[Just for fun] Unique Units for hypothetical new civs

[UpmostRook9474]

Just some feedback here.

@KarstHillFort77

Elepant Gunner: potentially the UU for the Siamese civ, similar to a slower but tankier version of the Conquistador, has area-of-effect damage.

I don’t see the need for splash damage, especially since it’s already a tough mounted gunpowder unit.
As I stated above for Elephant Connoneer, the attack bonus of gunpowder against infantry is enough to make it counter to the main threat, the Spearmen.

@KarstHillFort77

Imperial Battle Elephant: a plausible second UU for the Siamese, an unique upgrade to the Elite Battle Elephant, filling the gap between a Persian War Elephant and a Battle Elephant.

This is likely not practical, as Elite BE upgrades are already expensive.
I had previously suggested introducing Imperial Hussar as a unit for future Poles, and I was then reminded that the upgrade cost of Hussar already made it impossible to upgrade into the next stage. It also turns out that the devs would rather replace Hussar with Winged Hussar than introduce an upgrade to Hussar.
It’s better way to let Siamese have bonus or UT to improve BE.
On the other hand, as I stated above, I personally want that Siamese second UU is a monk unit.

@KarstHillFort77

Elephant Skirmisher: a skirmisher mounted on an elephant, like a slower but tankier version of the Genitour. Not sure which potential civ it could be assigned, maybe could function as a new regional unit for SE Asian civs.

If it’s a trash unit, it must be weaker than the gold-costing one.
If it’s an Archery Range unit, it might also be weaker than the one at Castle.
If it’s an regional unit, then it might be weaker again than the UU one.

As such, it would have to be incredibly cheap as an elephant unit, otherwise it might be totally useless. But in any case, such a unit is still not as useful as a genaral Skirmisher, making it a highly situational unit and pointless. I remember before in other threads someone else had reminded you that civs don’t need such type of unit unless the civ doesn’t have general Skirmishers, or make it a strong gold UU at Castle.

As long as it’s a gold UU, it has more chance of getting better stats like attack bonuses, making it very effective against all ranged units and even Spearmen, and surviving decently long enough against melee units. That’s how I stated Elephant Javelineer above as well.

@KarstHillFort77

Camel Slinger: the UU for the Tanguts, a camel rider who uses a slingshot or light catapult as his weapon, has a bonus damage against infantry and functions like a faster version of the Slinger.

According to later generations’ analysis of the “Poxi” troop of Xi Xia, it used a large slingshot with net bag to launch stones on camels’ back, which technically close to catapult rather than sling.

Like the Ballista Elephant, the mounted unit + siege weapon unit is always fresh, interesting and exciting to look forward to, although I don’t think it needs a bonus against infantry when it’s somthing like a fast but low attack Mangonel. If it is nothing more than a mounted slinger, it is very similar to the Tibetan Slinger Cavalry I stated above. It’s just that camels are not common in Tibet, so it doesn’t fit the Tibetans.

Anyway, the Tanguts and Tibetans would likely be covered by the same civ if they were to be introduced into the game, due to the political risk and their common ancestry, the Qiangs. If the civ is based primarily on Tibetans, making the Camel Catapult unable as the UU, I’d look forward to seeing it in the scenario editor.

@KarstHillFort77

Tiefutu: the UU for the Jurchens, a heavy cavalry archer type of unit with high base melee and pierce armor but much slower than generic cavalry archers. I imagine it as either having a low pierce attack but its pierce attack would ignore enemy pierce armor, or having a very high charged pierce attack with the first shot then dropping down to average pierce attack and then another high pierce attack when fully charged, basically the charging mechanic used on a ranged unit.

In my impression, this unit was known for its melee charge. As such, it should be a cavalry unit rather than a mounted ranged unit. However, such a melee heavy cavalry unit is already adequately represented in the game by the Paladin, so I personally prefer to make Tiefutu an UT that provides Paladin and UU bonuses, which is similar to the Farimba of Malians, rather than being a unit.

In addition, I don’t think ignoring armor or charge damage is suitable for ranged units with mobility (even though slower than general CA). The Țintaşi, a ranged unit with charge damage, I stated is on foot and might still need to have at least one weaker stat to balance.

On the other hand, in the thread about Nubians before, I have suggested that Nubian archer UU is with standard archer health, speed and armor, very low base attack (like 2 or 3), but fire 33% faster than the Archer line and have Ballistic effect by default. Then, the Castle Age UT named “Archer of the Eye” is still needed to allow this UU (and even defensive buildings’ arrows) to ignore the target’s “base” PA. This requires that such the ability must be unlocked through UT. And, while making UU as the killer of high PA units, the regular Archer line is still better at fighting low PA units.

Well, just for reference.

@KarstHillFort77

Luojuzi: the UU for the Dians/Nanzhao/Lolos, a skirmisher with the speed akin to an Eagle Warrior, but instead of having an anti-archer bonus it has an anti-cavalry bonus.

Similar to Eagle Runner Knight of AoE3? If so, not bad.

@KarstHillFort77

Raeu Tribesman: a plausible second UU for the Dians/Nanzhao/Lolos, a light infantry armed with a trident and a rattan shield, trained at the Barracks in the Castle Age and has no elite upgrade, attacks 20% faster on elevated and on marshy terrains, has a slight anti-cavalry bonus as well.

Can’t find historical reference for this. What is “Raeu”?

There are actually no or very few elevated grounds in many maps, such as the Black Forest and Arena. Triggering on shallows (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by “marshy terrains”) is also erratic, since most maps have almost no shallows, and a few maps have large areas of shallows. This advantage is too dependent on the map.

The Tatar bonus is an extra, based on the fact that units can still function even if they are not on elevated ground. However, if the specialness of this Tribesman is only on that 20%, once the map does not have these conditions, it has no characteristics, which is a pity design in my opinion.
Also, according to your design, the civ of Lolos/Nuosu people already has an anti-cavalry UU, which makes the Tribesman design pale in comparison.

@KarstHillFort77

Fire Lancer: functions like a Fire Ship on land

Using the AoE3 units as an analogy, this is to make it continuously breathe fire like a Flamethrower instead of launching projectiles like a Grenadier. Are you sure it’s what Fire Lance should be like?

@KarstHillFort77

Flail Cavalry: another plausible regional UU for East Asian civs, trained at the Stable in Castle Age and has an elite upgrade, a short-ranged melee cavalry with a scorpion-like capability.

Essentially same as the Iron Flail I stated above.
That makes it feel like a more powerful Steppe Lancer when it is at Stable, and it might be broken as it can be accessed by many civs. It can just be the UU of the Jurchens at Castle.

@KarstHillFort77

Haluwbilau: a plausible UU for the Chams, a melee infantry armed with a short spear and a large shield, can switch itself to skirmisher mode if needed.

Not a fan. This will allow only gold infantry and Mangonel to counter it effectively. Once it is combined with other units like Knights, there are no counter options.
Why not make Elephant Javelineer be their UU?

@KarstHillFort77

Chimu Maceman: a plausible UU for the Chimus, a heavy infantry armed with a large mace, has a bonus damage against buildings and defensive structures, like a dismounted Tarkan.

