Hypothetical game overhaul

Now this is purely fictional. I have made a similar blog on the wiki so you can check that out too. As a synopsis, I shall be leaving out the cosmetic (name and graphic) changes.

Hand cannoneer:

  • Attack reduced from 17 to 10
  • RoF decreased from 3.45 to 3
  • Gold cost decreased from 45 to 35
  • (New) Gain the ability to ignore armor
    → The attack seems low at first but since the unit ignores Armor, it doesn’t perform as terribly as it looks. The RoF is changed to make it attack 15% faster too. Against units with 6 (3 for infantry) pierce armor, it is dealing the same damage per second. This obviously makes them much weaker against siege and buildings, but definitely more usable.

Skirmisher line:

  • Costs 30F 30W
  • Base skirmisher: Gains +1p armor
  • Elite skimisher availabile to Turks (all civs)
  • (New) Imperial Skirmisher available to most civs, provides the same upgrade to E Skirm as E skirm provides to Skirm (so +5 HP, +1 attack, +1 vs archer, +2 vs cav archer, etc)

Cavalry archer line: Base accuracy increased from 50 to 75

Spearman line:

  • Costs 35F 35W
  • RoF changed from 3 to 2
  • Spearman in Dark, Pikeman in Feudal, Glaiveman in Castle and Halberman in Imperial
  • HP: 45, 50, 55, 60
  • Melee attack 3, 4, 5, 6 (net buff since attack 50% faster)
  • Attack bonus vs cav 5, 10, 15, 20 (almost same value since late castle age accounting for RoF)
  • Pierce armor decreased from 0 to -2, lose spearman armor class (basically no change since the spearman armor class works this way, does not show unit in a better light than it actually is)

Swordsman line:

  • Cost 50F 30G, no Supplies
  • Armor: 2/2
  • Long Swordsman (Castle Age): 60 HP, 8 attack, +4 vs infantry
  • Two Handed Swordsman (Imperial Age): 75 HP, 10 attack, +5 vs infantry

Scout cavalry line:

  • Attack: 4/6/8 (since spearmen are weaker in early game)

Knight line:

  • Gold cost reduced from 75 to 70
  • RoF increased from 1.8/1.8/1.9 to 1.9
  • Paladin HP decreased from 160 to 150
    ** Franks gain Bloodlines, but their HP bonus is changed to +10 HP in Castle and another +10 HP in Imperial and only applies to Knight line again

Camel Rider line:

  • Food cost increased from 55 to 60
  • Melee armor increased from 0 to 2
  • Melee attack changed from 6/7/8 to 7/8/9
  • Attack bonus vs cav changed from 9/18/18 to 7/14/14
  • Attack bonus vs camels changed from 5/9/9 to 4/7/7
  • Lose their weakness to defensive structures and ships entirely

Scorpion line:

  • Attack reduced from 12/16 to 10/13
  • (New) Gain the ability to ignore armor

All imperial age upgrades provide the same effect as their castle and feudal age counterparts

Chemistry: does not give any attack boost. Lighting projectiles on fire maybe omitted. Just needed to unlock gunpowder techs. Is free but takes 100 seconds to research.

As this is a lot of stuff at once, it’s tough to comprehend by one session.

At many occasions I see what you are aiming for and what you try to correct.
Like if I look at the Knight and Camel Changes.
I for myself also though about “why Knights actually have a higher gold ratio than Camels? Camels just dominate Knights.”
By givig the Camels a higher Gold ratio you give the Knight civs one more Option against the camel civs. Namely trying to drain them out of Gold.And I think this can be a great solution for the interaction between knight and camel civs.

I just don’t Know if a change of 10 Gold in total is sufficient for that.

I personally would actually just switch Gold and Food cost of the Knights.
And before now comments come alike “in other threads he pledges against knights and here he wants to buff them”- I would also increase the cost of the castle age and imp barding armor upgrades a bit.
In align with the xbow upgrade cost increase.

This I definetely don’t like. The Arb Powerspike is really big enough and doesn’t need to be made cheaper to FU.

I see thatmissing the last armor tech on one unit group often feels like making that unit almost unusuable against archery, but there are very little amount of civs that don’t have at least one good unit and a solid siege weapon against archers.
Even Poles can use their Obuch as meatshield for the skirms.

What is the proposed purpose of spearman in dark age if you can’t build a stable until feudal?


I think I’d rather have handgun rof made much slower (along with siege equipment), and maybe prevent them from firing over allies to make their positioning important, but volleys brutal if managed well

probably to peacefully Fast Castle on open maps without walling while still being defended againstba scout rush. And the dark age spear man hold its own against milucia/maa as well…

I don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish with this. What is the theme you are going for? What is the intent?

A lot of these seems to just be buffing the already powerful knight line, directly and indirectly.
I think these changes are unfocused and bad overall.

the game is 20 years old, I don’t want any overhauls.
I am ok with changes like some gather bonus going from 20% to 25% etc to improve game balance. But what are you trying to achieve with these changes?

If you want to see drastic changes like this put them in a data mod and play it with your friends.


