[Just for fun] Reginal units for hypothetical new civs and old civs

This thread is obviously inspired by [Just for fun] Unique Units for hypothetical new civs and the even older thread [Just for fun] Unique bonuses for hypothetical new civs

Regional units are one of the coolest concepts of AoE2 that don’t really exist in any other AoE game (Definitely not in AoE1/4/AoM/AoEO) besides maybe in AoE3 but not really.
Unlike Unique units they are not limited to the Castle and obviously also not limited to one civilisations.
They are also a feature that can give some new variety to older civilisations (like they did Mongols and Lithuanians for example).

Types or regional units

  • Complete replacement of generic units (doesn’t have to be the same role in practice)
  • Semi replacement of generic units
  • Unique unit role
  • Upgrade to generic unit

Camel Rider: Unique unit role
Eagle Warrior: Complete replacement of both Knight and Scout line
Battle Elephant: Semi replacement for the Knight (some civilisations keep the Knight some lose it)
Steppe Lancer: Unique unit role (maybe kinda replacement for Knight or Scout line)
Winged Hussar: Upgrade to generic unit
Armoured Elephant: Complete replacement of the Rams.
Elephant Archer: Complete replacement of the Cavalry Archer

What should a Regional Unit concept have

  • Old an new civilisations (or geographical regions) that can train it
  • What type of Regional Unit it is (does it replace anything)
  • What role does it have on the battlefield
  • How would it impact matchups with other civilisations (how to counter it)
  • What civilisation bonuses and unique technologies could affect it (Most regional are heavily changed by those bonuses, very rarely do they have base stats.)

I don’t think listing of exact stats is a good idea because those things need testing.
The should also not be made available for a large number of old civilisations.
They also shouldn’t have too unique mechanics or traits because those should be reserved for actual unique units.

Some of my ideas

Currently all regional units are mounted units with the exception of the Eagle Warrior, which is a replacement for mounted units.
Every single one of them gets at last some bonus damage form Pikeman.
There should be more unique Infantry and Archers.
Also we shouldn’t forget the Siege units and Ships


I posted some ideas in How could a new “Power Unit” Infantry look like?


  • Available to East, South East and/or South Asian civilisations.
  • Additional Barracks unit
  • Good piercing armour but bonus damage against cavalry
  • High Gold cost
  • Would be countered by other Infantry (Potentially Eagle Warrior Tag)
  • Potentially can switch modes to offence mode where it drops the shield to gain speed and attack damage (especially against cavalry) but loses the piercing armour.

This unit would need a better name.
The idea is to have an Infantry unit that can fight both Knights and Crossbows effectively. This unit would be there to brake the usual early Castle Age dominance of those two units but without being OP itself.

“Trash Eagle”

  • Available to Southern African civilisations. Maybe also Ethiopians.
  • Replaces or substitutes Knights and Scouts
  • Being a version of the Eagle Warrior that is a lot cheaper but also weaker.
  • Low Gold cost (10-20 Gold)
  • Would still be countered by Infantry but potentially also by cavalry
  • A unique technology could turn the Gold cost into Wood cost (that civilisation would not have access to all blacksmith upgrades)
  • A different unique technology could give them attack bonus against cavalry to make them a better all round unit.

Horses were not common in the Southern parts of Africa so other unit types need to replace them in those civilisations. Since that is a shared trade this unit should be regional rather then unique.
They would also neatly fit into the Ethiopian Tech tree since they already have bad cavalry and focus on “glass cannon” units.