Pretty similar to my Armanian Maceman.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

I don’t see the need for splash damage, especially since it’s already a tough mounted gunpowder unit.
As I stated above for Elephant Connoneer, the attack bonus of gunpowder against infantry is enough to make it counter to the main threat, the Spearmen.

Well I think giving it an anti-infantry bonus would be too strong considering that it’s already quite tanky, so maybe giving it an anti-spearman bonus is enough.

@UpmostRook9474

This is likely not practical, as Elite BE upgrades are already expensive.
I had previously suggested introducing Imperial Hussar as a unit for future Poles, and I was then reminded that the upgrade cost of Hussar already made it impossible to upgrade into the next stage. It also turns out that the devs would rather replace Hussar with Winged Hussar than introduce an upgrade to Hussar.
It’s better way to let Siamese have bonus or UT to improve BE.
On the other hand, as I stated above, I personally want that Siamese second UU is a monk unit.

Here’s a possible solution, make it a unique upgrade to the Battle Elephant that is only available to the Siamese (hence instead of the elite BE upgrade the Siamese would have access to this), and we could name it Royal BE or Naresuan’s BE, which has slightly stronger base stats than other civs’ elite BE. I personally still want the Siamese second UU to be something elephant related instead of a monk unit.

@UpmostRook9474

If it’s a trash unit, it must be weaker than the gold-costing one.
If it’s an Archery Range unit, it might also be weaker than the one at Castle.
If it’s an regional unit, then it might be weaker again than the UU one.

As such, it would have to be incredibly cheap as an elephant unit, otherwise it might be totally useless. But in any case, such a unit is still not as useful as a genaral Skirmisher, making it a highly situational unit and pointless. I remember before in other threads someone else had reminded you that civs don’t need such type of unit unless the civ doesn’t have general Skirmishers, or make it a strong gold UU at Castle.

As long as it’s a gold UU, it has more chance of getting better stats like attack bonuses, making it very effective against all ranged units and even Spearmen, and surviving decently long enough against melee units. That’s how I stated Elephant Javelineer above as well.

I don’t think it could be a UU since its feature is too generic to be a UU, if somehow it cannot be balanced as a regional Archery Range unit for the SE Asian civs (just like what the devs did turning the Elephant Archer from a UU to a regional unit for the Indian civs) then I see no point of introducing this unit.

@UpmostRook9474

According to later generations’ analysis of the “Poxi” troop of Xi Xia, it used a large slingshot with net bag to launch stones on camels’ back, which technically close to catapult rather than sling.

Like the Ballista Elephant, the mounted unit + siege weapon unit is always fresh, interesting and exciting to look forward to, although I don’t think it needs a bonus against infantry when it’s somthing like a fast but low attack Mangonel. If it is nothing more than a mounted slinger, it is very similar to the Tibetan Slinger Cavalry I stated above. It’s just that camels are not common in Tibet, so it doesn’t fit the Tibetans.

Anyway, the Tanguts and Tibetans would likely be covered by the same civ if they were to be introduced into the game, due to the political risk and their common ancestry, the Qiangs. If the civ is based primarily on Tibetans, making the Camel Catapult unable as the UU, I’d look forward to seeing it in the scenario editor.

I don’t think it’s supposed to be a large catapult, mangonel, or trebuchet type of weapon since it can be mounted on a camel’s back and that limits how large and how heavy it can be. Imagining it as a camel rider armed with a slingshot or perhaps a staff sling is nothing out of the realm of reality, at least it would make much more sense than the scimitar-throwing Mameluke. And it’s not the same as your Tibetan Slinger Cavalry; first it’s not a horse but a camel, and secondly I had this idea as the UU of the Tanguts way back almost two years ago. And no my Tangut civ doesn’t include or represent the Tibetans; it only represents the Tanguts. The Tibetan civ is unlikely to be introduced into the game for obvious reasons, whereas the Tangut civ is much more likely to be introduced if the devs really want to make an East Asian DLC. And the Tanguts certainly had access to camels given their location in northwestern China.

@UpmostRook9474

In my impression, this unit was known for its melee charge. As such, it should be a cavalry unit rather than a mounted ranged unit. However, such a melee heavy cavalry unit is already adequately represented in the game by the Paladin, so I personally prefer to make Tiefutu an UT that provides Paladin and UU bonuses, which is similar to the Farimba of Malians, rather than being a unit.

In addition, I don’t think ignoring armor or charge damage is suitable for ranged units with mobility (even though slower than general CA). The Țintaşi, a ranged unit with charge damage, I stated is on foot and might still need to have at least one weaker stat to balance.

It’s true that Tiefutu was mainly known for their charging ability, but since we already have a lot of melee cavalry UUs and plus the Paladin in the game I think making it a ranged heavy CA type of unit is better. And historically the Sushen, Jurchens, and Manchus were well-known for their archery skills. Their bows weren’t as far-shooting as Mongol, Chinese, or Turkic cavalry bows but they could shoot heavier arrows designed for armor-piercing, that’s where my idea of charged pierce attack comes from. And it’s easy to balance such a unit as well, either making it having a longer frame delay or making it slower (like 1.3 or 1.25 instead of the 1.4 for generic CA).

@UpmostRook9474

Can’t find historical reference for this. What is “Raeu”?

There are actually no or very few elevated grounds in many maps, such as the Black Forest and Arena. Triggering on shallows (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by “marshy terrains”) is also erratic, since most maps have almost no shallows, and a few maps have large areas of shallows. This advantage is too dependent on the map.

The Tatar bonus is an extra, based on the fact that units can still function even if they are not on elevated ground. However, if the specialness of this Tribesman is only on that 20%, once the map does not have these conditions, it has no characteristics, which is a pity design in my opinion.
Also, according to your design, the civ of Lolos/Nuosu people already has an anti-cavalry UU, which makes the Tribesman design pale in comparison.

The Liao/Raeu (僚/獠）were a native people of Southern/Southwestern China first mentioned in the 3rd or 4th century AD and continued to appear in Sinitic records through much of the medieval era as late as the Yuan and early Ming periods. I prefer to use the character 僚 when referring to them since it doesn’t carry the derogatory meaning that the other character does, however the historically accurate character would be the one with the derogatory meaning 獠, as the Sinitic people thought of themselves as the center of the world and gave surrounding peoples bad names. And according to linguistic and historical analysis they were most likely the ancestors of the various Tai-Kradai peoples inhabiting Southwestern China today. I chose to give them the Tai-Kradai name Raeu (meaning “we” or “us”) instead of the Sinitic name Liao because that name would easily confound them with the Liao Khitans, to which they had no relation whatsoever.

And despite they never founded any kingdom of their own, they were quite unruly, rebellious, and warlike, and were a nuisance to the Sinitic people for several centuries. And as such I want them to be represented in the game, of course they cannot be their own civ, however I see them fitting as a second UU for my Dians/Lolos civ since I envision this civ to not only cover Nanzhao/Dali but also the various Non-Sinitic tribes that had existed in surrounding regions.

