A general infantry like WR and Berserk.
Cost : 65 food, 25 gold
TT : 12 seconds
HP : 70, 85
Attack : 8, 11
Attack Bonus : +2, +3 vs Building, +2, +3 vs Eagles
Melee Armor : 2
Pierce Armor : 2, 3
Firing Rate : 2
Speed : 1.2
LOS : 3, 5
Elite Upgrade : 1000 food, 700 gold
Disclaimer - I designed this unit long before LOTW.
Cool, you can use such concept for the “Xbow Cavalry” of the Khitans, while I’d use it for the UU of the Jurchens.
Yes, but the Serjeants can only build the Donjon apart from attacking, whereas your version of the Raeu Tribesman is able to collect all kinds of resources apart from attacking, not the same level of complexity.
Believe it or not, I actually feel that a two-mode type of unit would be more troublesome for an unit where both modes are for attack than for an unit where one mode is for attack and the other is for something else unrelated.
I haven’t played with the Rathas that much, but from my limited experience of playing with them, one wrong click could cause me to lose several or even most of my Rathas for nothing. Let’s say if you’re fighting against a group of enemy Pikemen or Halberdiers, and you want to keep the Rathas in the ranged mode, but you wrongly clicked the melee mode, then the Pikemen or Halberdiers would make short work of those Rathas before you even realize it.
However, with my proposed attack/gatherer modes for the Raeu Tribesman it’s harder to mess up. If one mode is only for gathering then you wouldn’t even use the gathering mode for attack to begin with. And the two modes can easily be made visually distinct, like for instance the attack mode would be armed with a spear and a shield but the gathering mode wouldn’t instead it carries a basket. And of course the gathering mode needs to be visually distinct from Villagers as well.
Interesting take…
Seems like this would perfectly fit for an “Legioary” type of unit, so a mix between skirmisher and infantry.
When the enemy units get closer than the minimum range it could automatically shift to melee attack.
If we don’t want to change the current meta too much by introducing this kind of unit, then we still can rename the current Eagle line to make it more generic, especially for potential African civs.
Then maybe, replace Shock Infantry/Elite Light Infantry with stronger Eagle Warrior to be the unique upgrade for the Aztecs.
@UpmostRook9474 I came up with some other names for this generic Eagle line that you mentioned, how about this?
War Club Runner → Axe Runner → Elite Axe Runner
The [Canoe] could replace the basic warship line for Pre-Columbian civilisations and for future Native American civilisations which will be:
Canoe → War Canoe → Sturdy War Canoe (Instead of: Galley → War Galley → Galleon).
I also came up with a new unit concept that is called the [Flare Archer) which will replace the [Trebuchet] for the Native American civilisations and other civilisations that did not use it in reality. The (Crossbowman → Arbalester) upgrade could be renamed to (Improved Archer → Expert Archer) for them as well and the unit won’t wield a crossbow.
Maybe there could be a regional unit called the [Dart Throwing Runner] for the Pre-Columbian civilisations that will use a Spear-Thrower (aka the Atlatl) and which will serve as a substitute for the [Cavalry Archer] that they don’t have access to. It could also have some kind of armor reduction ability similar to the [Obuch], but the Pre-Columbian civilisations will in turn lose their access to the Scorpion line.
The catapult line (Mangonel → Onager → Siege Onager) could still be available for the Pre-Columbian civilisations since it will probably be hard to replace them with something else.
Not bad either, but the names limit the weapons of the units, which I don’t think is as generic as I’d suggest. If the Eagle Warrior is going to be a unique upgrade for the Aztecs, the unit line should use short spears like the current one.
You give them 4 phases, does that mean making them accessible in the Dark Age?
I don’t want to change other units, since only the Eagle Warrior line is the special units designed for horseless regions like the Americas, not shared with other civs, so we could rename them to fit the requires, rather than renaming generic units everyone having. To enrich Native American civs, at best, I might try to make Slingers their regional unit. This requires thinking about how to maintain the uniqueness for the Incas, giving more things to the Jaguar Warriors and how to balance the Mayans.
Oh, it seems I made an error in my previous comment. And no, I didn’t have any intention for them to be available in the Dark Age, I just happened to forget that there are only three phases for the Eagle line. I decided to edit out “Shock Infantry” from the unit line that I previously presented and where the [War Club Runner] will be the first phase once reaching the [Feudal Age].
