So change for the sake of change then. Good to know.
2 Likes
No. Changes for the sake of a more realistic historical background. And besides, the difference between a continuous line of archers and a line of gunners could lie in their range (with less accuracy and penetration), while the ânewâ line would then be crossbowman (castle age) â hand cannoneer (Imperial) (shorter range, more penetration and accuracy).
Again, whatâs the problem? âI donât want anything to change because then Iâd have to rethink my established patternsâ doesnât count.
Personally, I donât really care. If something like that happened, Iâd be happy; if not, then so be it.
Iâm not going to get worked up about it if everything stays the same. But it seems there are some people here who get diarrhea at the mere thought of changes/new features because theyâre afraid that, after years or decades, they might have to abandon their own narrow-mindedness in a simple computer game and learn a few new click sequences.
Personally I just want the longbow to be less boring and more stand out a unit. Not even the elite longbow just the regular one
Split?, no, you got it all wrong, the term is âunifiedâ
You see, a bow is different from a crossbow, so
Archer-compoundbow-longbowman
What to do with the crossbow?, RU perhaps
You arenât going to achieve anything by overcrowding the archery range, nerfing infantry play, and needlessly complicating the game.
2 Likes
The problem is the current devs have recently made some substantial changes for the sake of change, and some of those changes have lessened my enjoyment of the game. (In particular, the rework of Koreans.) Iâm not opposed to new content, but I am opposed to existing content being effectively removed when itâs âreworkedâ into something significantly different. Changes to gameplay should have gameplay-related reasons behind them.
On the subject of the archer line specifically, I think the current line of archer â crossbowman â arbalester works better than a split version would. It gives a better impression of development over time than a line of just archers would, and basically the whole point of unit line upgrades is to give the impression of development over time. It doesnât matter that crossbows didnât completely replace bows, in the same way that it doesnât matter that two-handed swords didnât completely replace one-handed swords, or that tiled roofs didnât completely replace thatched ones (as it appears when Western European civs reach Castle Age).
1 Like
none of this solves how miniscule the longbow is vs the crossbow that the only difference is 1 point of damage and I think one pierce armor but it doesnât have âlong rangeâ since the crossbow has equally long range
Well⊠I believe that the new xbowman will be pretty generic rather than âregionalâ. The game is too Eurocentric and too many civs would have access to it.
Depends on how itâs implement. A Hand Cannoneer precursor? Fine.
An entirely separate line, distinct from both the Archer and HC? Not only overkill, but also impossible without adding more space in the UI.
If crossbows are yeeted out of the Archer line, the Longbowman could simply become a Briton update to the Archer line, in which case the small difference isnât an issue.
That was vinifrss
I think there was at least one other person after Vinifrss got banned for good.
I think you could say the same about real life civilizations.
Itâs only ever been monoethnic if you believe in imperial propaganda.
Except Emishi, Ainu, Hayato, Ryukyuans and all the migrations before written language reached the archipelago.
This split would be cool in my books (albeit realistically the devs would mix Emishi with Ainu and Ryukyuans with Hayato, 4 new Japanese civs would be an overkill). What people are worried usually is the division into separate samurai clans instead.
Iâd go with Ryukyuans and Emishi. We know too little about Hayato and Ainu can be included in Emishi. Mentioning all four by name was just to tell TheTowerDefender he was trusting Japanese propaganda too much.
1 Like
itâs not. have a look at popular games on steam. so many of them havenât seen updates in years.
admittedly quite a few have seen updates as well, but the claim âgames die if theyâre never developed furtherâ is false
also false.
i meant that more in comparison to other civs in the game. Europe had gone through massive migration waves at the end of the middle ages (caused by the Huns, the fall of the Roman empire among others)
yes, minor populations of aboriginal people existed (and still exist to this day), but none of these people had built empires on the scale that they warran representation in aoe2. if these peoples get civs, we need 300+ civs in the game.
Seems like we are on that way unfortunately.Vikings are doing a fine job representing nordics but seems like we are getting each country.
2 Likes
While I personally donât really care, I donât see an âurgentâ need to split the Vikings. They could be made more regionally distinct. For example, the militia line could be designed with visually different units and names, but the stats of the generic units would remain the same. For instance, a longsword warrior could look like a typical Viking warrior, be called, say, a Dane axe warrior (Huskarl is already taken, and another name in Old Norse would probably be too confusing), but retain the base stats of a longsword warrior.
A similar approach could be taken with other generic lines (like spearmen).
I think that only in the Imperial Age do the Vikings no longer fully represent all the Nordic countries. Up until the Castle Age, thatâs perfectly fine.
Add a Nordic architecture set and youâre done.
This would have the particular advantage of allowing us to test, with a quintessential civilization of the game, how positively or negatively regional generic units affect the game and the player base.
1 Like
So I did have a thought.
Hegemony had an interesting take on the English longbowman essentially itâs a conq type unit except itâs still a long ranged archer and benefits from arrow techs. So with lets say a base damage of 7/8 and a terrible accuracy of 40 (55) you do long range shots from horseback which hurts the more range you add. Compared to Arambai their damage is already strong and even shreds rams.
In hegemony mod this unit was called the Routier and upgrades to the Ecorcheur. Iâm not sure how strong it should be but for a civ without thumb ring it could be tolerable. Just donât let Yeoman let your allies train some because a Magyar or Turk with this unit wouldnât be disgusting right? Right?
I donât think this is a good idea. if the units have the same stats they should look the same (or at least very similar), thatâs the basic idea of unit recognition.
The moment a change like that drops, a reskin pack that makes them look the same will be the most popular mod in the competitive scene.
Here is what should actually happen:
the easy solution is to decouple unt skins (+ building skins + names?) from civs, so people can make mods that change skins for individual civs (without requiring data mods). Then people who want more visual flourish can make and get mods that replace longswords with âDane axe warriorâ or âJediâ etc.
But people playing competitively will not be hindered by a change like this.
what?
from a gameplay perspective: this is a complete upheaval of Britons, with no clear goal in mind
from a historicity perspective: the main distinguishing factor of recurve bows compared to longbows is that they can (more easily) be used from horseback. Longbow usage from horseback was an exception, and not common in Briton. why the hell would they add a unit that clashes so much with their identity? (both in-game and reality?)
2 Likes
Dunno. Ask the maker of Chivalry mod. If heâs on these boards even.
âOn occassion the powerful longbowmen would even fight from horseback, though usually they dismounted.â. from the wiki you posted
Aside from the gameplay implications, this unit is historical nonsense as far as I can tell. I think the creator of the mod has got confused. Some routiers fought as mounted archers, but that doesnât mean they would shoot from horseback â theyâd use the horses to get into position but then dismount to shoot. Some routiers fought for the English (e.g. during the Hundred Yearsâ War) but they werenât typically English, so theyâre not âEnglish longbowmenâ.
Did you write this? Some of it seems like your writing style.