I agree that at the moment my design for them seems to be rather niche. As a possible remedy we can remove the terrain bonus entirely and either give them a special attack ability (like for instance be able to slow the enemy unit down by X% with each hit) or even better make their attack rate a group-related bonus which would be fitting for their name, like for instance attacks 10% faster when 2 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, 15% faster when 3 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, and so forth (though there needs to be a limit).

And the reason why I think they should have a slight anti-cavalry bonus is because I designed the Dians/Lolos civ as lacking the Halberdier upgrade and relying entirely on the 2 UUs for defense against cavalry.

@UpmostRook9474

Using the AoE3 units as an analogy, this is to make it continuously breathe fire like a Flamethrower instead of launching projectiles like a Grenadier. Are you sure it’s what Fire Lance should be like?

Yes I’m pretty sure that was what the fire lance was originally like when it was first invented sometime around the 10th or the 11th century, basically a large firecracker attached to the end of the spear which could create a lot of flame and smoke to scare away the besieging enemy or enemy horses. And it was not used on horseback like how it’s portrayed in AoE4, it was mainly an infantry weapon used during siege or siege defense. Later versions of the fire lance used during the Ming Dynasty had some shrapnel, pebbles, iron sand, or lead pellets mixed in to add some extra damage, but still it was nowhere near as powerful as a grenade-launcher but more akin to a flamethrower.

@UpmostRook9474

Essentially same as the Iron Flail I stated above.
That makes it feel like a more powerful Steppe Lancer when it is at Stable, and it might be broken as it can be accessed by many civs. It can just be the UU of the Jurchens at Castle.

Sorry but you do not own any of the ideas you mentioned. As long as they stay in the imaginary stage and aren’t added in the actual game there’s no copyright infringement to talk about whatsoever. And I did not copy from you since I believe I had the idea earlier than you. I remember I mentioned it in a thread about how the Korean UU War Wagon isn’t historically accurate; I said that they could have the Flail Cavalry as a potential replacement for the War Wagon, and then you took the idea from there.

From a historical POV it should be a pan-East Asian unit since the Tanguts, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Mongols, the Jurchens/Manchus, and possibly the Vietnamese all had it.

@UpmostRook9474

Not a fan. This will allow only gold infantry and Mangonel to counter it effectively. Once it is combined with other units like Knights, there are no counter options.
Why not make Elephant Javelineer be their UU?

It’s countered not only by gold infantry but also by cavalry and by archers. I imagine it as a raiding unit with bonus damage against civilian units (Villagers, Trade Carts, and Fishing Ship) but not against archers. And I don’t think the Mangonel would be a good counter because when a Mangonel is near it can close-in the distance and switch to melee infantry mode. It’s more versatile than generic skirms due to its ability to switch between 2 modes that’s why it’s a UU.

The reason why I don’t want the Elephant Javelineer to be their UU is that first there’re no records or other historical evidence mentioning it and secondly it’s too generic to be a UU.

@UpmostRook9474

Pretty similar to my Armanian Maceman.

Again you don’t own any of the ideas since they either came from me or from others. And I did not copy from you cause I suggested it for a completely different civ.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

we could name it Royal BE or Naresuan’s BE

I thought so. I had guessed if you were using Naresuan’s battle as a historical reference. In my opinion, Winged Hussar was a special military formation that is too well known, and it can serve more than one civ, so the devs are willing to develop it instead of giving Hussar enhancements. But this new thing that replaces the Elite BE is only assumed to serve Siamese, and it didn’t seem to belong to a kind of special military formation…

Just saying. I really don’t think just making an expensive upgrade more expensive to make an unit with good stats even better is more interesting than a monk unit riding a sacred white elephant…

@KarstHillFort77

I don’t think it could be a UU since its feature is too generic to be a UU, if somehow it cannot be balanced as a regional Archery Range unit for the SE Asian civs (just like what the devs did turning the Elephant Archer from a UU to a regional unit for the Indian civs) then I see no point of introducing this unit.

Camel Archer, Throwing Axeman, Plumed Archer… Being generic has never been the reason why it cannot be a UU, as long as it can provide an experience different from ordinary units.

EA replaces CA. Are you going to replace Skirmishers with Elephant Javelineers?
Of course, not introducing is also a way. Nothing done, nothing wrong.

@KarstHillFort77

I don’t think it’s supposed to be a large catapult, mangonel, or trebuchet type of weapon since it can be mounted on a camel’s back and that limits how large and how heavy it can be.

Of course instead of a camel carrying a big machine, as the analysis I quoted, they put a big slingshot on the camel. What I stated is that the slingshot is close to the catapult technically (physically), all using elastic potential energy.

Such a unit using a large slingshot will certainly not look like a Mangonel in appearance, but the attack mechanism can be similar, such as launching projectiles with a damage range, etc., which makes it effective against archers, siege weapons and buildings.

The brother of Emperor Chongzong of Xi Xia had stated that their army is not very good at fighting against Chinese crossbows. This Tangut civ should be very tricky for archers, so such a cavalry + siege weapon unit could be very useful, especially if you are keen on restoring history.

@KarstHillFort77

whereas the Tangut civ is much more likely to be introduced if the devs really want to make an East Asian DLC.

The Tibetan civ is something that communities around the world aspire to, but the Tangut civ is farly not. If there is the latter but not the former, there is a high probability that this civ also has a lot of Tibetan elements, or is even fundamentally based on Tibetans and just not named to “Tibetans”. This is not just my personal opinion as I’ve seen other people stated the same.

@KarstHillFort77

It’s true that Tiefutu was mainly known for their charging ability, but since we already have a lot of melee cavalry UUs and plus the Paladin in the game I think making it a ranged heavy CA type of unit is better. And historically the Sushen, Jurchens, and Manchus were well-known for their archery skills.

Honestly, this to me is a lot like having the UU of Franks be a kind of axe-throwing knight since they are famous for their knights and axes. Well, it depends on whether dev can accept it.

@KarstHillFort77

And the reason why I think they should have a slight anti-cavalry bonus is because I designed the Dians/Lolos civ as lacking the Halberdier upgrade and relying entirely on the 2 UUs for defense against cavalry.

In my opinion, it’s not a healthy way in the long run to design a tech tree of civ that is missing something core meanly and then introducing more UU to make up for it. If the civ has a second UU or more, then these things should provide different functions to create more strategies and gameplay. The Rattan Archer and Imperial Skirmisher are a less successful example for this point.

@KarstHillFort77

. And it was not used on horseback like how it’s portrayed in AoE4, it was mainly an infantry weapon used during siege or siege defense.

I known this. Just, it is similar to making the Flamethrower accessible at Siege Workshops rather than developing a new type of unit.

@KarstHillFort77

there’s no copyright infringement to talk about whatsoever. And I did not copy from you since I believe I had the idea earlier than you.

I don’t know how you read that, but I’ve not aimed to make such a claim.
Btw, making an Iron-Flail like unit with range and Scorpion-like damage as the UU of Jurchen civilization is an idea I conceived since 5 years ago. At the time, I didn’t even know this forum existed.

@KarstHillFort77

From a historical POV it should be a pan-East Asian unit

As I stated above, being generic has never been the reason why it cannot be a UU, just like I also don’t think Camel Archer and Ghulam should be accessible to all Middle Eastern civilizations.

