Quark Games forums

I suggest having different races. Each race could have their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their own troops. For example, there could be elves, dwarves, gnomes, and humans. Elves could have an advantage in long range troops, while dwarves have an advantage in close range. In addition there could be special skills that can be researched for each race. I know this is a pretty out there suggestion, but I think it would add a lot of great elements to an already fun game.

I'm sorry but this would completely mess up the game.

Then this game would be called skyrim LOL

It's realistic game On AppStore already tooooooooooooo many games with races
P.s. In this game only short-ranged troops

Not so much race as nations, you could have Vikings who have a bonus with their beserkers, Norman knights, Americans would have better engineering (building/upgrade and or siege machine bonus) English archers (that would solve a previous call for archers to be introduced) French architects (scholars reduce loyalty by 25-30 instead of 20-30). You would have a choice of race whenever you start/restate a world so you could play different races between worlds.

This would be in keeping with the realism of the game and offer more strategies as you could limit guilds to one race and ally with guilds of another race or you could allow mixed race guilds

Please learn history- Vikings and Americans was in different epochs ... Make also Mongolian (better horse warriors ), China(better ballistas&rams) Arabs(better cavalry&archers, but not as high as English n Mongolian)

I wasn't going for history thank you Ivan, but as most players are from America we can't penalise them for not having any, it was merely an example !

There are several takes you can have on this Mongols, Aztecs, even Native American if you prefer

russianIvan wrote:Please learn history- Vikings and Americans was in different epochs ... Make also Mongolian (better horse warriors ), China(better ballistas&rams) Arabs(better cavalry&archers, but not as high as English n Mongolian)

Valorgamer wrote:I wasn't going for history thank you Ivan, but as most players are from America we can't penalise them for not having any, it was merely an example !
There are several takes you can have on this Mongols, Aztecs, even Native American if you prefer

I'm with Ivan here to be honest. Its a trivial issue but i dont see how Americans would fit in to this. Not knocking Americas but they really werent involved in any of these periods. If we involved American's from the time that America was founded, gunpowder was already in production, which would completely negate every other troop and current defense. Americas a great place an all, but i dont see how thats relevant to the game. (Trying REALLY hard not to be offensive here, but if i fail, call me out on it)

Someone also had a very good point in an earlier thread also pointing out that Ballastias arent really appropriate for the "era" either, but in terms of the mechanics they really work out. So there may be a place for races in here somewhere to make the game better. I guess we will just have to see.

Mr. O, if you want I can make list of nations and which kind of troops will be stronger when you playing race a, race, .....

I think the nations idea is great but we should keep it strong eurasian nations from the period with bonuses like,
England= archers
Mongals= cavalry
China= war machines
Spain= scholars
And maybe building bonuses like
Italy= farming
Visigoths= faster building
And so on.