Mounted Crossbowmen

  • Available to some European civilisation, like the potential Venetians.
  • Would replace the Cavalry Archer and while also having a similar role as Camels
  • Do bonus damage against cavalry
  • More amour but slower then Cavalry Archer
  • Countered by Skirmishers (also normal Archers) and Camels
  • Some civilisations that get this unit would need to lose the Halberdier for balance reasons

This unit would both fulfil the role of a Cavalry Archer and a Camel Rider for European civilisations. It has to be worse at both task for balance reasons.
Also none of the old civilisations that would get this unit have access to Parthian Tactics. Some of them might also need to lose the Halberdier like the Italians that have a unique Crossbowman that counters cavalry.
This could potentially be a unit for the Franks, Burgundians, Teutones, Poles, Bohemians, Italians or Sicilians but obviously not for all of them.
Not for Eastern Europeans (Poles and Bohemians are not Eastern European) since they often have bonuses for Cavalry Archers.


  • Available to Aztecs, Mayans and potential new civilisations like the Zapotec. Not available to the Incans.
  • Doesn’t really replace anything but would the the slot of the Cavalry Archer
  • High speed (like Eagle Warrior)
  • Attack bonus against Infantry or Cavalry (not Archers, that’s what the skirmisher is for)
  • Countered by Skirmishers (as well all all other Archers) and either Cavalry or Infantry (given the Eagle Warrior tag in this case)
  • The unique technologies effecting Skirmishers could also effect this unit

The role of the Atlatl would be either a hand cannon replacement (like the Slinger) that is good against Infantry or alternatively be more like the Eagle Warrior Knight from AoE3 as a ranged anti cavalry unit.
Which role it should have depends on how the new civilisations like Zapotec would be designed. An anti Infantry role would conflict with the Aztec and somewhat the Mayan unique units though and maybe make them to strong paired with Eagle Warriors.
If they had an anti cavalry role they would share the same weakness with the Eagle Warrior and be a good supplement for the Aztec and Mayan unique units.

Composite Bowmen

  • Available to Central or Southern Asian civilisations like potential new Indian civilisations
  • Unique upgrade to Bowmen, replaces Crossbow and Arbalester
  • Increased rate of fire, movement speed and potentially range compared to Crossbow and Arbalester but less damage.
  • Would largely play the same way and therefor have the same counters

This unit would be relatively equal to the normal Archer upgrades but potentially excel with new Archer civilisations giving them a uniqueness compared to existing Archer civilisations like the Britons and the Chinese.
They would struggle more against high piercing armour, especially Skirmishers.

Siege Units


  • Available to North American Civilisations
  • Would supplement the bad Siege Units they have
  • Relatively slow unit with very high pierce armour and throws torches at low range that do bonus damage against buildings.
  • Countered by any melee unit and siege that does melee damage
  • Unique technologies could give them a small AoE, make them faster or give them better attack damage against units

This unit is inspired by the Matlet from AoE3. In that game it plays the role of a siege unit for the Haudenosaunee. Since most North American civilisation would likely share a common weak siege techtree this unit would work well to close that gap.
It can’t fully replace the Mangonel (anti Archer role), Ram (anti wall role) or Trebuchet (anti Castle role) though.

Traction Trebuchet

  • Could be pretty much anywhere tbh.
  • Would supplement the Siege Weapons lineup. Only available to civilisations without the Bombard Cannon.
  • Available in the Castle Age but barely outranges Castles and Towers. Also doesn’t do much damage.
  • Needs an upgrade to outrange Imperial Castles and Towers.
  • It would give an option to destroy Castles from range but without the enormous damage that the normal Trebuchet has and also less then Bombard Cannon.
  • Trainable in the Siege Workshop instead of the Castle.
  • Packs and unpacks much faster then normal Trebuchet.

It would be the worse version of both Trebuchet and Bombard cannon in most situations but also be cheaper and available earlier.
It’s only available to civilisations without Bombard cannons since they are just better in every way.


Catapult Ship

  • Available to Early Medieval Civilisations like the potential new West Roman civilisation.
  • Inferior version of the Cannon Galleon
  • Would be countered the same way of course
  • Unique technologies could give them a more Mangonel like AoE to make them actually useful in ship to ship combat

This unit would allow the rebalance the naval combat a little since some civilisations don’t have the Cannon Galley just for historical reasons while others have it despite it making very little sense historically.

