There are already too many ranged cavalry units for Asian factions eg.mongols koreans burmeese khmer indians all have some kinda ranged cavalry But no one has heavy cavalry as a uu so a heavy cavalry would be a good fit.
Agreed. The Jurchen Iron Pagoda is probably a good candidate as a heavy cavalry archer. Maybe a slow cavalry (faster than infantry though) with a short ranged attack (4 range) that has lot of armor and hitpoint. It should be relatively expensive though.
And for the firelance, we can set it as a unique tech to add a charge attack for the pikeman (with the Jurchen not getting halberdiers). As long as the burst attack is not too much, this can offer a very interesting dynamic in battle.
1 Like
Iād rather have it as a melee replacement for the paladin. That would make them the only civ with a paladin equivalent, as well as having some more heavy melee cav. There are already too many ranged cav unique units. The firelance should also be cav, and it can be the unique unit.
Maybe it can be like the winged hussar and be a regional unit for mongols and chinese too.
1 Like
Fire lancer? Then Iron Pagoda would probably have to be the unique unit.
Iron pagoda as a unique unit replacing the paladin for juchen chinese and mongols.
The mongols never used anything remotely similar to the Iron Pagoda. The Mongol army was basically 70% cav archer and 30% lancers. No heavy cav. Thatās a large part of the reason they were so effective against the European heavy cav. Nor did pretty much any of the other Chinese dynasties except the Jin, and thatās because they were the Jurchens. Iron Pagoda would not be a regional unit. The Jurchens were pretty much the only east Asian group that ever used heavy cavalry of the level that the Iron Pagoda would be. Naturally excluding elephants.
Mongols would use subjugated people in battle right?
Yes, but I donāt think they would have been willing to accept 3-6 thousand super heavily armored elite cavalry shock troops who could easily turn on them. I also donāt think that the Iron Pagoda would have ever served the Mongols. They also only served for a few decades, so I donāt think they would have been in use by the time the Mongols showed up in force. After just having researched it, the Iron Pagoda served for about 15 years, before finally disbanding. They wouldnāt have been there at the time of the Mongols. However, the massive impact they had during their service would merit a definite place as a unique replacement for the Paladin. The Jin continued to use heavy cavalry however, until the Mongols finally destroyed them, after which the Iron Pagoda would be no longer used.
I would think that the Jurchens would be a (elite) cavalry + (mass) infantry civilization, with a slight focus on gunpowder. Historically, the Early Jurchens (Jin) were known for their heavy cavalry (Iron Pagoda), their ability to levy large amount of infantry (of dubious quality), and their early employment of gunpowder. The Late Jurchens (Manchu) were known for their horsemanship and that they regularly fielded heavy infantry, something uncommon when compared to Mongols and other northern nomads. With that in mind, I would propose the following:
UU: Iron Pagoda
Expensive, slow, and short-ranged Heavy Cavalry Archer (Think an Elephant Archer that can outrun pikeman/halberdier, but not other cavalry). Their main selling point is being very difficult to kill, although skirmishers and pikeman should counter them cost effectively (if they can catch them).
UT Castle: Fire Lance (Should be Expensive)
Effect: Gives all spearman and pikeman a charge attack of moderate damage (like a balanced version of the Burgundian UU). the standard is that they should slightly beat a generic longswordsman, but still lose to knights and two-handed swords (slightly) in a 1 vs 1. This basically encourages the massing (levying) of pikemen in late castle and early imperial. However, they are still weak to archers and castles. To compensate, Jurchens should not receive the halberdier upgrade. Also, they should still be cost effectively (total resource-wise) defeated by champions.
History: The earliest uses of the firelance were either by infantry as a preliminary shock weapon, or on a cart to act as a defensive barrier. While cavalry did eventually begin using firelances as well, that was only after the design of the firelance is improved from a bamboo to iron barrel (lighting your lance right before charging the enemy probably takes some practice, especially if on a horse).
UT Imperial: Banner Army
Effect: Militia, Archer, Hand Cannoneer, Cavalry Archer, and Knight all move 10% faster. This is a small but useful buff that gives the player the initiatives to begin or retreat from engagements (while abandoning your pikeman to the enemy).
