Is regional unit access lob-sided?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Thinking about the game’s regional units, it seems like some are really restricted in how many civs have access to them.

Changing the tech tree is quite a jump compared to simple civ bonuses, so it feels like a bit of a waste for some units that clearly time and effort went into designing and rigging the models for, only to not end up with many players seeing them.

So let’s do a little comparison, and see how little or how much some are used. As I think there are a few more civs that can gain the lesser-used ones.

Camel Rider:
image

Berbers
Byzantines
Chinese
Cumans
Ethiopians
Gurjaras
Hindustanis
Malians
Mongols
Persians
Saracens
Tatars
Turks

13 civs. That’s quite a lot, more than a quarter of them in fact. So clearly the camel has no problems with numbers of civs that can use it. So this one feels like it is in a pretty good spot; let’s move on to another…

Eagle Warrior:
image

Aztecs
Incas
Mayans

Our first “problem child”. With only 3 civs with access, the Eagle Warrior is in a bit of a lonely position. And without further American civs, that is unlikely to change. The units geographical restriction is very severe, keeping it to the new world only.

There isn’t really anything to “fix” here, apart from an Americas DLC, so on to the next one…

Battle Elephant:
image

Bengalis
Burmese
Dravidians
Khmer
Malay
Vietnamese

A much better picture here. 6 civs is a decent spread, but can anyone else get this unit? Not really, at least, not from the current pool. The unit is clearly meant to represent an elephant with a halberd-wielding rider, so the most likely way to get more of this unit is via potential new civs like Tais.

But as I said, it’s in a decent spot. On to the next entry.

Steppe Lancer:
image

Cumans
Mongols
Tatars

Ok, this is pretty rare a unit to see by comparison. While I don’t think there are another 10 civs that should get this unit, there are others who fit the geographical and historical usage criteria.

Firstly, Steppe Lancers are clearly meant to represent medium cavalry from the Eurasian Steppe, so…who else is from there?

Huns
Literally from the Eurasian Steppe. We may not know a lot about them, but this we can be sure of is that their origin was somewhere within Central Asia.

Turks
The Cumans and Tatars represent a Turkic and Turko-Mongol peoples respectively. So it seems pretty simple that the other Turkic civ in the game should have the lancers too.

Magyars
Originally from the Eurasian Steppe, and then settled in Central Europe. Not only do they qualify, but also would make them stand out more from the other Eastern European architecture civs.

And here are some which are not steppe nomads, but either have nomadic connections, adopted steppe tactics due to constant interactions, or inherited a lot from steppe peoples:

Persians
Gurjaras
Hindustanis

Won’t go into extra detail, as these are more of a stretch.

On to the next one.

Elephant Archers:
image

Bengalis
Dravidians
Gurjaras

Another one with just three civs. Here the Elephant Archer is likely meant to be from the Indian sub-continent (look at the guy in the back). So here we hit a bit of a snag. Firstly, we are restricted by “Who has access to elephants?” which leaves Persians and the SEA civs. The problem with the latter, is that there isn’t much evidence of them using elephants as archer platforms, much more as close combat units (Battle Elephants).

The one that might be able to get away with it is the Burmese, due to their close geographical position with India, it is more likely for them to have Elephant Archer mercenaries.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the sub-continent; Persians. Their elephants (and riders) were literally imported from the Indian sub-continent, so it’s no issue finding a reason for them to have Elephant Archers. Hell, in the ingame civ description, it mentions Persians having Elephant Archers.

So not many extra civs here, but 5 is better than 3.

Armored Elephant:
image

Bengalis
Dravidians
Gurjaras
Hindustanis

This one has the same problem as above, only worse. The Indian sub-continent never had Battering Rams, as elephants filled that role and there was no need to invent anything else. This can be seen with doors featuring massive spikes to ward of elephants in India.

I cannot find evidence of this from SEA. Four is still better than what Steppe Lancers and Elephant Archers have though…so that’s something.

Dromon:
image

Armenians
Byzantines
Goths
Huns
Romans

A pretty decent selection by comparison to the others. The Dromon however can be seen as quite specific, limited to the Early and High Middle-Ages Mediterranean, so anyone outside of there is unlikely to get them. And even then, not everyone from there used them.