Obviously I think the Iron Flail will be more interesting and helpful to balance and to create new gameplay as an UU of civ, and there is indeed a folk saying that the Manchu/Jurchens were particularly good at using this type of weapon. (Note, I didn’t mean this saying is true, but it still can stand as an important and interesting reference for the game design.)

@KarstHillFort77

It’s countered not only by gold infantry but also by cavalry and by archers.

According to your original description, this unit can be used in spearman mode against cavalry and skirmisher mode against archers. Obviously it counters both main types of units, unless the description is misleading.

@KarstHillFort77

The reason why I don’t want the Elephant Javelineer to be their UU is that first there’re no records or other historical evidence mentioning it and secondly it’s too generic to be a UU.

Put asides being generic, EJ is a very reasonable existence for elephant civilizations. Warriors on the back of an elephant can throw their spears at the enemy, and the back of the elephant allows the warrior to carry more spears on it. I think there must be such a thing in history, it’s just not considered worth recording.

More importantly than historical records, such an UU is likely to be a successful game design, as it will effectively force the opponent to rely on non-archer units, which is very helpful for the design of civilization gameplay.

If you insist that the UU of this civ must be what you call “Haluwbilau”, then I would suggest making it a pure skirmisher unit that costs wood and gold, has significantly better stats than general Skirmishers and has no minimum range. This can also achieve the effect similar to EJ becoming UU I stated above.

@KarstHillFort77

Again you don’t own any of the ideas since they either came from me or from others. And I did not copy from you cause I suggested it for a completely different civ.

To be honest, I’ve never seriously read the threads about concepts of Chimu civilization.
Before I posted my Armenian civ concept thread, I hadn’t seen anyone mention the idea of a mace-wielding infantry that is good at siege.
Btw, suggestions for use in a different civ do not mean that the mechanics of the unit is not similar.

[SMUM15236]

@casusincorrabil

You need to boost it a lot if you want it viable

Not a lot.

@casusincorrabil

Boyars.

Boyar is bad because it has only 2 PA in Castle age. It performs worse than knight against ranged units and buildings due to slower speed. My unit can take whooping 68 shots from Xbow.

Anyway, I reduced cost and TT a bit. Also increased speed to match Boyar.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

Just saying. I really don’t think just making an expensive upgrade more expensive to make an unit with good stats even better is more interesting than a monk unit riding a sacred white elephant…

I still think that having a unique BE upgrade for the Siamese is a way cooler idea than a monk mounted on an elephant.

@UpmostRook9474

EA replaces CA. Are you going to replace Skirmishers with Elephant Javelineers?

They could potentially replace the CA for some SE Asian civs. Apart from Burmese and Vietnamese who might have deployed CA historically, other more southern SE Asian civs like Khmers, Chams, Malays, Siamese etc. weren’t known to have operated them.

@UpmostRook9474

Of course instead of a camel carrying a big machine, as the analysis I quoted, they put a big slingshot on the camel. What I stated is that the slingshot is close to the catapult technically (physically), all using elastic potential energy.

Such a unit using a large slingshot will certainly not look like a Mangonel in appearance, but the attack mechanism can be similar, such as launching projectiles with a damage range, etc., which makes it effective against archers, siege weapons and buildings.

Could still be depicted in-game as a camel rider using a staff sling, with the projectile following a parabolic trajectory and not a straight trajectory like that of the Slingers. Giving it an anti-siege bonus is probably a bit too broken, just keep it as anti-infantry or anti-archer is good enough.

@UpmostRook9474

The Tibetan civ is something that communities around the world aspire to, but the Tangut civ is farly not. If there is the latter but not the former, there is a high probability that this civ also has a lot of Tibetan elements, or is even fundamentally based on Tibetans and just not named to “Tibetans”. This is not just my personal opinion as I’ve seen other people stated the same.

But the Tibetan civ is highly unlikely to be introduced. The Tangut civ was a fairly important civ in medieval East Asia and has appeared in the Ghengis Khan campaign, I don’t think you can collapse it as merely “Tibetan-like”.

@UpmostRook9474

Honestly, this to me is a lot like having the UU of Franks be a kind of axe-throwing knight since they are famous for their knights and axes. Well, it depends on whether dev can accept it.

Except that your axe-throwing knight is completely made-up while Jurchens horse archers aren’t.

@UpmostRook9474

In my opinion, it’s not a healthy way in the long run to design a tech tree of civ that is missing something core meanly and then introducing more UU to make up for it. If the civ has a second UU or more, then these things should provide different functions to create more strategies and gameplay. The Rattan Archer and Imperial Skirmisher are a less successful example for this point.

I accept this advice. So removing the Raeu Tribesman’s anti-cavalry bonus and just give them a special attack ability (like for instance be able to slow the enemy unit down by X% with each hit) or make their attack rate a group-related bonus which would befitting their name, like for instance attacks 10% faster when 2 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, 15% faster when 3 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, and so forth (though there needs to be a limit). And the Dians/Lolos civ would have access to Halberdier.

@UpmostRook9474

I known this. Just, it is similar to making the Flamethrower accessible at Siege Workshops rather than developing a new type of unit.

I’m not a big fan of siege weapons moving on their own. We already have several of them in-game and I don’t want to see another one. Of course the scenario editor unit could work, but having a siege infantry wielding a fire-spitting fire lance is way cooler.

@UpmostRook9474

I don’t know how you read that, but I’ve not aimed to make such a claim.
Btw, making an Iron-Flail like unit with range and Scorpion-like damage as the UU of Jurchen civilization is an idea I conceived since 5 years ago. At the time, I didn’t even know this forum existed.

You certainly sound like you were trying to monopolize these ideas, however a lot of these ideas have been independently brought up by me and by others. I’ve had the Flail Cavalry idea as well for several years.

@UpmostRook9474

As I stated above, being generic has never been the reason why it cannot be a UU, just like I also don’t think Camel Archer and Ghulam should be accessible to all Middle Eastern civilizations.

Obviously I think the Iron Flail will be more interesting and helpful to balance and to create new gameplay as an UU of civ, and there is indeed a folk saying that the Manchu/Jurchens were particularly good at using this type of weapon. (Note, I didn’t mean this saying is true, but it still can stand as an important and interesting reference for the game design.)

As long as the devs could find something else as the Castle UU for the Berbers and the Hindustanis, I don’t mind turning the Ghulam or the Camel Archer as a regional unit. And I’ve had an idea for a few years for a Middle Eastern regional unit as well, the Hashashin.

And I’m not against your idea of having the Iron Flail as the Jurchen UU, but I think having a heavy CA as their UU with pierce attack that ignores enemy pierce armor or with a charged pierce attack is also quite fun, and such a unit could still be balanced by either giving it a longer frame delay or making it slower.

@UpmostRook9474

According to your original description, this unit can be used in spearman mode against cavalry and skirmisher mode against archers. Obviously it counters both main types of units, unless the description is misleading.

I envision it as primarily a raiding unit with bonus to civilian units or maybe buildings and without the anti-cavalry bonus of the Spearman line or the anti-archer bonus of generic Skirmishers. It can switch itself into two modes, but it won’t behave the same as either the Spearman or the Skirms.