I won’t deny on this. The reason as for why I included “War Club” and “Axe” in their names is because I remembered reading somewhere that both the Club and the Axe are closely related to each other, where the Axe was apparently developed from the Club by our prehistoric ancestors.
Maybe there could be an upgrade for the Incas that gives the [Slinger] the ability to throw burning projectiles just like the [Huaraca] from [Age of Empires 3], which will make them effective against buildings. Though, this upgrade won’t be that special if the [Staff Slinger] which is another unit concept that I came up with is going to get added to the game. Since some civilisations will be able to upgrade it to the [Fire Bomb Slinger] or [Fire Bomb Grenadier].
If the Aztecs were to be given the [Slinger] and an unique technology that affected it, then they could throw a projectile that causes a bleeding effect, because they did apparently use an alternative type of ammunition for their slings which were clay balls filled with either sharp obsidian flakes or pebbles.
If we were to direct our attention to the Chinese, I know that some people have suggested that the “Fire Lance” could be given to them as a unique unit. But how about also giving them the “Pao Che” (Catapult Cart) as well? The Pao Che was a Whirlwind Mangonel on wheels, it could replace the regular catapult line for them. It would be nice if another unique siege engine was added to the game, since there is so few of them.
I also remembered seeing a post from 2021 where a user made a mod where the [Scorpion] for the Chinese was replaced by a “Triple Ballista”.
I think, in AoE2, maybe giving the Incan Slinger the elite upgrade would be enough when the other civs’ Slinger would not have the elite.
I would say No, as it is not Incan stuff.
But, it is cool so maybe it could be in the scenario editor to enrich the European campaigns.
I’ve heard about this, but I think having Atlatl benefit Slinger as well could already make the enough difference. It’s more important to have something new for the Jaguars, or the Slinger will take its job. I would assume it would get a bonus against cavalry since they don’t have Halberdiers, or get the Condottiero armor class and a bonus against gunpowder, making it good against both infantry and cavalry or gunpowder.
As for the Mayans, this is a difficult problem.
Having the discounted Slinger will give them a huge advantage against units like Eagle, Ghulam and Huskarlk, however these units and their civ have to be able to put enough pressure on the Mayans. I don’t know if making the discount not affect Slinger is enough to mitigate the Mayan advantage on this point. Simply disabling the Slinger for the Mayans is another way, but it’s weird that the regional unit is disabled for the civ of the region.
Essentially already adequately represented by Mangonel line.
How about:
Same collection rate as villager but doesn’t need a drop of building. Resources are instantly deposited into your bank.
Also just 1 population but only available starting the Castle Age.
Maybe lower the Wood cost to 25. 50 is the cost Japanese pay for a drop off building.
Also more HP but not faster construction rate.
I do agree that the [Staff Slinger] unit wouldn’t make a lot of sense for a couple of civilisations in the game, but I am willing to condone this inaccuracy because the main point of this unit is to give the [Feudal Age] som more spice. And this general unit, which will be available to every civilisation in the game, could help with countering Castles in the event that you cannot get to the [Castle Age] as quickly as some other players.
The Staff Sling itself isn’t really a complicated weapon to make, since it is just a sling attached to a wooden staff. But fire bombs on the other hand are more complicated to make and that is why only some civilisations will get access to the [Fire Bomb Slinger] or [Fire Bomb Grenadier] upgrade.
I still think it would be better if the Pre-Columbian civilisations were given a brand new regional unit that uses the Atlatl rather than making the [Slinger] fill the role of a regional unit. The Atlatl was apparently widespread at the time of first European contact and it seems that the Atlatl is represented in the art of multiple Pre-Columbian cultures. I think a unit using the Atlatl would be a better regional unit for the Pre-Columbian civilisations in general.
What could this unit counter, and what would it be countered by? Where would it be trained at?
If it’s a Slinger-type unit, it should counter infantry, but the Archer is already there and do the job very well, and the early infantry was already very weak.
If it is a kind of siege unit, similar to the Camel Catapult/Slingshot mentioned earlier in this thread, it counters archers or buildings. We already have Scout Cavalry, Eagle Scout and Skirmisher against the former. As for countering the latter, we shouldn’t have siege units with ranges beyond towers until the Imperial Age, otherwise it would be broken seriously.
