I’m not sure if the devs are accepting new unit ideas (probably not), but I will leave this here, and perhaps we will get lucky.
This list was compiled from a mod that I worked on for AOE2:HD. The mod is geared towards improving the historical accuracy and immersion. (The mod was suspended when AOE2:DE was announced, and I intend to resume working on it once AOE2:DE is released.)
I did not include every unit from the mod in this list, as there are many (I added a new unique unit for every civ). I am only including the most viable additions that would improve game-play experience without threatening the overall balance of the game.
General Units: (New and Reworks)
Shieldman - New infantry-line unit available to all civs. Shieldmen function as damage resistant units with a low base melee attack. They are good for fighting on the vanguard to draw archer fire away from unshielded infantry and for damaging stone structures, such as towers and walls. They also have a small attack bonus against archers and siege weapons. Shieldmen cost 45 wood and 25 gold and are available in the Feudal Age. Base stats: 60 HP, 4 melee attack, 0.85 speed, 5 LOS, 2 ROF, 4 PA, 2 MA, 20 bonus dmg vs. stone defenses and walls & gates, 4 bonus dmg vs. archers and siege weapons. (Shieldmen are also classified under the eagle warrior armor class for balance purposes. They can be countered with Militia-line infantry and cavalry.)
Shieldmen can be upgraded to Heavy Shieldmen, which have +20 HP, +2 melee attack, and +10 bonus dmg vs. stone defenses and walls & gates, and +1 bonus dmg vs. archers and siege weapons.
Lance Cavalry - New cavalry-line unit available in the Castle Age to civs who historically fielded mounted lancers. The Lance Cavalry functions as a shock cavalry unit with a sharp bonus against infantry and other cavalry. However, the Lance Cavalry has negative cavalry armor and zero base pierce armor, making them weaker against anti-cavalry units and archers. Their bonus against infantry and other cavalry is designed to simulate the power of shock cavalry charge. They’re designed not to be massed, but to be integrated into cavalry armies to help break formations. Lance Cavalry costs 65 food and 60 gold. Base stats: 110 HP, 12 melee attack, 1.38 speed, 7 LOS, 0.7 range, 2.2 ROF, 0 PA, 3 MA, -9 cavalry class armor, 18 bonus dmg vs. cavalry, 8 bonus dmg vs. infantry (no bonus vs. camels).
Lance Cavalry can be upgraded to Heavy Lance Cavalry, which have +20 HP and +4 melee attack.
Siege Galleon - Replaces Cannon Galleon for civs that would not have had access to cannons (i.e. Goths, Vikings, Teutons, and Celts). I made it so that it launches a single stone from a stone thrower per shot. It has the same range as a Cannon Galleon, but its Elite version does not increase its range like the Elite Cannon Galleon does. The Siege Galleon also fires twice as fast but with half the damage (half bonus damage stats too). All other stats are unchanged. The upgraded version is appropriately named Elite Siege Galleon. (Does not require chemistry to unlock.)
Lithobolos - Replaces Bombard Cannon for civs that would not have had access to cannons. The trajectory is much lower and the projectiles move 25% faster. It has 2 less range than the Bombard Cannon, but fires twice as fast with half the damage. The Lithobolos is a stone-throwing ballista. It works slightly different from the Bombard Cannon in that the projectile can fell trees and will hit the first enemy unit (or tree) on the path to its intended target. (Projectiles do not pass through units like Scorpion bolts do.) (Does not require chemistry to unlock.) (Yes, I realize that the Lithobolos is an ancient weapon, but such stone throwers were still used during the Middle Ages.)
Archers, Crossbowmen, & Arbalesters - (Rework) - Archers should remain available after researching Crossbow, as the crossbow did not replace bows in the Middle Ages. Archers in relation to Crossbowmen/Arbalesters should have longer range, lower accuracy, loose arrows in an arc (as currently emulated) and have a faster reload time, but suffer low to medium damage output. Crossbows and Arbalests should have higher relative accuracy, loose arrows straight with only a slight arc (i.e. -0.01), have a faster projectile speed and deal higher damage, but suffer longer reload time (i.e. 4 seconds instead of 2 seconds), have less range, and be less effective towards buildings. Crossbow/Arbalest bolts strike the first enemy unit on the path to their intended targets, which in-turn means that they are not effective attacking through forests. Archers, on the other hand, can loose arrows over trees/objects and hit their intended targets (success depends on unit accuracy). Archers should have an Elite upgrade. (This rework also applies to other crossbow units, such as Chu Ko Nu and Genoese Crossbowman.) I have play-tested this rework, and it adds a very interesting dynamic to army compositions.
Grenadier - New gunpowder unit at the Siege Workshop available to some gunpowder-oriented civs (i.e. Turks, Indians, Chinese, Saracens, Byzantines, etc.) Throws grenades that explode, dealing area damage. Similar to catapult-line, but deals bonus damage against infantry, siege weapons, and ships. Available after researching Chemistry; costs 50 food and 100 gold. Base stats: 60 HP, 25 melee attack, 25 pierce attack, 5 range, 6 LOS, 1.15 speed, 3.6 ROF, 6 PA, 2 MA, classified as gunpowder and siege weapon armor class, 25 bonus damage vs. infantry and siege weapons, 50 bonus damage vs. standard buildings.
Sapper - New Castle unit that replaces the Petard for civs that did not have access to gunpowder. The Sapper works exactly the same way as the Petard, but only the graphics are different. When a Sapper reaches its target, a crater and dust (animated) will appear in place of the unit. The building will immediately take damage and the Sapper will be gone. (The only problem with this design in the mod is that the Sapper will function the same way if attacking a unit instead of a building, which looks silly.)