Archer/Tower Ship

  • Available to East Asian Civilisations
  • Ship with low attack damage that can station Archers to gain more damage
  • Same role as the Galley line
  • Unique technologies could allow Hand Cannons to fire bullets from it, increase the limit of stationed Archers or give it a better base attack.

Onager Ship

  • Not sure where that would fit best
  • Replaces Fire Ship
  • Does AoE damage but is bad at hitting moving targets (like Demolition Ships) since they don’t benefit from Ballistics
  • Has a minimal range
  • Also countered by Fire Ships

This unit would be pretty good against large late game navies since it’s AoE, but the leak of ballistics and the minimal range makes them very weak against Demolition Ships and Fire Ships.


  • Available to North American Civilisations and Potentially all American Civilisations
  • The only true Trash ship that doesn’t cost Gold.
  • Weakest of all ships.
  • Uses a bow to attack and has very low HP
  • Can make up for the bad naval techtree of those civilisations in lategame

This unit would be a very population inefficiant ship but still useful in latemgame when Gold becomes very valuable.
Especially weak against anything with AoE damage.


I love this topic!!!

Regional Units are the best option for giving more immersion and correction for old civs.

1 Like

Boyars as knight replacement for civis which had them historically slavs lithuanians etc.

1 Like

Maybe the name for this “Atlatl” unit could instead be [Dart Throwing Runner] or [Atlatl Runner]. Atlatl just refers to the weapon itself and not the person using it. This unit could also have some kind of armour reduction ability similar to the [Obuch], and while adding it as a regional unit for the Pre-Columbian civilisations the Scorpion line could in turn be removed from these civilisations.

This unit could work, but it would be better if the name for the “Traction Trebuchet” was changed to “Mangonel” instead. Mangonel is a more fitting name for this unit historically speaking than “Traction Trebuchet”, since the latter is a modern term together with “Counterweight Trebuchet”.

And yes I know that there is already a unit in the game that has the name Mangonel, but the name for this catapult is incorrect because the word “Mangonel” is another name for the “Traction Trebuchet”.

The name for the current in-game “Mangonel” together with the other upgrades for this unit line could be renamed to:

Catapult → Reinforced Catapult → Siege Catapult (Instead of: Mangonel → Onager → Siege Onager).

By correcting this inaccuracy it will put the “Torsion Mangonel Myth” into the light.

this game has survived for 20 years without ‘revolutions’ like this. I don’t think it is good to overhaul this game like that:

  • at least half the current community won’t like it
  • returning players will be confused
  • it will make viewing experience worse as unit recognition disappears

if you want this make it a data mod


Assuming the Slaves get split apart like India, how would a regional Boyar look like?
The current unique Boyar has a massive melee armour and therefor plays quit a bit different then the normal Knight line.

That would cause a lot of confusion. Plus this issue might not even apply to all languages anyway.

Giving a new unit the name of an old unit is not a good idea.
If anything no unit should be called Mangonel. This would be less confusing.

You are talking about Mangonel renaming or Regional units in general?

Regional units aren’t new the the game and most recent DLCs have added one to the game.
I did never imply that they should change the rate of new regional units being added to the game.
But I wrote that each regional unit should not be made available for a large number of old civilisations.

The latest DLC added more regional and unique units then previous ones and according to the roadmap it sounds like they might want to do something similar again.

1 Like

Slavs already have been split. Bohemians. Poles. Bulgarians.
Why would they need another split?

We dont need regional units for everything. Leaves it alonr


I think it’s more interesting if regional units are played differently from common ones. The eagle warrior is a replacement for light cavalry, yet it doesn’t have all the same strengths and weaknesses. I think boyars should keep being used as slower, yet extremely tanky knights, at least against melee attacks.