So far, the conclusion is I don’t like the idea very much. I might accept it as an UU for a civ or a regional unit for a region (but the European civs with the well-known sling tradition seem to have pretty much been introduced, so this European stuff may be better left in the editor for the campaigns). However clearly we do not need it for the most of the civs, since the entire rock paper scissors in the early game are already there.
Not to mention something about Fire Bomb upgrade which sounds more like an AoE3 upgrade than an AoE2 stuff.
The Skirmisher’s javelin already represented the Atlatl.
Maybe AoE3 can satisfy you better.
lowering the population limit and not needing to drop resources from buildings already make it OP.
Even if it costs wood (which you are even going to low) and has no double gathering rate, it can still pay for itself in no time.
Bengali Villagers cost 0.9 population. Would that bonus make those villagers more population efficient? Do villagers spend >10% of their work time walking? Slave Farmers also just work 10% faster or Celt Lumberjacks even work 15% faster (effectively only 5% because they don’t have Two-Man Saw). Both without extra cost.
Also they are only available in the Castle Age so they only really help you in the lategame.
They could potentially have other downsides like longer training time and slower movement too. And if it’s still to powerful make them have a slower resource collection rate.
Khaner farmers don’t need drop off either but they are 5% slower.
Not sure if having 50-100% higher cost would offset not having the 5% slower debuff in the long run.
The civilisation could also not have access to all the collection rate upgrades diminishing the benefit of having this unit.
I personally really like the idea of having a special villager that doesn’t need a drop off building. This would be a unique bonus that is a lot more interesting then just the usual +x% better at doing something bonuses.
You can notice that in my original description, this Villager Wagon has +100% building/repairing efficiency and gathering efficiency for ANY kind of resource, so its cost (in resources and population) is also +100% (and maybe also longer training time), which is very reasonable. In AoE3, Settler Wagon is also balanced in this way. And in AoE2, Villager Wagon would be trained at TC, so it’s like you can train 2 Villagers at a time, but you don’t need more Farms for them to work, don’t need more garrison space to protect them, and avoid getting crowded when mining or chopping.
You give it such a strong benefit/cost ratio that even in the middle of the Castle Age, the effect is already very noticeable. That’s what I said, it can pay for itself in almost no time.
Instead of deliberately making it have a strong ability and then deliberately making it accept embarrassing weakening, it is better to figure out the acceptable advantages and disadvantages from the beginning.
“Only when farming”, Khmer Villager does not need to drop, but it still get a minus for this advantage.
Then the Villagers became trash and the economy would be awful before the Castle Age.
This only appears to be an overly extreme approach to design.
But not this kind of design.
It depends.
Having to pay 1.5x or even 2x the cost is quit an investment. Resources that could also just go into more regular villagers.
Also if the training time is higher then it is even more expensive to train them in Castle Age.
Interesting unit and civilisation design doesn’t happen by taking something generic and then changing it up a little.
That was never the philosophy of how AoE was designed. The idea was always to make interesting and unique things and then try to balance them.
A double villager is not very interesting. Yes that’s how they work like in AoE3 but in AoE3 no villager needs a drop off building and also there are many units that cost 2 or more population. In AoE2 no unit costs more then 1 population.
In AoM the Atlantian villagers (Citizens) have a similar design to the Settler Wagon and the unique feature that they don’t need a drop off point.
This was probably also the unique ability of the Settler Wagon before they decided to completely get rid of drop off in AoE3.
Yes but Khmer villagers also don’t cost more.
I was more thinking about not giving them them access to the two Imperial Age technologies, Two-Man Saw and Crop Rotation, forcing them to have more villagers on wood and diminishing the advantage of those villagers not having to walk.
Bengalis have access to all villager technologies besides Stone Shaft Mining (which is arguable the least important) and their villagers cost 10% less population, which probably makes them the most population efficient in the game.
Another more indirect comparison would be the Palymrans from AoE1 that have villagers that cost 50% more (75 food) but work 25% faster without costing more population or taking longer to train.
Not the same game but a very similar game and it’s balanced there.
Not having to walk is not worth more then the 25% higher collection rate on everything. And this unit would cost 2 different resources instead of just more food.
In AoE3 it’s more extreme with the French. Their villagers cost 20% more food and only train 12% slower but are 25% better at everything.
