Hi,

I played some games during the beta (Victor) and now. I see that the games has changed a lot and it's great. However I have one big concern - Defensive Emblematic Districts (Barbican, Dunnu, Warrior's Izindlu and most of the rest) are way weaker than most of other emblematic districts. They usually does not give any bonuses to our empire (sometimes minor stability or influence), they do not exploit fields, they are limited to 1 per region. The only thing which they give is defensive bonus and fortification and those bonuses are not much more stronger than basic district which is quite dissapointing. Usually defensive district does not give strong "adjectancy" bonus like normal districts.

The one quite good emblematic defensive district is the Stronghold because it lets you to exploit food from fields. Which is still "quite ok" in comparison to other districts from the same age.

What do you guys thing about it? Maybe I am biased somewhere, but cultures with this type of emblematic districts seems generally weaker than others.

I think those cultures that you mentioned (Poles, Assyrians and Zulu) have these mediocre EQs because their EUs are amazing. The opposite is true for the Egyptians, for instance.

I don't think Poles or Assyrians are weak overall.

I also think that the Dunnu is actually fine. It can be built for around 30 influence (before you attach the outpost of course) and gives 2 influence/turn on top of the strength bonus.

The best defensive emblematic is the cyclopean fortress imho. +15 stability means that attaching the territory effectively only costs 5 stability, and it also extracts industry.

Hi guys,

In my post i put on the brackets only a few defensive districts  but I think that all of them are underpowered (maybe english one is medicore). 

For example. special units:

Poles: Heavy cavlary - when attacking there is no retaliation. In comparison to other available units in this age: (Naginata, Conquistadors, 

Rotiskenrakehte, gajnal etc.) why they are amazing in comaprison to other units? To be honest I do not think they are stronger.  EVEN IF THEY ARE: how it recompenaste the bonus from districts or legacy trait (which will benefit for the rest of the game, not 1 era - because units from later era are always better in comparison from old ones).

Naginatas have great bonus against cavlary, Ganjalhas better strange and range etc. I can't see where hussars are betters. The same for most any other culture with defensive district bonus.

I dont think that units from cultures with defensive districts has better legacy traits or better units (if they have - where? why?).

Don't get me wrong. I didn't play 100 games, but I just can't see the reason to take a culture with defensive emblematic district because those district's are very weak in comparison to other available cultures. Districts usually gives great bonus for the future. It does not work like that in temrs of defensive districts. In my opinion units and legacy traits do not recompensate it.

I would like to find out if ANYONE see the chances in taking the culture with defensive emblematic district instead of taking somewthing  else and why it can be  good for the whole game?

Only reasonable (for me) explenantion is that someone declared war to me just before picking up the culuture.

Dunnu is good because it can be build in outposts, giving you extra protection in outpost and giving you influence at a time where its rare 

You can this way build several outposts, use influence to build a Dunnu in each of them and have a good influence generation

Take liberty giving influence of EQ and you can have really good influence (better than Olmecs)

As Siptah notes the cyclopean fortress is definitely amazing since it acts as a forward spawn point, defensive position, and can grab industry. So at any rate I know that one is quite good.