Don’t think of Spears as only anti cav. They can be used as cheap filler units, and sometimes as a scout if the starting scout dies.

no pls this. Already now CA are very obnoxious to deal with when massed, you have to play a cat and mouse game and kill his eco, hoping he is bad at walling, because CA is probably the most pop-efficient unit in the game that you realistically can make on Arabia. The fact that you can’t open CA (due to Bloodlines required, Ballistics, Bodkin etc.) is a blessing because in early Castle Age, Xbow out-trades them, if you make them more accurate from the get go, there is little reason for Xbow to exist as a unit, not to mention matchups like Huns vs Ethiopians would be very CA-civ sided.

do we want Spearmen to be a spammable Feudal unit that works as MAA essentially? I agree with the Castle/Imp versions but idk if we need a Dark/Feudal spearman, seems it 100% overlaps with Militia-line. Such a change would make MAA opening irrelevant.

I don’t agree with this because I like Castle age Light cav, it’s a niche but effective strat. It should stay viable especially for civs like Turks/Bengalis imo.

Imp costs more so it makes sense that it gives a stronger boost in the Blacksmith, imo. This would encourage eternal Castle Age wars.

I don’t agree with majority of proposals but I liked few of them which are:

This should be applied in my opinion as well. 50% accuracy for Cav Archer belongs to AoK design. At that time, Devs were intimidated by power of Cav Archer in AOE1 (they had 0 delay, thus used to counter everything with hit-run) that’s why they introduced overnerfed version of Cav Archer in AOE2 AoK. In first design, Cav Archer cost 70 gold, has only 3 range and first hit even slower than current Cav Archer. My actual idea is that giving same delay to Cav Archer as Mangudai and Camel Archer, and 75% Accuracy, in return cost of Cav Archer should become 50w 65g.

Low RoF represent spear wall strategy against Cavalry units. It is not bad to be included in my opinion. I would decrease wood ratio if I want to make change about Spearman-line btw like 50f 10w, in return Spearman get bonus damage from Militia-line instead of Archer-line.

It is right idea to give 2/2 armor and 50f 30g cost to Longsword but your proposed stats is too low. If your Longsword/THS has 75 HP/ 90 HP, it can be useful unit in the game. Supplies maybe should remain in order to indicate whether a civ is infantry civ or not similar to Bloodlines. Its effect can be -10 food for all infantry units.

I don’t know why do you think Camel need that much change and buff. Main problem of Camel is that it doesn’t have stats of gold unit. That’s why only logical thing comes to my mind is that decreasing gold ratio to 90f 25g and bonus attack changed to +12/+16 from current +9/+18.

I liked this proposal most.

I proposed same idea before in order to balance ealy Imperial Age archer strength and last armor upgrades. If archers only gain +1 attack and +1 range in Imperial Age and last armor upgrades gives only +1/+1 armor, it should be be better for prolonged Castle Age vs Imperial Age match ups.

Similar ideas were proposed for Franks. I think that is also good.

This is too much of a nerf to arbalest

I tend to not be a fan of ignoring armor. It’s been kind of a trend lately, but it largely punishes infantry. Where infantry are already underwhelming I just don’t appreciate the trend.

The Swordsman line starts in the Castle Age. There is no unit other than Spearman in Dark and Feudal Ages.

It will be viable for Turks even then, free upgrade and +1p armor is massive. Not sure about Bengalis though.

On the contrary, picking up Imp BS upgrades won’t end the game for the other player if he is stuck. An archer civ in Castle Age dies the moment the opponent picks up PBA.

That’s why I made Camels better at dealing and taking melee damage with their strength against Cav intact. They don’t die to heavy infantry and they can kill villagers and siege weapons faster.

Actually this one is in conjugation with Paladins -10 HP in general.

The Imp BS upgrades only provide 1 resistance too, so they get cancelled. Imo it is a buff since it is easier to upgrade. it is a nerf to Turk crossbowmen though.

I don’t like the skirm changes, basically kills all archer aggression in feudal and everyone will just go full wall into castles.

Maybe to make it like AoE 4 that you have spearmans to avoid some Scout Rush in Dark Age?..

1 Like

On that basis you could get Dark Age skirmishers to defend fast feudal archers

Good idea, but that would make Skirm spear rush annoying. Also archers take a bit of time. You need atleast 4 (2x34 seconds = 68) with Fletching, whereas you need atleast 3 scouts (2x30 = 60) with no additional upgrades.

It’s also the difference between 2 archery ranges, 1 mining camp and most possibly a Blacksmith vs 1 stable.

Dark age spears and skirms would be slower creation speed so probably not viable due the huge wood investment. Both cost food and wood as well so would delay your up time.

Yes, it can also be…

Of course, having to build the two buildings to pass the age, would make it difficult for you to take out early skirmishers in dark age…

Imp into +4 armor or into Arbalest is a good interaction though, you spend 1800 resources to get to Imp and 2-3 min where you are very vulnerable, you should be rewarded. If the Imp powerspike is so minimal that you only get +1 armor from it, then Imp as a tech needs to cost maybe 1/2 the resources.

Not to mention I don’t see why Arbalest should do more damage to Cavalier, Arbalest is an early Imp unit, Cavalier a late Imp one. It’s healthy for different units to be good or bad at different stages in the game.

1 Like