Why? Knight of they not much good HeiGuang too, just more colors on there they are fine. I’m nearly never use knight of they. Just do some if in fight tank for archer to kill mangonel or skirm. It worse if change
I’m increasingly losing interest in having Hei Guang become a regional unit to replace the Knight.
It is quite special in terms of stats, and may not work well with all East Asian civs other than the Three Kingdoms which have been designed around it. Also, it is specific in name and visuals, and doesn’t seem to apply well to even the Chinese after the early Tang Dynasty.
If we get a Xianbei civ in the future, it would be a good fit as its unique Knight replacement along with the Three Kingdoms.
If we need to provide a regional skin for the Knight for East Asia (note, not a regional unit that replaces the Knight), then it would be very appropriate to refer to the armor from the Ming Dynasty. I believe it can fit not only Chinese but also Koreans and Vietnamese very well.
2 Likes
This picture for later of Ming, but yes if can need this mod for east Asia 
. However I knew period three kingdom are but HeiGuang now here it not a mod, and Tang- Song have a bit inherit from previous dynasty.
If you’re personally not using knights with Chinese that’s your choice but many players both at mid and higher elos do go for knights most of the times with Chinese. Hei guang cavalry are cheaper and in imperial age Heavy hei guang I believe are slightly better than cavalier due to 7 p.armor. Chinese have an insane eco and amazing military options. Strengthening it further without a proper penalty to neutralize it is terrible for game balance.
1 Like
But change is good, samurai get new bonus and there only new skin 
, and abit better it can accept
Yeah, by the way, being a regional unit obeys the logic that every kingdom civs that has it must have a bonus attached.
I absolutely agree.
Removed from the game. This is my idea. Also because they were not a siege weapon, it was a defensive weapon. They used them to throw boulders at attackers from behind walls, or other materials to try and set enemy siege weapons on fire.
They tried to copy the damage against the other siege weapons by giving them melee damage and not pierce, then it is not known why they cost food and not wood.
They should be completely revised, as they are they are laughable, like other 3 Kingdoms & patch logic.
I can see why hei guang cav would be a nice fit for chinese but then again, they will have to rebalance the unit because of their strong eco, which I doubt they would do.
Pasture for nomadic civs like huns, mongol, tatar, cuman would be amazing.
This is honestly one of the most baffling things in any of the tech trees.
It’s so illogical. Like just…why? Why does a wooden construct cost food!? I get that Siege Elephants cost food, it’s an elephant. But there’s nothing that can eat on the Traction Treb!
Also the Traction Treb has another name…the Mangonel. It’s literally just the Mangonel.
The only logical explanation I have is that a traction trebuchet needs a lot larger crew than other siege units because it’s powered by humans directly and not a counter weight or torsion like all the other siege units.
Also the whole Mangonel naming error is something Ensemble Studios is to blame for and not Forgotten Empires.
Still baffling that they repeated the same mistake for AoE4, there is no excuse considering they made Springalds instead of Scorpions too.
Where’s the crew then?
There IS no logic here.
Where is the crew for any of the Siege units?
Well why does an Cavalry Archer cost wood despite being a human plus a horse but an Elephant Archer doesn’t?
I’m just trying to find a reason why they did that decision. Doesn’t mean I would have done it the same way.
I mean I like the idea of making siege weapons cost Stone since that seem logical, right? They throw stones so they should cost stone. (Or course Rams and Siege Towers don’t).
The Slinger from AoE1 is still the only unit in the entire series that costs Stone though.
Variable.
But if you’re going to do something like that, at least have them on. Otherwise just make it cost wood.
The worrying reason I have is that they thought it was better balanced this way. Which means that and the existence of the unit being 100% caused by the heroes existing in the castle means this is the cart leading the horse.
I’m not sure if it’s really like that.
Maybe moving the Treb to the Siege Workshop made them realise that there is an empty slot in the Castle.
They already made a unique building to train heroes (Hall of Heroes), they could have just used one of the empty slots in the villager grid (maybe even the Bombard Tower one) for this building and make people build this first before being able to train heroes.
Interesting idea,this is how its in age of chivalry.free slot can be for the hero units.
But surely it is for balance. In terms of cost/statistics, it makes no sense otherwise.
EDIT. A cost consistent with the rest of the game would probably have been 175W 175G.
Traction trebuchet has a cost of 175w/210g. Mounted trebuchets cost 175f/175g. No wood cost for mounted trebuchets, but I think that’s because the game engine is limited to only 3 resource costs (one of which is population).
I think you’ve both conflated two different units here, with all the illogical-ness being a result of that.
Ah! I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now it says they cost Wood?
Techtree Error?