@UpmostRook9474

Put asides being generic, EJ is a very reasonable existence for elephant civilizations. Warriors on the back of an elephant can throw their spears at the enemy, and the back of the elephant allows the warrior to carry more spears on it. I think there must be such a thing in history, it’s just not considered worth recording.

More importantly than historical records, such an UU is likely to be a successful game design, as it will effectively force the opponent to rely on non-archer units, which is very helpful for the design of civilization gameplay.

If you insist that the UU of this civ must be what you call “Haluwbilau”, then I would suggest making it a pure skirmisher unit that costs wood and gold, has significantly better stats than general Skirmishers and has no minimum range. This can also achieve the effect similar to EJ becoming UU I stated above.

I never questioned the existence of such a unit, but I see it more fit as a generic Archery Range unit for some SE Asian civs (a replacement for their CA) rather than as the UU of the Chams. The devs still follow some historical basis when designing the UU of a civ, it’s not completely random. Like you won’t give the Chinese civ the Conquistador as their UU even though cavalryman shooting with handgonne and musket did exist in Chinese records.

And the Haluwbilau (“military officer” in Cham language, I did not make this word up) can easily be made distinct from both the Spearman and the generic Skirmisher if you give it a different attack bonus from those units. I don’t see it as an issue.

@UpmostRook9474

To be honest, I’ve never seriously read the threads about concepts of Chimu civilization.
Before I posted my Armenian civ concept thread, I hadn’t seen anyone mention the idea of a mace-wielding infantry that is good at siege.
Btw, suggestions for use in a different civ do not mean that the mechanics of the unit is not similar.

I’ve never read your Armenian civ concept so it’s impossible for me to copy from you. I’ve had this Chimu mace-wielding siege infantry idea for a couple of years already.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

@UpmostRook9474

EA replaces CA. Are you going to replace Skirmishers with Elephant Javelineers?

They could potentially replace the CA for some SE Asian civs. Apart from Burmese and Vietnamese who might have deployed CA historically, other more southern SE Asian civs like Khmers, Chams, Malays, Siamese etc. weren’t known to have operated them.

IMHO, this is a very bad idea.
For being more accurate, the lack of cavalry archer tradition can be reflected by removing the HCA upgrade easily.

@KarstHillFort77

@UpmostRook9474

Honestly, this to me is a lot like having the UU of Franks be a kind of axe-throwing knight since they are famous for their knights and axes. Well, it depends on whether dev can accept it.

Except that your axe-throwing knight is completely made-up while Jurchens horse archers aren’t.

Axe-throwing warriors are real, knights are real, axe-throwing knights are not.
Tiefutu cavalrymen are real, Jurchen archers are real, Tiefutu cavalrymen as archers are not.

You know what? Ax-throwing knights could be legal in the game as long as they were named “Frankish Knight”, " Merovingian Knight" or the like. They would be similar to the Mamluks, refered from real units but very different from reality. Same thing with Tiefutu as CA unit, that is what I meant.

I have also stated that this is not unacceptable. But if you really want a unit like this but don’t want it to be obtrusive like Mamluks, it’s good practice not to use such a specific name, for example make it just named “Cataphract Archer” or the like.

If using another UU (e.g. Iron Flail) is fine to you as long as their special heavy arrows can be reflected, I would assume that the Jurchen civilization loses the Bracer, but the UT “Heavy arrows” provides Archers and CAs with more attack, and maybe, the another UT “Tiefutu” provides their Iron Flails and Paladins with something like a slight bonus attack against UU.

@KarstHillFort77

So removing the Raeu Tribesman’s anti-cavalry bonus and just give them a special attack ability (like for instance be able to slow the enemy unit down by X% with each hit) or make their attack rate a group-related bonus which would befitting their name, like for instance attacks 10% faster when 2 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, 15% faster when 3 Raeu Tribesmen are attacking the same unit, and so forth (though there needs to be a limit). And the Dians/Lolos civ would have access to Halberdier.

According to your description, the Tribesmen were a group of native residents who did not want to be ruled by the Chinese empires, which means that they should be villagers at first but took up arms.

If I were to design them, I’d make them infantry units that can gather resources. The gathering rate is initially the same as Villagers or slower but not improved by technologies, and the drop-off point is at Barracks instead of the usual economic buildings. This will be a very novel design, so that they can be not just strong or cheap infantry.

In addition, as long as they are not dead, each attack can improve rate of fire a little bit, up to +50%, which means that these residents are becoming more and more proficient in fighting. This is in line with the characteristic of quicker firing that you want to emphasize.

@KarstHillFort77

I envision it as primarily a raiding unit with bonus to civilian units or maybe buildings and without the anti-cavalry bonus of the Spearman line or the anti-archer bonus of generic Skirmishers. It can switch itself into two modes, but it won’t behave the same as either the Spearman or the Skirms.

If a mode can’t help to handle the other mode’s shortcoming for it, then I don’t think there is a need to intentionally create two modes.

Maybe you could make it an Eagle-like unit, but with a different attack bonus and a charge bar. When charged to 100%, it could gain a range allowing it throwing the spear.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

IMHO, this is a very bad idea.
For being more accurate, the lack of cavalry archer tradition can be reflected by removing the HCA upgrade easily.

So maybe removing the HCA upgrade but keeping the CA for these civs, and then adding the EJ as their regional unit which has a bonus against CA.

@UpmostRook9474

Axe-throwing warriors are real, knights are real, axe-throwing knights are not.
Tiefutu cavalrymen are real, Jurchen archers are real, Tiefutu cavalrymen as archers are not.

The East Asian cavalry, just like other cavalries in the world, carried several weapons into battle, bow, lance, and sword or mace were all rather common in their repertoire of weapons. Tiefutu certainly carried bows into battles, this is definitely not my fantasy. If you’re so appalled by the idea of Tiefutu being a cataphract CA unit, then maybe make it a double mode CA with both melee and ranged modes.

@UpmostRook9474

According to your description, the Tribesmen were a group of native residents who did not want to be ruled by the Chinese empires, which means that they should be villagers at first but took up arms.

No they weren’t your typical farmers. At that time much of Southern China was still not developed yet and hence farmlands were much rarer. Historical records mentioned the Raeu as fierce warriors with headhunting tradition (similar to certain Austronesian and Austroasiatic tribes in SE Asia today) and were quite adept at using spear and shield, excellent swimmers and divers able to dive into the bottom of rivers to catch fish, and were also known to build hill forts. That’s the reason why I wanted to give them a terrain bonus in the first place. I think they should still be an infantry unit rather than a semi-villager.

@UpmostRook9474

If a mode can’t help to handle the other mode’s shortcoming for it, then I don’t think there is a need to intentionally create two modes.

I don’t think this is an issue. Having two modes would make it different from both generic Spearman and Skirmisher, and it also has a different attack bonus (against civilian units rather than against cavalry or archers). An UU isn’t supposed to counter everything and have no shortcomings.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

adding the EJ as their regional unit which has a bonus against CA.

Obviously not only me agree that this is hardly a pointful approach.
It couldn’t possibly compete with Skirmishers without being a gold UU so I’d rather not have it or just have it as a scenario editor unit.

