Pikemen but in the Pike and Shot historical sense, and not the current Pikeman middle-upgrade for the Spearman-line which would remain exactly the same, I suppose you would rename it to Glaiveman instead as that’s the weapon the current AOE2 Pikeman actually uses. Actual Pikes ranged from 3-7m long and were used in tight phalanx like formations, whereas Halberds/Glaives were much shorter at like 1.5-2m long and used in a different role. Basically in essence the Spearman-line would exist in the exact same state.
I am imagining the Pikeman as quite similar to the Incan Kamayuk in base function. Being a slower infantry unit with extra range generally good against other melee units with a strong bonus against Cavalry. Whilst I don’t have any hyper-specifics in mind for the unit’s stats in mind. The unique traits I would broadly imagine it having would be:
- Pikemen would have the Shock Infantry armor class, whilst this may sound weird at first for a slower unit. This is to represent how historically infantry wielding one-handed or two-handed swords were used to break-up Pike Formations. The currently existing Militia-line representing this to a T in AOE2 and also giving that unit an extra use-case. Not having this armor class would also be a benefit the Kamayuk would have over the Pikeman, likewise to how Huskarls and Ghulams don’t have the same armor class as the Eagle Warrior.
- A buffing effect for when other Pikemen are around similarly to the Georgian Monaspa UU or the Hoplites in Chronicles to represent them fighting in a formation and their weakness in disorganized close-quarters fighting.
- Trained at the Barracks starting in Castle Age, improved by the Gambesons technology and a more Gold expensive unit than the Militia similarly to the Fire Lancer.
In terms of distribution I am personally imagining something like this based on the historical distribution of Medieval Pike tactics:
- East Asian: Japanese
- Eastern European: Bohemians, Poles, Lithuanians, Magyars
- Mediterranean: Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Sicilians
- Western European: Britons, Franks, Burgundians, Celts
- Central European: Teutons, Vikings.
In terms of the overall merit of this idea? I don’t really know, I do think it would add some additional flavor to the unit options of European Civs compared to the non-European ones that get all the options of the former as a baseline + unique Camels/Elephants/Steppe Lancers/whatever. Balance can always be adjusted. I also think it has more unique interesting merit as a regional UU than say hyper-generic Axe/Maceman which I’ve seen as a suggestion a couple times as a regional UU for Euro civs. Balance can always be adjusted to make things work. At the end of the day it’s just an idea
2 Likes
pike and shotte combat shouldn’t be the focus of aoe2, as it is only at the very end of the timeframe. I think hand cannons + pikes/halbs is already a pretty good representation of this emergent type of warfare.
Yes, the pike and shot era is more from the Age of Empires 3 period (there you have Landsknechtes, Doppelsolderns, Tercios -an imperial upgrade of the Spanish pikemen-, Cannoners and Arquebusiers…not to mention that it was more used by the Dutch and Swedes in the Thirty Years’ War, which appears in Age of Empires 3)…
3 Likes
I always wanted a war hammer unit, until the Obuch…
Despite AoE3 being the shortest game of the series timeline wise, I thinkbits the one that suffers the most from scope creep. It doesnt know what time period it wants to focus on with its base gameplay
I think the game is best when it focuses in the pre industrial, pre Napoleonic times, but the balance it achieves is precarious at best
2 Likes
Yes, the game tries to cover a lot in a short historical period, and the developers didn’t know how to approach it… Age of Empires 3 originally covered the colonization of America (to maintain the series’ gameplay of starting from scratch) (1492-1825). Then, in The Warchiefs, they covered the American Revolutions and the Wild West (1775-1876/1912), playing as Native Americans as in The Conquerors. Next, in The Asian Dynasties, they covered the exploration and colonization of Asia (1421-1857/1901), playing as China, Japan, and India. Then, in DE, in The African Royals, they covered the exploration and colonization of Africa (1578-1885 - there are nods to the Scramble for Africa). Finally, in Knights of the Mediterranean, they decided to cover Europe and its conflicts (1494-1878), and while in the European maps you start with your TC as always, in Unknown and historical maps you have Command Posts that act as TCs…
Even the units are a mess. Take Germany for a blatant case, their later ages unit include both Hussite war chariots (early 1400s) and the Dreyse needle gun (around 1870).
Which also means mixing Prussia, the HRE and the Habsburg Empire.
Yes, basically the Germans are the HRE and Germany history as a whole… War Wagon (Hussite Wars), Doppelsolderns (Habsburg, Renaissance and Schmalkaldic War), Mercenary Camp and Count Tlly’ Disciplines (Thirty Years’ War), Uhlans and Frederick the Great (Seven Years’ War), Landwers (Napoleonic Wars), Card of the March Revolution (German Unification)…
No not really, the AOE2 timeline in terms of scenarios goes nearly all the way to the start of the 17th century, whereas Pike and Shot first started to become a thing in the late 15th century. All of those units/upgrades you show are solidly within AOE2’s timeline and effectively already represented by the Champion and Hand Cannoneer. The cannoneer with the braced musket could easily just be a UU.
AOE3 is also just a really shoddy representation of it, others have already pointed out the game scope creep issues. But also Pikemen are mechanically the exact same as AOE2’s spearman-line, guns are perfectly pin-point accurate and are obviously trying to be Napoleonic onwards-era style weapons, etc. I don’t want this to become a discussion of why AOE3 kinda sucks in comparison to AOE2, the essence of it is that AOE2 does Late Medieval/Early Modern period warfare far better than AOE3 and is just a significantly better game overall, so I care about the former more compared to the latter.
Sure, sure, I understand… anyway, it’s no problem… we all think the combat in AoE 3 is weird, because the pike-and-shot era in that game should be in the Exploration Age (1420-1520) or directly in the Commerce Age (1520-1620), since in the Exploration Age there’s no combat, only scouting, and by the Commerce Age the pike-and-shot era has practically disappeared due to the significant increase in firearms and bayonet muskets, and it’s practically the line combat of the 18th century (this is even more noticeable in Fortresses Age)… that’s why in AoE 2 and 4, in the Imperial Age, this type of pike-and-shot combat is more noticeable…
