I think I may have had a so called “Brain Fart” when discussing about giving the Longbowman a pike mode.
You bring forth a valid point @stephensundin.
Maybe the Longbowman could have the ability to stun enemy units as they swing the maul in melee mode, and not have multipliers against heavy cavalry.
Wouldn’t they need to be in the Beiyang Army as well? A formation that, by the way, also had modern tanks?
An army is composed of two types of units, so only one army can be formed from New Army Regulars and New Army Riflemen, and only the Ever Victorious Army is the most suitable because historically they were a modern army established by British, French and American officers. As for Beiyang Army, historically they was established in 1895, which was very late. The time when they played an important role in Chinese history was the Warlord Era in the early 20th century.
I think the current Beiyang Army card should be renamed to others, such as Chahar. The name Chahar Army better fits its combination. On the other hand, if we want the term Beiyang to be reserved in the game, a card called “Beiyang Fleet”, shipping Frigates, Steamers and/or preferably Ironclads, would fit better into the game’s timeline. This card would represent the modernization of Imeprial Chinese Navy of Qing, and replace the current Chinese Imperial Navy card.
By the way, it’s thematically weird to have cards offer a Wokou Junk with Horse Artillery or Petards. These Western units can instead be provided with the ships of Beiyang Fleet instead of Wokou.
Yes, but that is known, they have a lot of range…
do you play supremecy?
If you do, you’d know the power of longbows in age3 is already very strong (assuming brits can get there, which is a whole other story). You’d know a mass already deals with 2 falc shipments or contributes to culv wars and map positioning. once again, you cant duel with 26 range longbows unless you have mass cav or artillery (few civs can just trvially spam 2k worth of cannons and ship 2 more). you have to push them or back off. pikes to deal with cav makes this instead of game of running to age4 and praying siege archery doesnt delete your stuff so hvy cannons and horse art can massed enough. Its a cool idea for a hisotrical battle or scenario, but again would upend many many years of a units design and balance. I know in treaty longbows arent as good, but in supremecy this would be toxic.
Regarding Longbowmen, I totally don’t think they should have Pikes at all - they are clear cut in role and historically did not switch to a dedicated Pike role. As others have mentioned they would use mallets, side swords and my favourite, daggers with bucklers!
(The completely experimental ‘Double-Armed’ however should totally be a one-off unique shipment ala Leonardo Tank 
).
I’d really love to seeBillmen for the British, covering the Halberdier slot with a unique (not necessarily better!) polearm unit. Billmen were used extensively alongside Longbows and the English even used them to defeat the Scottish with their far more European Pike phalanxes. They were also used in the 1600s as frontier weapons in North America as well as militia arms in the British Isles. They even found their way onto ships as defensive (anti-boarding) weapons alongside Halberds and boarding pikes.
This might not be necessary but I wonder if it would be a good idea if the [Longbowman] was renamed to [Yeoman Archer] instead, since this very term was apparently applied specifically to English and Welsh military longbow archers from the 14th to 15th century.
Of course, that would mean that the “Yeoman” technology has to be renamed to something else. Perhaps the Yeoman technology could be renamed to something related to the Tudor period.
Honestly, I want AoE 3 to have similar starting time frame as EU IV since that means we can have both the Byzantines & Mamluks still viable in the game.
Yes, I played it in the legacy, now I’m used to playing treaty because it gives me time to learn the new civs and do the event challenges…
Yes, it seems good to me…
The unit is called Longbowman to be a nod with the Britons from AoE 2…remember that the original idea was for the British to be similar to their counterparts from the previous installment…
In fact it does…EU IV goes from 1444 to 1821 and AoE 3 goes from 1419 (beginning of the age of exploration) to 1922 (fall of the Ottoman Empire)…
I don’t think it’s too important, especially as they would have been universally refered to as Archers, besides Yeoman Archer specific to a pre-1500s term. Trained Band archer is a better fit as a 16th century Tudor term, but again, Longbowman is absolutely fine as is.
@MatM1996 I can see where you are coming from but having the name “Longbowman” for an unique unit does to a certain extent sound kind of generic, since the English and the Welsh weren’t the only ones who used longbows in warfare.
And if there are other names that suits the [Longbowman] unit better from an historical standpoint then I wouldn’t mind if they got renamed to something else. But again it isn’t really that important just as @SirBarnzy1 said it.
I just wanted to convey this question that popped up in my mind in the middle of discussing about the [Longbowman].
Yes, of course, I understand… but those who used the longbowman the most were the English…
Yes, put it in without a problem… I always liked the longbowman in AoE 3 because I used it since the tutorial, but we can always discuss it…
A game like AoE 3 doesn’t have a strict time frame - and doesn’t need to have one. EU 4, on the other hand, lasts from 1444 to 1821.
One thing is obvious - the time frame of AoE 3 is much wider in both directions. The earliest AI Personality born is the Portuguese ruler civ Henry the Navigator born in 1394, therefore it can be said that the time frame of AoE 3 begins at the beginning of the 15th century (although 14th century content seems to appear in AoE 3, although I’m not sure). The latest AI personality to die is the Lakota civ ruler Chief Gall, who died in 1894, so it can be concluded that the time frame of AoE 3 ends at the end of the 19th century - and maybe even the beginning of the 20th century.
While the Mamluks can simply be Egyptians civ, it is better for the Byzantines to be Greeks civ, which would give them a greater privilege to become a full-fledged civ. The Egyptian civ could be depicted as the Mamluk Sultanate and then Egypt during the reign of Muhammad Ali. Similarly, the Greek civ could be depicted as the declining Byzantine Empire and then as the independent Kingdom of Greece.
So don’t want the start date for AoE 3 to be the same as EU 4 because AoE 3 has a much earlier start date.
I agree with Mamluks and Egypt - regardless of their vassalage to the Ottomans, they very much did their own thing (a trait shared with a number of civs, like Malta).
As for Byzantines - they’d make a wonderful campaign ‘Dawn of the Early Modern Age’, with their defense and ultimately downfall to the Ottomans, but not as a full civ.
Whether Byzantine or post 19th century independent Greek, I feel they don’t wouldn’t work and would seem out of place as playable civ - this is possibly the only timeframe where they are missing in most of the action, however they do ‘bookend’ the beginning of the Early Modern Age and at the end of post Ottoman-rule Greece.
For that reason a Byzantine could work as an early campaign or scenario, and an independent Greece fully-works as an Ottoman Rev.
AoE 3 covers what I put above but broadly speaking it lasts between 1420 and 1920…
You have the custom Constantinople scenario from @Troteck, but most likely they will do it by playing with the Ottomans, giving more importance to gunpowder and artillery… but I feel like they will officially leave it for a Turkish campaign for AoE 2 and in AoE 3 make as a scenario of the Greek War of Independence…
