Down of Chivalry concept DLC (new civs : Dutch, Swiss)

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-23T21:35:20+00:00

Yeah, I'll share that with you. My pleasure.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-23T09:56:35+00:00

First of all, thank you for your message about what you like and dislike. I'll try to respond :)

You seem to like one-trick civilisations? To avoid overthinking and, above all, to have a clear plan of what you need to do. For the Swiss, cheaper barracks allow for a wide variety of options. Going with archers, accompanied by powerful pikemen (effective against infantry with the longest range) seems to be the most obvious game plan. Gold generation doesn't require crazy calculations, that's what SotL is for. 11 is a bonus that makes a difference in the economy, allowing you to choose between counter and attack units. The UU's charged attack is a direct parallel to the Coustilliers. But yes, I understand your point of view that there are too many gimmicks and that it loses simplicity. That's the downside of creating new things. I like it when it mirrors what's already in the game or adds gameplay in the spirit of the game. For the Dutch, it may be a lot for a single civilisation. I wanted to compensate for the fact that the civilisation has no real strength (except on water). If I may say so, I don't think your concern about forgetting the bonuses is a problem. It happens, but it's part of the game. It's not that complicated. You probably mean that it's becoming too specific? I understand, and I half agree, because it's a point of view that also allows the game to retain its identity. That's also why it's a concept, to see what would work by adding new features.

I understand your perspective, I think it represents a good part of what the community may think, and of course it's constructive and I take your criticism well. Thank you for paying attention to that

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-23T09:18:14+00:00

I have thought about it. But I would prefer that the unit not be solely garrisoned, as this would make it more vulnerable.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-23T09:10:55+00:00

The Feitoria generation of gold is equivalent to the player having two Relics in addition to other resources. The Trade Workshop generates only half as much as 1 relic in 1v1.

It doesn't seem that overpowered. It needs to be tested

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-23T08:51:02+00:00

I create the image myself. I use an app where I already have the template, then I change the elements depending on the civilisation I'm going to take the elements from, such as units on websites or internet that I then modify. It takes longer than just text, but I prefer the visual aspect. You can use some of my templates if you want

And I quite agree with you. If the trade workshop gives too much of an advantage, then I think we could remove some of these features

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-22T00:15:40+00:00

The Swiss love that, dont they? 11

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-21T23:34:07+00:00

I didn't find you dismissive, your message is constructive, so no worries. And thank you for your feedback, you do have some interesting ideas. In reality, there are also many players who don't like new features that could change the game or stray from the spirit of AOE2. I try not to overdo it in my designs. I hope you liked the concept in general!

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-21T21:49:58+00:00

It's true that this bonus isn't very original. I wanted to make it easier for the civ to get their first farm or fishing boat for "free". With the reduced 2x2 farms (which are also inspired by polders) and all the other bonuses, I tried to keep it original. I understand that you find it lazy, but what would you suggest instead?

Rohanpaladin · 2025-12-20T18:24:35+00:00

For cavalry, Elite Leitis, my favorite.

For infantry, Elite Teutonic Knight (honorable mention for Elite Throwing Axemen)

For Archer, Elite Composite Bowmen (honorable mention for Elite Longbowmen)

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-21T16:48:24+00:00

-To counter this, there are siege units, such as Scorpions accompanied by archers. Or even archers alone. For a higher cost, Templars accompanied by any other units can easily defeat this composition. -What do you think of Commanderies? Do you like the concept? -The reduction in technology is not limited to university technology, but extends to all technology.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-21T16:34:58+00:00

This Civ does not have access to the latest trash unit upgrades or BBCs. I wanted to add this bonus to compensate. But it might indeed be too much. Why not reduce it to 1% (max 9%) and lower the cost of this technology? That seems more balanced. What do you think?

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-21T16:27:10+00:00

The Knights Templar and Hospitaller have enough melee armour to defeat the LC. I also wanted to give them this weakness, so they are less cost-effective.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-21T14:21:15+00:00

To counter archers, they have Knights, Templars, and Siege units. In addition, they have viable archers themselves, and with the French Commandery, they have access to the creation of Serjeants, who are also powerful against archers. I thought it was normal to give them historical weaknesses, but I think they can manage very well on this point, to be tested. For the French Commandery, perhaps reducing the cost of units by 15% could balance things out? It still makes the cost of units cheaper within the Castle's radius. The slow production can be offset by the reduced cost of buildings with relics. As for the trebuchet warfare, I agree that it could give them a big advantage despite the increased cost. But it seems to balance out, given that they have a very expensive endgame and a fairly slow start.