But they are in a decent place by comparison to the earlier entries.

What do you think? Should these units get more access? Especially with all the effort put into modelling and rigging them.

8 Likes
2

I genuinely think the Ethiopians of all civs could get Battle Elephants. It would be strange, for sure, but not inaccurate.

If there were a new Siamese civ at some point in the future, it would have both Elephant Archers and Battle Elephants.

2 Likes
3

If Magyars get steppe lancers I see no reason for why Bulgarians shouldn’t. Maybe they should both get just the first for balance and to depict how they abandoned their nomadic roots (same with Turks).

If byzantines get camels no reason why Romans shouldn’t since western Roman empire included north Africa. Maybe just the first for balance and to depict the loss of Africa to vandals.

1 Like
4

this is interesting from a ‘history-through-gameplay’ perspective. with Magyars I worry that even a few steppe lancers with free +2 attack might be OP

1 Like
5

I think it’s reasonable for current SE Asian civs (Burmese, Khmers, and Malays) as well as potential new ones (Siamese, Chams, and Mons) to get elephant archers since historically they all had rather strong ties with India.

On the other hand, there’s not much historical evidence about their usage of cavalry archers, hence this unit should be removed from their tech tree and be replaced by the elephant archer. The only exception might be the Burmese who historically did have some connection to East Asia (to Nanzhao and to the Tibetans), thus could maybe have access to cavalry archer though without the heavy cavalry archer upgrade.

4 Likes
6

Legionnaire and condottri are also potential regional units if given to other civis.

7

I long for the day when/if Steppe Lancer gets increased distribution. It just feels like such a waste for only the Mongols to be given them apart from Cumans & Tatars, when Huns, Turks & Magyars are equally viable contenders.

2 Likes
8

The Burmese should get access to Elephant Archers instead of Cavalry Archers. They even have a UT called “Howdah” :wink:. Their civilization bonus and their UT could be changed to also affect Elephant Archers.

It wouldn’t be a problem as the Burmese are missing Leather Archer Armor and Ring Archer armor. Their Elephant Archers would have 1 less pierce armor than the Elephant Archers of the Bengalis.

The Huns could get access to Steppe Lancers (maybe without the Elite upgrade).

9

You forgot the Paladin. That is a regional unit too now.

10

New models needed for the Hun and Cuman paladins though.

11

Perhaps they too should get the savar treatment.

12

I had an idea that Howdah could also give Elephant Archers +1 range.

2 Likes
13

Of all the civs in the game, only the Byzantines used them , and only until the 7th or 8th century, I believe

14

Huns and goths could also have them they all share the dromon as well.

15

At first, it sounds weird having legionaries fighting for the huns but you mention them having dromons now. Even onagers were only used by the Western/Eastern Romans (and maybe arabs) and in game, many civs have them.

It feels wrong, but it’s consistent.

Edit: the scorpio is also a weapon that was only used by the Western/Eastern Romans

16

Goths and Huns also worked as fedoratti so makes sense for them to fight as roman units.

17

It should be the other way around then. Both Romans should have access to foederati but no foederati should have to Roman units. But whatever, Aztecs have trebuchets and Chinese have ̶P̶a̶l̶a̶d̶i̶n̶ Knights

Edit: thanks for the correction

18

Chinese dont have paladins I think you got them mixed with someone else.

Someone pointed out huns and cumans have paladins,perhaps they can be changed to something else like the persian paladin.

1 Like
19

Yeap, but they should get a different skin.

1 Like
20

Cumans are kinda European. They moved into Europe so the Paladin might represent that.
They also have the European Trade Cart skin and not the Arabic one.

The Huns on the other hand are just wrong in almost every imaginable way already.
They need more then just a unit skin.
It makes absolutely no sense that they have the Central European Architecture. They could as well have the Aztec one tbh.

Huns already have the Tarkan.
Maybe let the Tarkan just completely replace the Knight line for them.

They worked for the Romans but they themselves didn’t hire Roman Legions.

I think it goes very much against the spirit of those civilisations as enemies of Rome to have Roman units.
On water it makes more sense because you can capture ships and such, also Cannon Galleons are even more out of place for those civilisations.

We have to look at what people want to experience when they play a civilisation not just how to make them historically correct or how to offer interesting gameplay.

1 Like