuses. All 3 of them are top-10 civilizations in the game. It doesn't make any sense to buff them further. For future civ designs I'd suggest you consider how the economic bonus impacts dark and feudal ages first. And how the military bonus is usable but not broken. Whether the unit line that gets the bonus can still be countered. Reproducing 100% historical accuracy is not the motive of an RTS game.

[@grzegorzurban2398]

I appreciate your work, but - Imperial UT: every refunding for dead unit didn't. Look at old Saracens UT form Castle Age (madrasa, or something like that).

[@robbylava]

I totally get where you're coming from Grzegorz, but I think that the main issue with madrasah was that it applied specifically to monks. Those are units you will rarely mass up and pretty much never want to see die! Whereas since this applies to all non-siege military units you'll actually see a lot more kickbacks from it without it being as stilting during gameplay. Does that seem like sound logic to you?

[@grzegorzurban2398]

@@robbylava Yes, but still I think this is not good idea. If I am not wrong, when we got first overview on Lords of the West DLC, one of the bonuses (I cant remember if it was for Burgundians or Sicilians) was similar - percentage of gold of killed knights, then they removed it before final release. Problem is: you get only some recompensating, but no value if you can micro so well so you don't lose your units.

[@robbylava]

Hmmm you make a good point there Grzegorz. I do really like the theming of the bonus though. Can you think of a refund percentage we could bring it to that, in your opinion, would make it actually balanced?

[@paweborkowski6959]

Wow. I new video already? Man, give me a chance to spend time with my family 11

[@robbylava]

Heheheh I've had a lot of ideas recently. I actually have a video a week lined up for the entire month of february, so there will be plenty more where this came from! I really hope you continue to enjoy it my friend, and I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts on the builds to come!

[@MrTheQuestioner]

I would expect this civ to be very weak on open land maps (due to no early game bonuses) and weak on water maps (due to bad dock tech tree). Sounds like you've created an arena clown civ :)

[@robbylava]

Honk honk! You've pretty much hit the nail right on the head with that analysis.

[@bo-force9899]

Too complicated concept. I personally dislike any equivalents of mounted units for any meso civs, because they will lose their uniqueness of inavailability the cavalry outside of nevercoming xolotl warrior. But your concepts are always really interesting and unusual for a conservative game mechanics.

[@robbylava]

A very legitimate opinion. But I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment Bo-FORCE! I hope the field was interesting for you even if you didn't agree with all of it!

[@bo-force9899]

@@robbylava I've just remembered about my idea and I wanna know your opinion about it. Splitting Italians into several civs with Florentsians as one of the civ. The main idea is da Vinci Tank - extremely armored siege. It only be created at castles and only in the Imperial age while also having long creation time and cost, as well it takes 2 pop limits. For 350 wood 250 gold Tank will have around 250-300 HP, 40-50 attack WITH HOUFNICE'S SPLASH. As da Vinci tank is made with soo heavy wood(and with heavy metal elements) Tank will be almos immune to archers attack(11-12 pierce armor) and it also will have high for siege melee armor, e.g. 4. The movement speed is extremely slow, around 0,5-0.55 and it only can be converted at close by monks. As this unit can be extremely difficult and unusual for AoE I'd prefer shooting mechanics like organ gun of the hussite wagon with 1 "main" projectile and 4-5 small projectiles that deal 2-3 damage. What do you think about it and how it can be balanced with civ's tech tree?

[@robbylava]

WOW, that's one hell of an idea Bo! As a history purist, I would personally be reluctant to add such a unit into the game. The DaVinci tank never, to my knowledge, made any sort of appearance on a battlefield (cool though it would be to see). HOWEVER, I actually really like your design! I think if the unit had to be added to the game I'd like to see it work more like what you describe here rather than something more like the hussite wagon, which I found really underwhelming. Hell, it actually could be a really cool cheat unit to add to the likes of the Cobra car and furious the monkey boy! So in summary, a really sick idea that doesn't really fit my approach to the game but I respect nonetheless! And I fully agree with you that subdividing the Italians is a great idea, I 100% intend on doing builds for them at some point in the future!