AoE3 gives all civilisations more extreme economic bonuses though.
Since the Villager Wagon gathers EVERY resource fast, sure it has to cost more.
The biggest problem with your idea is that you allow all resources not to be dropped at the buildings. This makes you have to increase the cost a lot or introduce a lot of minus, otherwise it must be broken. However, these things are either still not enough and it is still broken, or they are so heavy that it will not be used at all. I’m not going to make this unit able to drop without the buildings so it’s easier for me to keep it balanced. If I wanted such a unit, I’d consider a new one from scratch instead of changing the Villager Wagon.
IMHO they don’t matter.
I guess then we just have two different ideas.
But I think the visual of carrying a wagon implies either a lot higher carry capacity or not needing to drop off the resources.
It doesn’t visually explain why the villager works more efficiently.
But the double villager concept is easier to balance, and I believe it’s interesting as a second villager type unit for AoE2.
AoE3 has its own rules for how the economy works. On the other hand, the standard of the economic rules of AoE2 is based on the premise that the overwhelming majority of the time resources need to be dropped, so when I introduced it into AoE2, I naturally and reasonably decided that it needs to drop too.
Before the Malays, there was no unit below 1 population either. Obviously, population being not equal to 1 is no longer taboo in this game. Compared with the way of working without dropping resources at all, 2 population is not a problem.
Since human beings let animals bring services to human work, human work efficiency has been greatly improved. Would you like to drag the plow yourself, or let the horse do it? Would you like to thresh the rice yourself, or let the buffalo do it? Would you like to haul the timber down the mountain yourself, or let the elephant do it? Whether it is the double carrying capacity or the double gathering efficiency, it is just a way to reflect this convenience.
[Edited]
About working animals, some incomplete ideas that might be potentially abused:
Hunter’s Dog/Shepherd’s Dog:
Start the game with a Dog. Statistically almost the same as a Villager, and also affected by Loom, but not using population, and can gather food from prey or livestock very quickly (eg, 2x or 2.5x as Villager). However, after there are no animals, it cannot gather other resources, so only help you fight at most.
When it’s gathering food, its visual could have a man appear to help it gather, which looks more reasonable. From the Dark Age, if you want more Dogs, perhaps you can quickly train it at TC and Mill at 50 food. But I think making it trainable would be broken eventually.
Timber Elephant:
Assuming the cost is 250 wood, trainable at Lumber Camp from the Castle Age. Lumberjacks can drop wood off at Timber Elephant, making it like a slow-moving Lumber Camp, just the Lumber Camp techs cannot be researched at it.
It is weak and have no attack ability, might be affected by Loom and might use population, but should not be affected by Stable techs and cavalry armor techs.
Salt Camel Caravan:
Equivalent to the miner’s version of Timber Elephant. With an expensive gold or stone cost, trainable at Mining Camp.
Paddy Water Buffalo:
Given that the distance between the Farm and the corresponding buildings is fixed for a long time, I don’t think this unit needs to be like Timber Elephant and Salt Camel Caravan.
It is a buffalo working in a rice field dragging agricultural implements back and forth. Costs 30 food at Mill. It does not contain any food itself, it can and can only build Farm and gather food on it slowly (eg, 0.5x or 0.33x as Villager), but it use just 0.25 population. At first, Villagers are an more advantageous option, but if there is enough space to build enough Farms later, some Buffaloes can be trained to make more production per unit of population.
These ideas, even if accepted, should likely only be in the scenario editor. Even if they become trainable units, a civilization might not be allowed to have more than 2 types of them.
Horses are the most numerous animals in the game, and Villager Wagon’s wagon is being pulled by a draft horse, a mule or a donkey. So no ideas for those animals.
Anti Cavalry Cavalry
Cost : 60 food, 55 gold
TT : 12 seconds
HP : 85, 110
Attack : 6, 9
+10, +12 vs Cavalry
Melee Armor : 2
Pierce Armor : 1
Firing Rate : 1.8
Speed : 1.4
LOS : 5
Elite Upgrade : 800 food, 800 gold
Hopefully I didn’t make it UP.
Perfect.
In the exchange we could remove the Camels from the Gane,…
From the civ.
This is an UU trained from a castle. Not a regional unit trained from stable. Camel will still have its advantage. Especially heavy camel.