@KarstHillFort77

The East Asian cavalry, just like other cavalries in the world, carried several weapons into battle, bow, lance, and sword or mace were all rather common in their repertoire of weapons. Tiefutu certainly carried bows into battles, this is definitely not my fantasy.

I’m not saying this is your fantasy, just as no one can sure that Merovingian knights and Mamluks would never have carried axes and scimitars and hurled them at the enemy when needed.
However, the game isn’t entirely based in reality. We do not and will not allow Knights, Champions, Crossbowmen, Cataphracts, War Elephants, Genoese, Konniks, Kipchaks, Keshiks, Conquistadors, Mangudai… to use more than one kind of weapon, which is a simple and reasonable design.
The recent request for a new mode for Samurai is a rare case that shouldn’t be taken as common sense, as it’s just for saving a failed design.

@KarstHillFort77

then maybe make it a double mode CA with both melee and ranged modes.

I just see another Ratha.
As I stated above, simply naming it “Cataphract Archer”, instead of such a specific term “Tiefutu”, to keep it as pure CA is enough, even though I still prefer Iron Flail.

@KarstHillFort77

No they weren’t your typical farmers.

Resident =/= peasant.
I never stated they have to be farmers… Not to mention it can’t even build farms.
You named it to “tribesman”, simply like just a man living in tribes, so I don’t assume it’s a professional soldier.
I’d make it able to work as one or some among hunter, forager, fisherman or lumberjack.
I give it such an ablility since It still needs some features it’s particularly good at, otherwise I could see it facing unhealthy competition with swordsmen and halberdiers.

@KarstHillFort77

An UU isn’t supposed to counter everything and have no shortcomings.

Having a mode assist another mode is reasonable and does not make the unit without countering everything and having no shortcoming.
Ranged Ratha as the default works better in most situations while Melee Ratha is better at dealing with skirmishers and fleeing enemies than ranged Ratha. That is the meaning of the two modes of Ratha but that doesn’t mean that skirmishers can no longer counter them.
If both modes of your unit are just meant to kill villagers quickly, then we only need one of them.

[SMUM15236]

A mangonel like siege unit. Less attack, and gold cost but higher HP and armor, and speed.

Cost :175 wood, 120 gold
TT : 23 seconds
HP : 60, 75
Attack : 35, 45 (Melee)
+30, +50 vs Building
+35, +45 vs Hussite Wagon
+10 vs Siege
Number of extra projectile : 6, 8
Blast radius : 1, 1.25
Melee Armor : 1
Pierce Armor : 7, 8
Firing Rate : 6
Frame Delay : 0
Attack Delay : 0
Projectile Speed : 3.5
Accuracy : 100%
Speed : 0.7
Range : 7, 8
LOS : 9, 10
Elite Upgrade : 1500 food, 1200 gold

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

Obviously not only me agree that this is hardly a pointful approach.
It couldn’t possibly compete with Skirmishers without being a gold UU so I’d rather not have it or just have it as a scenario editor unit.

Why it needs to compete with the skirms? It’s different from the skirms by virtue of its tankiness, and hence fulfills different roles.

@UpmostRook9474

I’m not saying this is your fantasy, just as no one can sure that Merovingian knights and Mamluks would never have carried axes and scimitars and hurled them at the enemy when needed.

Jurchens heavy CA is 100x more realistic than Merovingian knights throwing axes or Mamelukes throwing scimitars. I know this game isn’t entirely based on reality, but since scimitar-throwing Mamelukes are already in the game I don’t see why portraying the Tiefutu as a heavy CA wouldn’t be accepted.

@UpmostRook9474

As I stated above, simply naming it “Cataphract Archer”, instead of such a specific term “Tiefutu”

Then you might also want to change the Saracen UU’s name from Mameluke to Throwing-Scimitar Camel, since Mameluke is a specific term as well.

As you already mentioned this game isn’t entirely based in reality, so we can have some leeway when designing a UU.

@UpmostRook9474

Resident =/= peasant.
I never stated they have to be farmers… Not to mention it can’t even build farms.
You named it to “tribesman”, simply like just a man living in tribes, so I don’t assume it’s a professional soldier.
I’d make it able to work as one or some among hunter, forager, fisherman or lumberjack.
I give it such an ablility since It still needs some features it’s particularly good at, otherwise I could see it facing unhealthy competition with swordsmen and halberdiers.

It’s an interesting proposal but I don’t think you elaborated it well. Here’s my modification to it:

So the Raeu Tribesman would have two modes: an infantry mode and a gatherer mode (basically two units in one). The default mode is the infantry mode, and it can be switched to the gatherer mode when needed, and can also switch back from the gatherer mode to the infantry mode. It doesn’t have an elite upgrade (this is sufficient to indicate that it’s not a professional soldier), and also doesn’t have any attack bonus (save for maybe a +2 bonus against Eagles in the infantry mode). The gatherer mode has slightly higher HP and attack than a villager, and like the villager it can gather all resources and drop them off at their corresponding drop-off points (though the gathering rate is lower), however it differs crucially from the villager in that it cannot construct any building or defensive structure. And there’s no need to introduce any additional attack abilities, since this alone would make it distinct from any unit in the game so far.

@UpmostRook9474

Having a mode assist another mode is reasonable and does not make the unit without countering everything and having no shortcoming.
Ranged Ratha as the default works better in most situations while Melee Ratha is better at dealing with skirmishers and fleeing enemies than ranged Ratha. That is the meaning of the two modes of Ratha but that doesn’t mean that skirmishers can no longer counter them.

The two modes do assist one another. Let’s say that you have an instance where you want to raid but the enemy is fully walled, then you can switch to the skirm mode and can maybe pick out a few straggling enemy villagers from behind the walls. And when you’re facing siege weapons, then you can switch back to the infantry mode. To better differentiate the two, maybe we could make the infantry mode slightly faster than the skirm or javelineer mode, say 1.2 for infantry mode and 1.1 for skirm mode. And this unit would have two armor classes infantry and archer, meaning that it will be countered by quite a lot of other units and won’t be invincible.

[UpmostRook9474]

@SMUM15236

A mangonel like siege unit. Less attack, and gold cost but higher HP and armor, and speed.

This is highly likely to be abused.
Speed, the biggest disadvantage, has been improved, and the cost gets even lower. Not only is it harder to kill, but the player can make the next one faster. Even if it can’t destroy a Mangonel with one shot, it can still survive and give a second shot, or have another one give a second shot.

@KarstHillFort77

I don’t see why portraying the Tiefutu as a heavy CA wouldn’t be accepted.

Please read carefully the first sentence of the paragraph I am quoting here.

@UpmostRook9474

I have also stated that this is not unacceptable. But if you really want a unit like this but don’t want it to be obtrusive like Mamluks, it’s good practice not to use such a specific name, for example make it just named “Cataphract Archer” or the like.

@KarstHillFort77

Then you might also want to change the Saracen UU’s name from Mameluke to Throwing-Scimitar Camel, since Mameluke is a specific term as well.

As you already mentioned this game isn’t entirely based in reality, so we can have some leeway when designing a UU.