History: Banner armies were created in the early 17th century as a military organization/institution. With certain households designated military caste, it can be seen as a way to create a professionalized military. This is reflected by the general speed boost of all gold costing non-siege units. (Yes, early 17th century is a bit out of the conventional time scope. But we have also have gbetos, or Dahomey Amazons, in the gameā¦)
1 Like
There are already too many cav archer unique units though. Iron Pagoda would be better as a melee cav unit. I donāt hate the fire lancer idea, but I would definitely prefer to have fire lancer as a mounted cav unit with a stun debuff effect that charges like a coustillier.
1 Like
For the Iron Pagoda, the problem is that we have to figure out how to make the unit unique. After looking at the list of unique units, I would argue that there are equal amount or more melee cavalry UU than range cavalry UU. For melee cavalry, we have about 9-10 types:
Cataphract
War Elephant (Stretching the definition)
Tarkan
Imperial Camel
Magyar Huszar
Boyar
Konnik
Leitis
Keshik
Coustillier
For cavalry archer, we have about 6-9 types:
Manguadai
Mameluke (Stretching the definition)
Conquistador
War Wagon (Stretching the definition)
Elephant Archer (Stretching the definition)
Camel Archer
Genitour
Arambai
Kipchak
However, if you can think of a unique ability/use for a melee cavalry, that would also be feasible.
For a mounted firelancer, the biggest issue is that what is the difference between it and the Coustillier?
1 Like
Okay, so the Iron Pagoda becomes a unique replacement for the Paladin. Probably more pierce armor and speed, but lower HP and higher training time maybe. It can then be improved by the UT Shock Cavalry Tactics, which causes it to do low level trample damage to enemy units as it moves. The Fire Lancer cavalry has a charge effect like the Coustillier, but only in the sense that it charges over time, not how it works. When it charges, it fires an explosive stream of fire 1-2 tiles ahead of it and deals area damage. Each enemy unit that gets hit loses 60% of its attack speed for 3-4 seconds. While the effect is recharging the unit uses a lance melee attack, possibly with a 1 tile range.
It is interesting that people have cried that Chinese lost their firearms for decades, hoping adding the hand cannoneers and now the people let the fire lance become non-Chinese unit and even reject to use hand cannoneers to represent Jurchen firearms. But Chinese still get nothing meanwhile.
I thinkā¦ it may be just too complicated.
I would like to support the fire lancers being a cannoneer units, firing projectiles in a curve path and having an obvious blast radius. That is enough.
Most importantly, be the regional units of Jurchens and Chinese or just the units of the scenario editor.
Better name it āmiÅgan moumukÉā, the predecessor of the banner army.
In my version, I set it to make the gold cost of the cavalry archers and steppe lancers 50% cheaper while they may not have the 3rd archer armor.
āDuring the war against the Liao dynasty, Aguda also took time to establish the new feudal governmental system based on Jurchen tribal customs. He also organised the national agriculture with a collectivist system known as the MiÅgan MoumukÉ (ēå®č¬å ). Furthermore, Aguda absorbed elements of Han Chinese culture and ordered his chancellor Wanyan Xiyin to develop a unique Jurchen writing system.ā
People always wanna make the Tiefutu (iron pagoda) be a unit. In my opinion, the only paladins of the oriental civs are quite meaningful to represent this heavy cavalry force already. Also, the reason that just a need of an oriental cavalry skin is really lame.
The flail or chain whip is the iconic traditional cavalry weapon in North China. So in my version, the flail cavalries would be nice option of UU, which have a short range and able to cause melee damage to multiple units in a straight line, similar to the scorpions. Perhaps they could also have some attack bonus against the archers.
The UT āTiefutuā could enhance the knight line and the flail cavalry in the castle age by adding 1 pierce armor. Then, the imperial UT is āmiÅgan moumukÉā.
Well, nobody care.
I like this too maybe just make him like a mounted samurai dealing bonus damage to other uuās?
It is interesting that people have cried that Chinese lost their firearms for decades, hoping adding the hand cannoneers and now the people let the fire lance become non-Chinese unit and even reject to use hand cannoneers to represent Jurchen firearms. But Chinese still get nothing meanwhile.
