i really don’t like the idea of some units empowering others at all, especially in a game like aoe2.
2 Likes
Yeah, these things are best left to AOE3 or future games. AOE2 has a simplicity to it that works very well for the game.
3 Likes
Would be cool for AoE1, however, specially as an Academy unit.
not only that, but empowering effects would wreck havoc on a game that has never been designed with them in the first place. imagine an empowering general in the middle of a group of paladins or elephants.
1 Like
if possible, chariots could also have a ranged and meelee attack by overlapping two units instead, maybe not though
or maybe be like a warrior priest
what about a unit that will attack ranged while riding, after it is killed, it will loose it’s mount and get to foot and fight melee?
1 Like
so a cav archer konnik?
1 Like
yes kind of
we can also make a unit using two population slots, once the driver dies it loses one population then the rider fights on foot.
it can ride anything a covered wagon, chariot or an elephant with howdah (carriage) mounted on it.
do you think it will be a good idea?
you are right such empowering units should not affect all units otherwise paladins and elephants will be overpowered.
it can be made similar to the mansabdar units in aoe3 where it affects just one particular unit. such as the mansabdar sepoy affects only sepoys.
this way we can introduce a unit that is very weak in itself (peasant militia), when close to a leader they will fight better. this will introduce new kind of tactics/flavour to the game. the defender has to keep the leader close to the weak units in order to make them effective while trying to keep him alive.while attacker needs to focus attack on leader at all costs to break the resistance. the number of such leaders that can be recruited can be limited to the number of castles. I think it will be an interesting concept to see in-game.
Paikaraya leader leading the Paiks/Paikas army of Assam/Orissa can work in a similar way
1 Like
Odia Military Organization under Gajapatis
· Phadikaras - Swordsmen
· Dhanuki or Banua – Mask wearing Archers
· Prahari – The policing wing of the Paikas
· Dhenkiya – Expeditionary or Attack force
· Itakaras - Dancers and Entertainers.
The Major Infantry Designations of the Time
· Senadhyaksha – Commander of the Army units.
· Champati – Commander of Chamu or Army divisions.
· Vahinipati – Paika Troop Commander.
· Paikaraya – Paika Band Commander.
· Dala Behera – Detachment or Group commanders.
· Gada Nayak / Nayak – Garrison Commanders and Fort duty officers.
· Bahubalendra - Officer in charge of the Non combatants.
· Bhoimmul – Officer in charge of recruitment.
Infantry Divisions
· Dala – Consisted 27 Paikas.
· Bhuyian – Consisted 70 Paikas.
· Vahini – Consisted many Bhuyians.
· Chamu – Consisted number of Vahinis as per requirement.
The Portuguese traveler, Duarte Barbosa who arrived in India at Vijayanagara in 1504 A.D and stayed till 1514 A.D mentions that the kingdom of Odisha was comprised of very good fighting men and the king possessed a mighty army of foot soldiers besides mentioning the ongoing skirmishes between Vijayanagara and Odisha. He also mentions that northern extent of the Odisha kingdom was till the River Ganga which was often called as Gouri Gua by the Odias then and was important place for pilgrimage. Beyond the River was the kingdom of Bengal with which the King of Odisha was also at war often.
The Odia army was primarily comprised of the peasant militia called Paikas. The recruits were selected from different castes and tribes, but for infantry combatants, the ‘Chasas’ or the peasant class people were mostly selected from an age of 20 for military service because they were physically and mentally tough. They underwent rigorous and dangerous training and were ever ready for battles. Paikas were also the ancient most combatants of Odisha and the term is derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Padadika’. Paikas used various mantras or chanting during warfare to keep their morals boosted even in the face of impending death.
1 Like
Aura buffs should only affect Infantry, since not only does it make more sense (Infantry was always more dependant on formation fighting styles, and easier to command directly by generals and flag systems), but also because it is the unit type that needs it the most.
1 Like
Tamil Military Organization under Cholas
Senai
Commanding Officer’s Rank : Senathipathi (Lord of the Army)
The standing army was organized into multiple Senai s. The composition of each depended on its deployment or stationed location and role. Normally, a Chola Senai was the largest organizational unit. At various times in its existence, the army had between one and three Senai s.
Thalam
Commanding Officer’s Rank : Thalapathi – equivalent to the naval rank of Kalapathi .
