Then I think you are goind too far and transforming AoE 2 into a different game that it’s not.
Not that they could not simple emulate what you want with the civ bonuses.
Eh I think minor diferences arent that big of a deal
Either way thats why I mentioned a “diferent gamemode”
There is no ‘minor differences’ in AoE 2 gameplay. By the nature of how the damage system works, if you remove 1 damage from a unit or add one amor to another unit, you could be increasing damage output/taken by massive amounts like 33% or 50%.
Even something like a cavalry units surviving 3 attacks from a pikeman, if you change the HP it means it will die in 2 hits or vice versa.
Different from something like Age of Mythology combat system where you can easily make minor differences because its all based on percentages.
I know ranged umits are tricky, but you could find a sweet spot whwre the unit works similarly to crossbows while dealing less damage abd fires faster
How…?
Get a basic Crossbowman vs basic Skirmisher. 5 attack vs 3 armor.
If you remove 1 damage, you are lowering his damage by 50% against skirmishers. How you find the sweet spot here?
Oh thats an edge case. You will be firing faster against generic elite skirms while still dealing one damage and dying horribly to it.
is it slightly diferent? Yes! That would be the whole pointbof it! Would it still negate the fact that you will want to get elite skirm and the performance against these hypothetical units would be near the same? I dont think so
ok, since the thread have been necroed, I think I’m allowed to reply to old comments
I think I achieved somewhat crossbow looking archers for american civs
The way I’d do it is that they would still be called crossbowman and arbalester. It’s inconsistent with the weapon they’re carring? yes, but it’s consistent with the naming conventions we’ve been using for decades.
A replecament for the archer line wouldn’t be my choice, and names should not be changed as part of a skins set. Among other issues, it could make the pro casting scene resilient to adopt them because of not sharing a common terminology anymore.
Along similar lines to the archer line names topic, do not interpret names literally. Think about AoE2 as an abstraction of reality. Knights are not meant to represent a european trained noblemen in a personal relation with a political superior in the context of a feudal system. A knight is just a cavalry equiped with heavy garments and good quality weapons and armors, as they were in Europe just anywhere else.
A unit named knight could work for every civ without breaking immersion with the appropiate aspect.
3 Likes
I can’t agree with this idea man. Unfortunately the AoE2 combat mechanics do not allow this kinds of things.
But again, they can emulate it with the civ bonuses. Like for example for Aztecs: Infantry and archers fire 10% slower and have 10% less hp but are 10% cheaper.
Easy to understand and implement.
I think your idea is wsy less like AoE2 than mine and misses the whole point of what Im saying
AoE2 bonuses cant have negatives. Thats what tech trees are for, and tying it to civ bonuses is missing the point, the idea would be to make each region feel slightly diferent. I would want it to feel like having a man with an obsidian mace instead of a man with a sword matters slightly on how the game feels and isnt just some nice looking visuals
Also I think you are overreacting a binch by aaying it cant be balanced and will be “completely diferent”. This is jusr a thought exercise but imo it would be a fun idea. Kinda like how in EU4 there are slightly diferent unit types depending in the region you are playing in
What you talking about…? Huns literally start with -100 wood lol.
Unfortunately that’s not what Age2 is about. You can notice that units even upgrade to completely different things (archer to crossbows) because it don’t care about these things.
It needs a redesign of the game that while I would be on board for it, I think most of the playerbase would not want.
Yes, theres some start bonuses,
Thats not what you are talking about here… Theres literally no bonus that nerfs amy unit, building or tech. If you want a trade off in stats you do it with a tech tree change or a new unit. Gpth infantry isnt “quantity over quality” because they have any debuff and in the oposite case the Romans dont have to pay more for their infantry because of a civ debuff, they are just missing supplies
Like if we were to do your idea it could just be done with “Military units cost 10% less” and then remove the second armor tech for both infantry and archers (you can then give them a bonus or UT for imp so it doesnt feel as awful and maybe another bonus for skirmishers and eagles in castle age)
I would never expect or want it to be the main gamemode, just maybe a setting for the people that own the skin DLC.
Whats the difference…? You want to change literally every unit in the game and think a trade off bonus is too far? lol
That’s the same thing with extra steps. And they already do it like with the Romans.
I dont wamt to change a thing! This is just a thought experiment. But debuffs are imo just not in the spirit of AoE2, way more than making there be diferent versions of units for each region.
And again in this ““gamemode”” the objective would be for flavour for regions, I dont care about changing existing civ design to be more extreme, I think having diferent looking units spread thst also play slightly diferent in practice would be fun idk
Its the way the game works. Like it or not you cant argue that theres any debuff for units in the game. The Donjon could have been just a tower with a bonus to be more expensive, but its not, they made a diferent building to acomplish that. Also I would argue that it would feel better in game because it means you need ti take into sccount how good your units are in each stage of the game instead of just having squishy units that always will just be 10% worse.