Aditionally, I think Cataphracts could become a “regional” replacement to the knight line for Byzantines, Persians, Chinese and Central Asian civs, and Britons and Sicilians could get the Norman Knight (with better LOS and speed than the regular Knight line) as a replacement for the cavalier only.

It wasn’t my suggestion to split Slaves.
I think we have enough European Civilisations already, including Eastern Europe.

Did you read my post at all? Or are you also against the recent DLCs that were added to the game?
I don’t suggest anything that hasn’t already been done.

Not sure if it’s a good idea to turn a unique unit 1 to 1 into a regional unit.
Not requiring a castle anymore makes them a lot easier to train.

Oh, I’m not talking about a 1/1 conversion, obviously they should be nerfed. Just they should keep being slower and tankier than the knight line, but with maybe the numbers reduced.

My question was how should it be changed from the unique unit.

But a different issue I have with the Boyar becoming a regional unit is strange priorities.
Eastern Europe is arguable culturally the closest area to Western Europe in the world but all other parts of the world (other then America and now India) have the same Knight unit. It would be strange if the Eastern Europeans would be the ones that get the unique Knight replacement while Asians and Africans still keep the normal Knight line.

Legionary as regional units for Franks, Goths, Byzantines, & Romans (if the leaks are true). I also want them to have the ability to construct defensive buildings like walls, outposts, & towers. I don’t know if this would be balanced or not so how do you guys think of this?

Why should they get a legion? Also building stuff is already a uu gimmick so does it make sense to give it to another unit?

Well, I also want regional variants for other parts of the world. I just didn’t need to describe them, as you already did.

Why Goths? They thought the Romans and didn’t become Romans.
But even more confusing are the Franks? They are basically late Medieval French with their focus on heavy cavalry in the game and not really Early Medieval Franks.

Sentry Towers would be a unique building? Cheaper version of the normal Tower?
Maybe they could get the Fortified Palisade Wall as a unique building.

So kinda the reverse of Serjeants that can construct more expensive towers.

1 Like

I guess because Franks and Goths were both used as foedatori by the Romans (though I don’t think the legionary system was really anything recognisable for someone used to its Late Republic version).
And to me the Franks are better at representing the Carolingians rather than late Medieval France. Throwing axes weren’t in use anymore under the Capetians, and the Franks started focusing on cavalry when Charles Martel was in power. The paladin was even specifically a carolingian thing.

1 Like

While they were indeed often fought each other, many of the Goths are also in the Foedorati ranks. During the reign of Theodosius there are even a few of them who entered the ranks of Magister Militum, Stilicho for one is of Vandal origin.

They got Throwing Axeman…

1 Like

Roman Army during the Crisis of the Third Century DOCUMENTARY
Source: Kings & Generals

Barbarians in Late Roman Armies
Source: Wikipedia

They didn’t have cannons in Carolingian times though, did they? Also the peak of their heavy cavalry was at the end of the Middle Ages.
The Axe Throwers feel kinda out of place, especially because they don’t look like the real ones at all, not even remotely. AoM did that better.

So I don’t think adding Late Antiquity to the Franks is a good idea, especially because they are already a fan favourite as the Knight/Paladin civilisation.

Maybe Axe Throwers should be turned into a regional unit like they did with the Elephant Archers. For potential new civilisations like the Saxons or old ones like Goths and Vikings.

I know but that would not fit to the personality of the Goths. Just because they also thought on the side of the Romans doesn’t mean the whole civilisation should be designed as a Roman ally.
Also you would have to remove that unit from pretty much every Scenario the Goths appear in.

The Winged Hussar is also a Regional Unit that is only shared by two civilisations. I think it would be enough if West and East Rome (Byzantines) can train them.

What would be the unique unit for the Romans though? Not the Centurion as a cavalry, that would be strange because then they would basically just copy the Byzantines.

1 Like

I like to think that they should rename the Centurion units as Scholai and the Byzantine’s Catas as Excubitores, since Centurion is a rank not a unit name.