Yeah, I never understood why the Chinese donāt at least have hand cannoneer. I mean one of the first fire-arms race is between the Song and the Jin, with firelance and proto-grenades āsky shaking thunderā(é天é·) being some of the notable weapons of the era. By the Ming Dynasty, they have specialist firearm divisions, collectively known as the āDivine Machine Battalionā(ē„ęŗč„).
I would like to support the fire lancers being a cannoneer units, firing projectiles in a curve path and having an obvious blast radius. That is enough.
The problem with this is that the earliest fire lances are more of a melee weapon with a single āshotgunā attachment containing ceramic shards for initial shock attack. The later fire lances, which contained actual ābulletsā would be considered more as the predecessors of hand cannon, which is already represented.
Most importantly, be the regional units of Jurchens and Chinese or just the units of the scenario editor.
Indeed. Regional units is a rather big missed opportunity. We have the Battle Elephants and the Steppe Lancer, so it is evident that the Dev Team does try to implement this. However, Middle Eastern Ghulams, Indian Rajput (if we can ever get a second Indian civ), Chinese Firelancers, Western European Crusaders, Iberian Almogavars, and Eastern European Bardiche Infantry are just some of the potential units that could be implemented to further diversify the game (of course, balancing would be an issueā¦).
Better name it āmiÅgan moumukÉā, the predecessor of the banner army.
In my version, I set it to make the gold cost of the cavalry archers and steppe lancers 50% cheaper while they may not have the 3rd archer armor.
Not a bad idea for the research name. Although I think the the effect should be something that affect infantry and cavalry. The Jurchens are a bit of an oddity when compared to other nomads, as they were partially Sinicized both culturally and militarily, so something should reflect this.
The flail or chain whip is the iconic traditional cavalry weapon in North China. So in my version, the flail cavalries would be nice option of UU, which have a short range and able to cause melee damage to multiple units in a straight line, similar to the scorpions. Perhaps they could also have some attack bonus against the archers.
Interesting idea as well. But I am not sure if it can be easily programmed. The closest thing I can think of is a steppe lancer, so there should be something differentiating the two.
1 Like
Sound great too.
The attack bonus is able to be discussed but I may worry the samurai may lose its position in the game. You know cavalry would better than infantry while running the same task.
I got it. But a unit can not have both the melee and pierce attack ability technically. We can not let a unit fire the gun with pierce attack and then combat with the melee attack. That is not the way of AoE2. Also, we did not let the crossbowmen fire the arrows then fighting with the swords before charging full, right?
We can make the range shorter, attack higher and reloading longer.
The steppe lancer attack only 1 unit once. On the other hand, the flail cavalry is able to attack all the units on the line. You can imagine it like a melee scorpion with shorter range and faster speed. Also, it is technically practicable.
They still had not been in the China proper for a lot of time too. Before they conquered the North Song and after getting conquered by Mongols. We can get a special tech tree design in the Jin Dynasty campaign so let the Jurchens able to be themselves?
I have an idea make the unit similar to a ram, it can damage the three tiles in front it.it will be good against massed units in front but will be bad if surrounded by all sides.
1 Like
How long were these flails ? The only non-throwing ranged melee units have this ability because of very long polearms
(Not the exact ingame units but just to see the scale)
Maybe something more fitting for a flail would be : low base attack, but doubles any damage dealt that is not mitigated by armour (effectively a bonus damage against low-armour enemies), since it would be nasty on lightly armoured enemies but there just isnāt a great transfer of force upon impact, which is important against armour
The range of the pikemen = swordsmen = knights = Magyar Huszars = Frankish Paladins < Kamayuks = steppe lancers. I think that is not a point of the game, especially AoE2. 
Sure the range of the flail cavalries is discussable. Even just 1 tile still make them different from steppe lancers. I had watched a video introducing the weapon of Chinese flail and chain whip. Even if an enemy soldier blocks the flail with a shield, the end of the flail can still flip over the shield, hitting the enemyās head or back, or even other enemy soldiers standing behind. So that is why I suppose it able to damage all the units on the line no matter the length of the line is 1, 2 or 3.
Low base attack may be acceptable but I just donāt know how you classify the low-armor units and the heavy-armor units technically. Looks like you gonna tag all the units a new class just for this one unitās effect and then the community has to remember those changes.
Anyway thank you accept the idea of the flail cavalry.