Unspecific names are used to avoid obtrusiveness. The design can certainly have some leeway, but it is always better to reduce the sense of obtrusiveness, especially for a unit that hasn’t been released yet. I also tend to go this way when naming units, eg Sling Cavalry, Crossbow Cavalry, Iron Flail, Elephant Cannoneer… Some of their designs might not necessarily fully reflect 100% of the real, but are also for being interesting.

I don’t think the Mamluk has to be renamed cause the communities have accepted it as a memorable legacy of classic AoE2 content. But, whether or not I want to rename the Mamluk, it would indeed be not be as “strange” as now if it changed its name. Even though throwing scimitar on camel would still not be quite as real, it would be much better, as the players could interpret the specific term Mamluks as referring to their Knights and Camel riders with bonuses, or as referring to the entire army containing this special UU. That’s also why I personally prefer making Tiefutu a UT like Farimba to give bonuses to units (especially those melee heavy cavalry, like Paladin and UU Iron Flail), and giving CA with no Bracer high attack to reflect their special heavy arrows you want to emphasize.

@KarstHillFort77

an infantry mode and a gatherer mode

The mode switching is unnecessary. It could goes to gather or fight directly when a resource or enemy unit is clicked. It can just be an unique unit and infantry unit, with no villager armor class but with the ability to gather resources. Technically this should work, at most grant a new armor class called “tribesman” to it.

@KarstHillFort77

The gatherer mode has slightly higher HP and attack than a villager, and like the villager it can gather all resources and drop them off at their corresponding drop-off points (though the gathering rate is lower), however it differs crucially from the villager in that it cannot construct any building or defensive structure.

As mentioned above, different statistics are not required.
Since technically it would not be a Villager, it won’t benefit from any tech that improves Villager gathering.
Technically it would not be a Hunter, Forager, Lumberjack, etc., so they can’t use corresponding eco building.
These special gatherers called Tribesman would have to drop resources at Barracks.
This will give distinct distinction and character, and be the appropriate limit.
(I guess each eco building has a corresponding set, and the Villager’s “title” must be in the set to drop resources. That is why Hunters cannot use Docks even they carry food like Fishermen. The set of Barrack would only contain Tribesman, and the Tribesman would only be contained in the set of Barrack.)

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

Unspecific names are used to avoid obtrusiveness. The design can certainly have some leeway, but it is always better to reduce the sense of obtrusiveness, especially for a unit that hasn’t been released yet. I also tend to go this way when naming units, eg Sling Cavalry, Crossbow Cavalry, Iron Flail, Elephant Cannoneer… Some of their designs might not necessarily fully reflect 100% of the real, but are also for being interesting.

Whatever you can have your own idea, but I still think having the Tiefutu as a cataphract CA type of UU would be cool. Granted it may not 100% reflect the reality, but it would definitely be much less obtrusive than the scimitar-throwing Mameluke or the walking Samurai and walking Teutonic Knight or the weird War Wagon.

@UpmostRook9474

The mode switching is unnecessary. It could goes to gather or fight directly when a resource or enemy unit is clicked. It can just be an unique unit and infantry unit, with no villager armor class but with the ability to gather resources. Technically this should work, at most grant a new armor class called “tribesman” to it.

I’m not sure if the game engine allows that. If you want to combine two units into one then you’d have to go for two modes. And also having two modes sounds more logical and is easier to adapt for players than one mode doing everything, which appears kind of messy at least from my POV.

@UpmostRook9474

As mentioned above, different statistics are not required.
Since technically it would not be a Villager, it won’t benefit from any tech that improves Villager gathering.
Technically it would not be a Hunter, Forager, Lumberjack, etc., so they can’t use corresponding eco building.
These special gatherers called Tribesman would have to drop resources at Barracks.
This will give distinct distinction and character, and be the appropriate limit.

The fact that the gatherer mode can only gather resources and cannot construct any buildings already makes it distinct from Villagers, there’s no need to make it dropping resources at the Barracks, which is kind of bizarre TBH.

I still feel that it’s better to make gatherers dropping resources at corresponding drop-off locations though give them a lower gathering rate than the Villagers for balance purposes.

Of course if that doesn’t work it’s ok to drop off at Barracks, it all depends on how the game engine works in the end.

[UpmostRook9474]

@KarstHillFort77

Whatever you can have your own idea, but I still think having the Tiefutu as a cataphract CA type of UU would be cool. Granted it may not 100% reflect the reality, but it would definitely be much less obtrusive than the scimitar-throwing Mameluke or the walking Samurai and walking Teutonic Knight or the weird War Wagon.

Whatever you like, but there are historical references to both the samurai and the Teutonic knight dismounting to fight.

@KarstHillFort77

If you want to combine two units into one then you’d have to go for two modes.

Unnecessary. Serjeant also doesn’t require builder mode.
Using the mode switching for this kind of thing is cumbersome. It is quite possible for the player to inadvertently order a “gatherer” to attack or an “infantry” to gather, only to find out after a while that nothing was done.

@KarstHillFort77

I still feel that it’s better to make gatherers dropping resources at corresponding drop-off locations though give them a lower gathering rate than the Villagers for balance purposes.

The existence of such an unit makes a Barrack like a small TC. The player can send this unit to gather reesources with Villagers in various places, because there are already economic buildings built by Villagers nearby. Even if the gathering rate is lower than that of Villagers, it is still a big impact.

As long as it can only drop resources at Barracks, we can limit the effective range it can gather. A lot of wood would be wasted if the player builds Barracks everywhere just for senting it to gather. This is a very reasonable way to balance, and you can also interpret the resources drop at the Barracks as a storage of strategic materials.

[SMUM15236]

@UpmostRook9474

This is highly likely to be abused.
Speed, the biggest disadvantage, has been improved, and the cost gets even lower. Not only is it harder to kill, but the player can make the next one faster. Even if it can’t destroy a Mangonel with one shot, it can still survive and give a second shot, or have another one give a second shot.

This is locked behind a castle. Honestly I’m pretty confident this unit is more likely to be underpowered than overpowered.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

Whatever you like, but there are historical references to both the samurai and the Teutonic knight dismounting to fight.

Whatever you like, but there are historical references for Jurchen horse archers as well. Having Tiefutu as a cataphract CA type of unit may not be entirely accurate, but is definitely historically based.

@UpmostRook9474

Unnecessary. Serjeant also doesn’t require builder mode.

But the Serjeant can only build Donjons, whereas your version of the Raeu Tribesman is supposed to gather all resources and can attack the enemy at the same time, which I doubt that it’s permitted by the game engine.

@UpmostRook9474

Using the mode switching for this kind of thing is cumbersome.

Well, I guess it depends on the individual, for me I don’t think it’s cumbersome.

@UpmostRook9474

The existence of such an unit makes a Barrack like a small TC. The player can send this unit to gather reesources with Villagers in various places, because there are already economic buildings built by Villagers nearby. Even if the gathering rate is lower than that of Villagers, it is still a big impact.

I still feel that dropping off resources at the Barracks is rather weird. If the game engine allows I would still prefer to see the gatherer mode of the Raeu Tribesman dropping resources at the corresponding economic building, and its disability in constructing buildings/defensive structures and having a lower gathering rate than Villagers already serve as balance factors.