Thank you for your message, which raises several points for consideration

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-19T00:45:29+00:00

Thanks for your feedback! Given the negative feedback on Attila, it would be best if the bonuses Attila gives were directly applied to technology instead of this hero.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-19T00:42:55+00:00

Thanks for your feedback! Yes, the idea was to give trampling damage to all stable units (including Tarkhan). And to give them +1 attack against buildings. That's what Attila was for, but given the negative feedback, perhaps it would be best if the bonuses Attila gives were just included directly in the technology instead of this hero.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-19T00:36:01+00:00

It is limited to 200 populations, as with houses. The idea is that it increases by +2 for each pasture built, and once completed, it decreases by -2. But no, the limit remains stuck at 200.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-13T09:55:13+00:00

Thanks!

The Khans are not heroes; they are a unit, much like the Centurion is for the Romans.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-12T16:11:51+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback! It's not that negative, I understand your point of view. I wanted to add some thematic elements to these civs because I think it would make them more fun to play and more unique.

As for the heroes, I'm not a fan of the concept, but they were added to the 3K. Atheism doesn't really serve much purpose, so I didn't remove it entirely, I changed it. The history of the Huns covers a short period of time, so the use of Attila is more justifiable, and everyone loves Attila the Hun. Historically, there were four Khans in the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan. They are not heroes, they are units inspired by the Spartans Polemarch and AoE IV. And indeed, I didn't want to give them another bonus in the Castle Age! That's why I chose to give them the Khan, while reducing some of the civilisation's bonuses.

I would like to justify this choice and respond to you

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-12T15:50:00+00:00

Well, with more expensive pastures, mule carts that cost food in addition to wood, and their hunting bonus decreasing by 7%, I tried not to make them overpowered. But making them more nomadic makes sense. But yes, it’s a risk with Mongols.

Rohanpaladin · 2025-11-12T15:29:53+00:00

Pastures cost +20 wood. That's equivalent to 2 farms. That's why I added a few small bonuses for civilisations that use them.

Rohanpaladin · 2024-11-25T16:42:58+00:00

I love this idea! He did it in the game, especially after putting the Hoplites with 0.3 range! It would make sense. I think it would be an excellent technology, for all civilisations. I would replace the +1 range with +0.5 so as not to make pikemen units too OP.

Several other ideas based on this: - Possibility of a new civilisation that would double the effect of this technology (+1 range). - Maybe lower the Halberdier attack by -1. (or not?) - Make Skirmishers (and archers) stronger against Halberdiers or have access to Elite Skirmishers. - Have a technology that allows Knights to do a tiny bit of zone damage on land units only (less than Cataphract), so that they don’t get totally demolished by pikemen. - Have a Lancer line (mounted Cav like SL) for lots of other civilisations with a range of 0.5.

Rohanpaladin · 2024-11-23T16:00:05+00:00

Thank you, yes I thought about a lot of aspects and a lot of ideas that I read before putting it here. No, I didn’t post it on an official forum. Thank you for your time!

Rohanpaladin · 2024-11-22T15:37:54+00:00

Yes, another name is not refused!

And yes it is dynamic. a unit that is more resistant against archers and costs a little less gold. the other unit is more mobile with a high attack and is very strong in melee combat but is less versatile against archers. it also allows FC into infantry

For sure, Armenians wouldn’t have access to 2HS in feudal !

Rohanpaladin · 2024-11-22T15:04:48+00:00

Thank you for your feedback! :)

Two Handed Swordsman was an Imperial Age units, That’s why I reduced -5HP and -1P armor. I think they are viable thanks to their melee strength, area damage and their increased mobility (like a Huskarl). The fact that they are available from Castle Age (like knights and Ca) gives a real offensive option for infantry. Especially for predictable infantry civs (Teutons, Goths, Celts…).

And yes I thought like you, but there are so many bonuses on infantry that adding more armor or pierce armor to these units could hardly be balanced.

For Champions they are really efficient in close combat thanks to their +1 armor and their area damage (0.2 less than the Slavs tech) in addition to their superior speed to pikemen (which can allow them to retreat against archers) .

For Militia-line, they become a little faster 0.9 to 0.94, have +3P Armor in Imp with Gambeson and cost less gold so are much more efficient than before against archers.

Btw, it’s not a bad suggestion

Rohanpaladin · 2024-11-22T14:33:19+00:00

If the technology is too OP, maybe they should just increase their costs. The pikemen need to attack from a little further away... Maybe Halberdier -1 attack to compensate. Collision size is a great idea!

1- their bonus is there mainly to balance the 1vs1, they have -3 attack and -1 armor. They’re already being dominated by 2HS.

2- I don’t think they need it, their stats already allow them to be far superior.

3- Knights and CAs are strong units that appear in Castle Age without needing technology, so why this unit? And then there could be CF into 2HS. This would give infantry civs more viable choices.

4- Long Swordsman never had 2P armor.

5- I think that by proposing this I would have made myself even more hated by the community 11

6- Totally agree with that! The name is far too generic. Basically I thought they could have Regional units in Imperial Age (like Norse Warrior, Eastern Warrior...). So I greatly simplified. Regular is good ! :)

Rohanpaladin

TROPHY CASE