A Thalam usually contains:
- 3 Yanaipadai – elephant corps, each with 300–500 elephants.
- 3 Kudhiraipadai – cavalry corps, each with 500–1000 horses.
- 6 Kaalaatpadai – infantry corps, each with 2000–3000 men.
- 2 Thalpadai – auxiliaries, a mix of infantry & cavalry, each with 1000–2000 Men and 500–1000 Horses. They could be used as rear-guard units as well as a guerilla force in times of withdrawal.
- 2 Marathuvarani – medical corps of about 200–300 doctors with horse-drawn carriages and medical provisions.
- 1 or 2 Oosipadai – strike corps
Ani
Commanding Officer’s Rank’ : Anipathi (Lord of Group)
A Thalam is subdivided into various Ani s, which is one-third of a Thalam , with
- 1 Yanaipadai
- 1 Kudhiraipadai
- 2 Kaalatpadai
- 2 Thalpadai
The Army of the Cholas followed the ancient Indian tradition of Chaturangabala for organization and Sadangabala for administration, the fourfold force and sixfold control. In its shortened form, it is called RathaGajaTuraPadai , where Ratha is the chariot, Gaja the elephant, Tura the horses, and Padai the infantry. It was said that an army with proportional growth of the said forces was a balanced and well-composed one.
In addition to the divisions, there were the Nadapu – the commissariat and Payanam – the admiralty and logistics. The addition to these, bureaucratic reforms revolutionized the Chola Army, resulting in victories on a massive scale.
1 Like
You’ve copy-pasted stuff from Wikipedia. However, I encourage you to read histories and military histories of south India by K.A. Nilakantha Sastri and Kaushik Roy among others, and also mainly historical fiction by Kalki.
Much of this was organised under local chieftains and “noble” families and not really as organised and centralised as the article puts it. The Cholas also loved to maintain army garrisons at distant places to immediately mobilise battle efforts (they had garrisons in Malaya and Cambodia even), so the control was very much determined by the locals. [This is why I suggested creation of UU from barracks be a unique tech called garrisons.]
Again as I think I mentioned before, even though Chola documents claim that their army composition was based on the concept of fourfold force, they explicitly did not use a chariot force and the “Rata-Gaja-Turagam” is a relic from an ancient past which became a sort of “Shastra” of battle across the subcontinent. After a time it just became a colourful way of describing a war effort based on a big well-mobilised army comprised of a variety of fighters, rather than those three types alone.
Finally, “Paḍai” just means “force” or “troops” and doesn’t mean infantry. “Kudiraippaḍai (குதிரைப்படை)”, a.k.a, “Horse troops” means cavalry, and “Vilpaḍai (வில்படை)”, a.k.a “Bow troops” means archers. So there, Wikipedia is incorrect and it does not mean infantry. The word for infantry is “Kālāṭpaḍai (காலாட்படை)”, i.e., “Foot troops”.
Can you write all that stuff by your own? Why are you taking it as a competition?
I am not a historian by profession, it’s just a side hobby of mine to read historical stuff from around the world from different sources, wikipedia being the most accessible. Don’t expect too much from me.
I’m not competing with you or anything. I thought we were having a discussion and wrote something that I thought people reading it should know about the Wikipedia article, that’s all 
2 Likes
Ah okay, I am sorry. I don’t understand Tamil, maybe you can edit this mistake on the Wikipedia article if you are sure about this term being incorrect? BTW are you a historian by profession, what language do you speak?
the two words sound similar.
padadika means foot unit, right?
I’m not a historian at all. I just read lots of books because I am interested in Indian history.
Correcting Wikipedia is a faff, the resident editors always reverse changes to any article; I’d rather not.
I speak several languages, don’t know if you want me to list them all…
1 Like
Yeah but they only sound similar if you ignore the diacritic below the d.
பாதை = Pādai = पादइ (hindi) = पादै (Sans) = path, related to the word foot, loaned from Sanskrit and related to पदादिक (Padādika), also related: பாதம் Pādam पादं = sole of the foot.
படை = Paḍai = पड़इ (hindi) ~ पडै (Sans) = troops, force, army (this word has many more meanings, including “create” and “instrument”, but those are not relevant here)
1 Like
can you please fact check these articles as well?
the military organisation i have written is taken from here.