[UpmostRook9474]

@SMUM15236

This is locked behind a castle.

Oops, I assumed it is trainable at Siege Workshops.

@KarstHillFort77

Whatever you like, but there are historical references for Jurchen horse archers as well.

There are historical references for Jurchen horse archers, but seems to be not for members of Tiefutu using bows. That is why I have always said the generic name “Cataphract Archer” is more suitable for your design, even though I prefer Iron flail as their UU. I don’t think we need to repeat this argument again and again.

Btw, the concept about being a cataphract-archer-like unit is quite suitable for the Crossbow Cavalry of Khitans. Although few, there is still a record that the members of Tielin, an elite heavy cavalry troop of Liao empire, fired crossbows in 979. Even though there is indeed a reference, I still name it “Crossbow Cavalry” rather than specific “Tielin”.

@KarstHillFort77

But the Serjeant can only build Donjons

Essentially they are same – do something military units usually unable to do.

@KarstHillFort77

Well, I guess it depends on the individual, for me I don’t think it’s cumbersome.

But I’m confident that most people would be troubled by this.

Both modes of Ratha are fighting modes anyway, and except for attack, other stats are the same, so even if the mode is misunderstood, it might not make the battle irreparable. But from your description, the unit has a mode that cannot fight decently and take damage decently, which would make the battle irreparable after a split second of misunderstanding.

In simple terms, you only need to allow a military unit to be able to gather, similar to allowing Serjeant to build and repair Donjon, no need to make it so complicated like different stats and so on. Even if there are two modes in the code, as long as it is automatically switched according to the clicked object, it can pretend that there is no mode switching, not need a button for switching and help save the player a lot of attention. After all, one of the modes is only for resources, and the other is only for enemy units.

[Martinurello]

Ladderman:
A foot soldier carrying a ladder that let other foot units to jump palisades, but not stone walls. Available in barracks from Feudal Age.
Stats:
HP: 50
Armor: 0/1
Speed: 1.1
Cost: 40 W 10 G
TT: 15 sec

[SMUM15236]

Foot archer version of Mangudai.

Cost : 35 wood, 50 gold
TT : 26 seconds
HP : 40
Attack : 5, 7
Attack bonus : +2, +3 vs Siege, +2 vs spearman
Accuracy : 95%
Melee Armor : 0
Pierce Armor : 0
Firing Rate : 2
Speed : 0.96
Range : 5
LOS : 7
Elite Upgrade : 800 food, 800 gold

[UpmostRook9474]

@UpmostRook9474

UU of the Tibetans: Sling Cavalry

It can of course also be on foot if people think it is unreasonable as a mounted unit. It can be a unique upgrade to the existing Slinger, or a new sling unit line, if it is trained at Archery Ranges instead of Castles.

@UpmostRook9474

On the other hand, in a thread about Nubians before, I have suggested that Nubian archer UU is with standard archer health, speed and armor, very low base attack (like 2 or 3), but fire 33% faster than the Archer line and have Ballistic effect by default. Then, the Castle Age UT named “Archer of the Eye” is still needed to allow this UU (and even defensive buildings’ arrows) to ignore the target’s “base” PA. This requires that such the ability must be unlocked through UT. And, while making UU as the killer of high PA units, the regular Archer line is still better at fighting low PA units.

To make the UU better against high PA units but worse against low PA units than the Archer line, it could also be another mechanic to make each arrow irrelevant to PA and cause damage of X% of the maximum HP.

@Martinurello

Ladderman:
A foot soldier carrying a ladder that let other foot units to jump palisades, but not stone walls. Available in barracks from Feudal Age.

It’s all for naught when one can always build houses or second palisades.

---

Some of ideas that I have mentioned on other threads:

• Armoured Cavalry and Horse Archer/Bow Rider:
  Perhaps Knight and Cavalry Archer may also be able to have their weaker feudal version like Camel Scout (but they do not necessary to be scout units).

• Gyrfalcon:
  A bird-type unique unit that the player cannot control.
  Start the game with this bird that provides LoS. You can’t control where it flies, but it continues to give you a small scouting area, and other players won’t be able to recognize it or attack it.

• Heavy Pikeman:
  No Halberdiers, but Pikemen can be upgraded to Heavy Pikemen at a relatively cheaper price.

• Heavy Crossbowman
  No Arbalesters, but Crossbowmen can be upgraded to Heavy Crossbowmen at a relatively higher/lower price. The Heavy Crossbowman will have a new skin different from Genoese Crossbowman and new stats that stronger/weaker than the Arbalester.

• Streltsy
  After Chemistry is researched, it can be trained at Archery Ranges for the Slavs, replacing the generic Hand Cannoneer (that they do not have so far). Perhaps compared to HC, it could cost more food and less gold; in addition, although the attack power is relatively low, its iconic axe can be used as a support and a protective weapon, so it could has better accuracy, faster rate of fire and higher melee armor.

• Culverin:
  A gunpowder siege weapon trainable at Siege Workshops after Chemistry is researched.
  Compared to the Bombard Cannon, Culverin has a 16 range and a bit faster speed, but does much less damage, especially to buildings. It should be good at countering siege weapons, like how it works in AoE3.

• Galleass:
  Large defensive ship UU. Expensive, slow, big hitbox but high health, garrisonable and able to fire without turning. It has two modes that take a short time to switch: mobile mode and anchored mode. The former allows it to move, but can only attack in the common way. The latter makes it immobile, but has high attack, high armor, long range, and multiple projectiles, as if it’s a castle on the water. Garrisoned melee units make it faster in the mobile mode, and garrisoned ranged units allow it to have more projectiles in the anchored mode. This idea applies to somthing like Thirisadai, or like potentially the Italian UU Galleass for more Venetian flavors.

• Machanic for Berserk remake:
  For every 10% loss of HP, attack and rate of fire increase by 10%. When being healed or regenerating, this 2 type of stats will decrease by 10% for every 10% regain of HP, so the stats could return to the origin when the health is full.

• Machanic for Throwing Axeman remake or for a new infantry unit of this type:
  It is a close melee unit with a charge bar. When the charge bar is full, the UU would gain a range to throw its weapon. When the weapon is thrown, it cause a ranged melee damage, then the bar goes to zero and the UU loses the range.

• Machanic for Tarkan remake:
  When Tarkan is attacking a non-ship unit, it will have a normal (or even better) rate of fire instead of the current slow one, but lose the attack bonus. At this time it will fight with sharp cold weapons such as swords or spears rather than with a torch.
  When Tarkan is attacking a building or ship, it won’t get an improved rate of fire and have a very low attack (perhaps 1), but have a melee range (perhaps 2 or 3) and their iconic attack bonus against buildings and ships. At this time the attack animation will be waving the torch as it is now, with the torch as the projectile being thrown on those wooden things. Burning blazingly.
  Inspired by the siege mechanic in AoE3. These two modes may need to be switched manually, or switched automatically depending on the type of the target.

[Martinurello]

@UpmostRook9474

It’s all for naught when one can always build houses or second palisades.

Yes, that’s why its trining time is too short and speed is high. The key for thid unit success is the surprise factor.
And even if your enemy double wall all his base the investment is higher than only one ladderman