We need game mecanic, units are uselress if they only change the look between them. XD
Ps, loved to see lion hunt animal, in aoe1.
1 Like
I agree the civs with two or less unique units need more. Itâs baffeling how much the French and Chinese got. Mongols and Delhi seem fine, but could have one more each imo. The scholar of the Delhi doesnât really feel that unique, he feels more like the Vanguard MAA, just there earlier. I know he can reasearch, but that seems more like a civ bonus than an UU.
I like the idea of Mamluk heavy cav for the Muslim factions. The Billman also works for me.
But I think the HRE needs something else than just more infantry. They could get a cavalry crossbowman. Those were historically used in the central Europe quite a bit and could be a shared unit with future central/eastern/northern european civs. Another idea could be the Teutonic Knight, this time on horseback and maybe a passive that makes him unconvertable. But tbh I feel like Teutonic Knights are their own thing and donât really fit as a UU for the HRE. They were outside its borders and juristiction. Come to think, a future âKnightly Orderâ civ that makes you choose which order you want to be with landmarks would be cool.
2 Likes
Iâd like more unique techs too. Sometimes unique tech has more impact on the play style than unique units;
2 Likes
Yeah I agree. That would help make civs asymmetric.
Mamluks are non-Arab slave soldiers and they built their power in Arab regions and its conquest started from there. They are not Abbasid not Delhi Sultanateâs unit. They are the slaves who ran away from the Eastern Steppe or you can simply say they are the Turko-Mongol warriors.
You can get it when you read their names. Khans, Khans, Khans,
They use titles in their name. Thatâs what slaves did back in the time.
i miss aoe3s heroes ⊠the made the game and story much more beautiful
3 Likes
Just to make things accurate, That was the ruling family only not the rest of the country so mamluks are not arab but when you say mamluk doesnât make you a non arab its just the name they call the people from Egypt when the mamluks are the rulers at the time. So mamluks mostly arab but the rulers are not.
Mamluks were slaves who run away from their Turkic, Mongol tribes or previous owners. They were mostly Turko-Mongol soldiers with exact same battle strategy and tactics. If you study their name, they have Turko-Mongol names too.
I have taken history at my university and did quite a lot of studies about it.
Mamluk Heavy Cav is 100% a thing tho, and most Middle Eastern nations did use them in one variation or another, Iâm not even clear on what the difference between a lancer and a knight is tbh, they have different armor but otherwise what is different? Nothing.
Mamluk cavalry is (in)famous for being extremely skilled and heavily armored, using scimitars and being clad with headdresses and other distinctly Arabic things.
Historically the Mamluks were a Caliphate themselves.
Also this Caliphate spanned much more than just Egypt, while yes it originated in Egypt, at its height it held most of northern Africa and the Levant
1 Like
A knight is a religious unit. (Christian)
Lancer is a non-religious unit that is under command of its leader, instead of a religious organization.
1 Like
I appreciate the clarification
Gameplay wise however they are absolutely the same, I wish theyâd make each unit have more tailored units instead of the same baseline. They promised asymmetry and honestly this is far more symmetric than aoe3 or even aoe2.
Did lancers have any practices in history that differed from knights? And if so how do you think this could be accentuated in the game?
1 Like
Well, I think the Rus and Holy Roman, etc have a knight effect kind of thing with their unique boosts through warrior monk and the prelate.
For example, the Rus Monk gives +1damage, etc to nearby all units.
The Mongols, have a leader (Khan) who gives a bonus effect of movement speed, ranged attack speed, and armour. So as you can see there is a bit of difference. But not every civilization gets it.
I think youâre missing my point, sure there are some upgrades or bonuses here or there to add attack or armor etc, but baseline how are they different?
For example, in aoe3 the Russians had Cossaks instead of Hussars, as was historically accurate. These where quicker light cav, more armored than standard light cav but weaker than Hussars, exceptionally good at raiding with bonuses against buildings and villagers, and quick enough to outrun Hussars.
Or the Dutch Ryut, or the British Kings Royal Hussars, etc etc.
Theyâre just using the basic unit and buffing it up, instead of creating civilization unique units, which I feel like has been a key feature of the age series
yes, the Lancer term is a very wide term.
What I know about the Mongol lancer in specific are:
Instead of Lancers, the Mongols called it Kheshig.
Kheshigs (Kheshigten) were handpicked by the Khan himself, these units were the most skilled warriors of the Mongols and were responsible for training other units in the army. Each Kheshig would train at least 100units to 1000 units.
Another difference is that they used both melee and ranged weapons and were heavily armoured.
For example, they would have a lance, sword, round shield, composite recurve bow, and a smaller quiver.
The Mongol charges were effective as the heavy cavalry would use bows to suppress enemy pike line and then charge in when the enemy pikemen were killed during the charge. Moreover, during such charges from the frontline or flank, pikemen would run for shield cover.
Kheshig charge explained step by step:
Bow and arrow suppression > lance change > and then melee combat with swords or maces.
So yeah, they could have made the units more unique to each civilization. Maybe it will happen later or never as it is very hard to balance I think.
3 Likes