Move the Woad Raider to the scenario editor. Literally nobody will die if that happens. That way they can still be used in campaigns set before the middle ages, without showing up where they don’t belong as well.
If people’s wish of making every civ have a unique castle was fullfilled, a lot of the current castles wouldn’t fit civs in the same set (the default West European and Central European are both based on English castles for example, and the Middle Eastern castle is most likely based on an Italian one). I feel people’s necessity of keeping Ensemble’s stuff untouched goes too far most of the time.
Um… How about reskinning and renaming the UU to Gallowglass who wields a great broadsword/claymore, and then releasing an official mod to reskin and rename the unit back to Woad Raider? Anyone with nostalgic tendencies or a preference for the Woad Raider can maintain the status quo via such an official mod.
This is feasible and can be used in parallel with the official mod mentioned above.
In the last period I think the ‘Wood Raider’ could be moved into the Barracks as a kind of ‘Shrivamsha Rider’ to represent the war-bands of the Early Middle Ages (and so you eliminate the Paladins once and for all).
And then in the castle as a unique unit you put the Gallowglass.
I think it will be at least 3, not 2, since the Hindustanis were available without requiring DoI, so it should be the case whatever takes China’s place, too.
If the aim is just to get rid of Woad Raiders, then this is the simplest solution. If the aim is to give a more historically accurate depiction of Scots and/or Irish, then this is only a very partial solution, because the rest of the civ design is also unhistorical.
By “caliverman” do you mean hand cannoneer? There are several civs that could reasonably have hand cannoneers but don’t.
This wouldn’t fit my aims at all – although, of course, you don’t have to agree with my aims. I also don’t see how Woad Raiders available at the barracks are somehow equivalent to Paladins.
Great comment, would be a shame if it were actually europhoobic. Let’s put every single european town as a new civ in AOE2!!! /s
On a serious topic. I hope that it’s more than two new civs, campsigns for them all and the old Chinese and that those speculated Historical Battles take place not only in that area, but in most Asia. If there were more african civs, could be even about the Indian connections between them…
Yeah I’d felt the whole event was pretty lackluster and not worth the hype, but it’d never occurred to me that BFG being pushed could EXPLAIN why that event was so lackluster. They probably had planned an event for aoem and BFG, and when BFG fell thru everyone else had to pick up the slack.
AoE2 cobbles together something approximating a dlc. Aoe3 shows off two flags, for a dlc they haven’t started yet. AOM is forced to have 15 minutes of cringy AR, and a 30 second video of b-roll footage of someone narrating that technology has improved over the last 20 years.
The best part of the event was AOE:mobile and I don’t give one fishing ship about that game.
Allow me to correct my previous answer, which was in fact too hasty.
Rather than removing it, it would be enough to move it as an additional UU in the Barracks, like the Shrivamsha Rider. You could also copy their arrow dodging mechanics, and make them a decent unit against archers but much weaker in hand-to-hand combact.
But this makes no sense. Among the most iconic things in this game is the tutorial of William Wallace’s Scots fighting the English. On the gameplay side (apart from the current UU and Paladins) they are fairly accurate. Nothing needs to be revolutionised.
That is why I was saying that a middle way can easily be done. Give the Gallowglass as a new infantry unit, move the Raiders as a secondary unique unit and remove the Paladins. And don’t touch anything else.
But how do you not want to divide the Italians into the 30 municipalities that participated in the first anti-emperor league? /s
Maybe if you actually did some research you’d know those things actually did exist and were recorded by the Chinese in their engagements with the Tanguts.
But nope, you don’t even feel like doing research nor do you care about anything but validating your own ignorance.
It’s why armchair historians like yourself have no place in this community, you are neither educated nor do you know better nor can you keep silent in matters you know nothing about.
Please fix your behaviour, it is an embarrassment.
Apologies, I think I’m partly responsible for this thread somehow going off on a tangent about Celts…
This is a great phrase and I hope to work it into everyday conversation from now on!
If by accurate you mean historically accurate, I disagree quite strongly, but this thread isn’t really the place for it. Maybe we should start a new Celts thread.