And yes its diferent with the resources at the game start, units and starting situation are two completely diferent things about the game.
Either way sorry for being so hard headed and insiting on rhis idea but I just think stuff like nerfed units dont fit with the civ design of AoE2 we have gotten since AoK. It was at one point considered for AoK, but it was dropped and I like how they have gone around to create identity with the tech tree. I just think its a neat thing that the devs have used well.
Yes, I agree…we are getting closer to that…a Romae at Bellum civs vs AoE 2 civs is going to be incredible…
Yes, I complain about the delay of the Baltic DLC for AoE 3 for this dlc, but I’ll buy this DLC, I’ll buy it, give me my 300 in my pocket… this even opens the door to having a chronicle of the Barbarian Invasions (390 BC-378 AD) (Roman Republic and Imperial Rome vs Celts and Goths) and Three Kingdoms (220-280 AD)…
Yes, you have to go little by little… you can’t add so many unique mechanics at once because you’d end up turning AoE 2 into something else…
Visual comparison between Chronicles and normal AoE2 units
Chronicles does implement regional skins so it’s interesting to see how close the units are to the base AoE2 units.
I will not look at every single unit and I will leave out the first 2 Ages where there are almost no regional or unique units in AoE2 anyway.
Milita Line
The Swordsman looks relatively similar to the Long Swordsman from AoE2 in both pose and equipment.
The Paragon does look more like the Legionary then the Champion and not too different from the Long Swordsman.
Spearman Line
The Guardsman Line looks pretty different to the Spearman Line since they use small shields instead of two handing the spear.
They somewhat remind me of the Ghulam.
I do like their outline and their spears always pointing upwards makes them easy to spot in larger groups of units.
Archer Line
The switch from Crossbow to a bow is obviously pretty visible but they somehow manage to keep a similar colour scheme and general unit shape compared to the AoE2 Archer Line.
I think the readability of this unit line is better then it first looks like since AoE2 already has a lot of Archer unique units that behave very similar to the Archer line anyway.
Skirmisher
If you don’t zoom in you might not even notice that those are not the AoE2 Skirmishers. They look very similar in pose and equipment. The patters on the armour are the same.
The biggest difference being the different shape of the shield.
Cavalry Archer
This is very similar to the Skirmisher Line. Like the Skirmisher Line they look very similar to AoE2 and even have the same names as the AoE2 units.
Hand Cannon
This unit does not look like a Hand Cannon at all, it looks a lot more like an AoE2 Crossbow Man.
This unit is certainly the one skin with the biggest difference and the most confusing for AoE2 veterans.
Scout Line
The Light Cavalry looks pretty similar to the Light Cavalry from AoE2.
Without the wings the Raider looks pretty different to the Hussar though but it still has the Light Cavalry feel to it.
Considering that those Wings should really not be on the Hussar at all in the first place this skin would fit better into AoE2 then the current one.
All the civilisations that actually had Winged Hussars have unique/regional units with this trait anyway (Poles, Lithuanians and Hungarians).
Knight Line
Besides the colour of the horse there are very little similarities between the Knight and the Lancer.
The Heavy Lancer and the Cavalier look even more different compared to each other.
But the Imperial Lancer looks a lot more then the Paladin. The feathers on the helmet really carry that whole Paladin vibe combined with the heavy armour on the horse.
This line over all looks pretty different compared to the Knight Line, especially because it uses a different weapon.
It makes the units stand out more compared to the Scout line though.
Overall I think those sprites are better then the Knight Line ones but they would probably not be suitable for regional skins within AoE2 because of the readability issues they could cause.
Trebuchet
The unpacked Palintonon looks kinda different compared to a Trebuchet but the packed one is very similar.
But in this case I don’t think that is any issue because there is no unit in the entire game that looks even remotely similar and there is no other unit that can pack and unpack in the first place.
No one could every confuse the Palintonon with anything else, I’m pretty sure.
Ships
I’m not going to compare ships because they actually have different stats and a different counter system so they don’t need to look similar to AoE2 ships anyway.
Summary
I like most of the skins from Chronicles but I think some of them would be too different if they were added to base AoE2.
Obviously the actual skins from Chronicles don’t fit into the timeline of AoE2 so they should not be added themselves with a few exceptions.
But the style of skin would work well in AoE2 and could make civilisations outside of Europe feel a lot more immersive to play.
I hate Aztec Champions with plate armour!
6 Likes