The balance changes are always debatable, but i like the idea of changing models for differents cultures - the sapper/petard being a perfect example.
For the archer line, i feel the developers put the crossbows as a “placeholder”, a single model to represent every archer around - japanese, mongols, incas… they used BOWS, ya know.
Different mechanics for the same line of units in a different culture group feels mandatory - Total War represents it kinda well.
An army of aztec arbalests with fire arrows and petard support make my eyes bleed. ■■■■, we are in 2019! We have the tech to fix it lol
Btw, keep me informed in the progress. I loved your idea.
You are technically correct, but they are also adding new features and content. I cannot give any details about them, but my point is that the devs can add new line units and techs to old civs despite it being a remaster. As you should be aware, if you are keeping up with news updates, they are adding new content as though the game were also a new expansion to the original game.
Yes, in the mod I developed, some civs, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Vikings, Mongols, and Japanese, do not have access to the Crossbow upgrade. The Vikings did not use crossbows. The Mongols and Japanese did technically have access to crossbows and were aware of their existence, but crossbows were not adopted into their military. Because these civs relied heavily on archery, I introduced a new technology called Archery Society, which directly benefits bow-wielding units by giving small boosts to accuracy (+5%), training speed (10% faster for Archer line only, only 5% faster for Britons), and rate of fire (10% faster, only 5% faster for Ethiopians). This tech is only available to civs that historically had an “archery society”. (Yes, that also includes the Britons, Ethiopians, and Vietnamese despite those civs also having access to the Crossbow unit line.)
Additionally, I made it so that crossbow units do not loose fire arrows, as this never happened historically. Chemistry still gives them a damage boost presently. Technically archers did not utilize fire arrows in most battle applications, but I have left fire arrows from bow-wielding units alone for now.
The costs of Archers was also changed in Castle Age from 25 wood and 45 gold to 35 wood and 35 gold, whereas Crossbow line units maintain the 25 wood and 45 gold cost.
The different unit mechanics applied to bow wielding units vs. crossbow units was inspired, in-part, by Total War. I also adopted ideas from other games, such as Ancestor Legacy and Empires Apart. The most important changes, however, are directly inspired by actual history. I made changes a several of the civs tech trees and playing styles to reflect actual history.
Javelin spearman - a new unit that combine skirmisher and spearman. In other words, they are allowed to attack in range and engage in melee fight. They got two different sets of attack bonus when attacking in range and melee respectively. Besides, they get higher armor than spearman and higher range damage than skirmisher.
Scorpion Tower - a defense tower that attack like scorpion and has a higher range.
Thank you for the compliments. I understand the game is mostly balanced as it is and that adding new units can complicate that. I guess that’s where I’m confused. Why do so many players oppose new content? This has got to be the only game I’ve known where players oppose new content. New units can be easily balanced. It’s all math. I guess that’s what modding is for, eh?
Also, why do so many players enjoy the historical inaccuracies of the game? AOE2 has been my favorite game since its release, but the historical inaccuracies have always bothered me.
I’m fine with the new civs and I am interested in the Konnik unit.
But getting new content for a re-balance is pointless. Like many of these ideas are cool, but if you can draw arrow fire with rams, why making another unit that does the same?
It does have historical inaccuracies like William Wallace wins and survives, the battle of Agincourt is a loss (probably they hated the English because of Joan’s death 1111), Chinese don’t get gunpowder, Huns have university, etc.
But when you think about it, none of these are a real pain in the ass. Like they changed history to give us a feel of the always winner. Not that bad imo.
That wasn’t quite the intention with the design of rams, and the difference would be spending 70 resources on a unit who’s designed for this purpose versus spending 235 resources on a unit that moves slower and is more specifically designed to take down defenses and buildings.
I am speaking more to the game-play inaccuracies. I think the Chinese ought to have gunpowder. The Huns should have a unique building to replace the university. Spanish ought to have crossbows. Goths ought to be a cavalry and infantry civilization instead of just an infantry civilization. Meso civs, Vikings, Huns, and a couple others should not have trebuchets. Japanese should not have a tech that benefits trebuchets when they rarely ever used catapults. I could go on and on.
It is not impossible to tailor civs to be more historically accurate and also maintain balance. Other games have done this and have been successful at maintaining balance across civs despite so many differences. The reason why we don’t have this in AOE2 is because AOE2 was really one of the first of its kind, and the amount of time that went into developing what we got in 1999 was so immense and intricate. There simply was not enough time to develop such features. This is also why all civs share the same unit graphics.
And that, my good friend, is why modding is such a wonderful thing. Instead of waiting for a game that matches AOE2’s majesty and implements a more historically accurate play-style, I can harness the power of modding to accomplish something similar. … And it shall be done.
In history, Camels in China is Bactrian camel but not arabian camel. Bactrian camels are very slow. Its slow speed make it impossible for bactrian camel to engage in battle. Perhaps, dev should remove camels for Chinese.
To compensate the nerf, Chinese should reclaim the gunpowder units as chinese invented it. That makes much sense.
Aye, China didn’t use camels for war. They did use mounted lancers, which I propose could replace camels for the Chinese. The problem, however, is that the Chinese should potentially have access to more techs than any other civ in the game, which would make them insanely OP. In that respect, I would remove their cheaper technology bonus. I would also remove their plate armor, plate barding armor, chain mail armor, and chain barding armor techs. Why? Because the Chinese did not use plate amor and chain mail was very rare in China. Most soldiers wore either cloth armor, leather armor, or scale armor.
Waits for backlash from everyone for proposing such insane balance changes.
Far east countries equip lamellar armor instead of plate armour. But many argue for the strength of lamellar armour and plate armour. I dont know if plate armour is better for protection.
In ming dynasty (13 century to 15 century), they even did not wear armor due to the firearms
