【PVP】Old civilizations require units diversity

Old civilizations need to be more differentiated.Savar and Legionary are good ideas, I suggest more unique units as replacements to common units, for example:
crossbowman renamed to heavy crossbowman, Cost increased to 30 wood / 50 gold.
Gain +1/2/3 bonus vs cav unit & infantry unit, Attack speed changed from 2.0 to 2.5,gain +1/2/3 Armor while stop moving.

pikeman renamed to heavy pikeman, Cost increased to 35 food / 35 wood, gain +1 range, move speed decreased to 0.9.

camel rider renamed to camel Raider, Cost increased to 75 food / 60 gold, reduces the damage of nearby enemy Cavalry units by 20%.

spearman renamed to Poisoned Javelin Thrower, Cost increased to 35 food / 35 wood, spears will inflict an extra damage over time effect with their arrows, dealing 3 damage over 6 seconds.

Militia Line units renamed to shield warrior, Cost increased to 60 food / 30gold,
can “dodge” 0/0/1/2/3 consecutive projectiles in a 20 second time frame, gain +1/2/3/3/3 vs trash units.

scout line renamed to Steppe raider, Cost increased to 80 food / 20 wood, gain +1/2/3 vs range unit.


@cylinder94 Love the idea. This would definitely add a lot of flavour to the game for the old civilizations.


While I’m not directly opposed to having more differentiation between civs, 'm not completely sold on some of these proposals.
If were going to make the game more complicated and assymetrical, it should at least be based on thematical or historical elements. “Heavy pikemen”, “Steppe raider”, “Shield Warrior” doesn’t convince me at all. It feels like diversification just for the sake of diversification.


A lot of these effects don’t really feel in line with how AoE II should be. They sound more befitting AoE IV.


In my opinion, units from each culture (and maybe even from each region) should receive their own unique look, but in such a way as to maintain consistency in the game.

These cultural circles could be:

  1. European,
  2. East Asian/Southeast Asian,
  3. Middle Eastern/Indian,
  4. Native American,
  5. African

I suggested that Trade Carts in DE received a unique look based on this.



Why not learn from AoE iv? AoE iv is a good game too

They need to put a shirt on the guy in the European model. Makes no sense to be barebodied.


if I was that shredded I wouldn’t wear a shirt either


Ensemble originally had a Trade Cart model in European clothes. A close-up render can be seen on the physical tech tree card.
trade cart tech tree

They probably replaced it with the unclothed version to make it more generic, similar to the male Villager.

Like you said, now that AoE2DE has regional Trade Carts, ideally they should have accounted for that and updated the European model with clothes. But eh, it’s not the only problem the regional Trade Carts have::

  • African model: pulled by an auroch (!) instead of a Sub-Saharan animal; a donkey should’ve been perfect.
  • Asian model: cart is vaguely Orientalist with the mysterious bent rails; pulled by an African water buffalo instead of an Asian swamp buffalo, same problem as every water buffalo model in game.
  • A horse or camel model would be more suited to the Mongols.
1 Like

The auroch/bull should be added as a herdable animal. Its a great model.

For the African trade cart, an Ankole cattle pulling the ox cart would work. Agree that the Mongol could have a camel, horse or even better # ### (when they introduce the Tibetans). Interestingly the Indian civs have some pulled by camel (Hindustanis, Gurjaras) and the Bengali/Dravidian trade carts pulled by buffaloes.

The devs should add Camel Caravans (Bactrian/Dromedary camels) - similar to the donkeys which can trade on their own.

1 Like

All the female villagers are gonna love you.

…Your idea of unique is just putting “heavy” in front of the regular unit’s name and calling it a day?


What!? I would love to upgrade to heavy female villager!!


Hehehehehehe :smirk:

20 characters

You can give these units any name you want, what I am focus on unit diversity, not proper names

Agree that civilizations should be more differentiated by replacing certain common units. However, the names seems a little generic. I have some suggestions on the types of unit that could be added/replaced (grouped by geography). The stats of these units are omitted for discussions and theory-crafting.

Britons, Celts: Hobelar (replace Hussar).

Franks, Burgundians: Routier (replace Pikeman).

Spanish, Portuguese: Almogavar (replace Skirmisher).

Teutons: Landsknecht (replace Pikeman).

Vikings: Ulfsark (Viking version of Eagle Warrior), compensates for their poor cavalry line.

Slavs: Bardish Axeman (replace Champion).

Bulgarians: Avar Raider (replace Cavalry Archer).

Goths: Taifali (replace Knight).

Byzantine: Varangians (replace Champion).

Ethiopians: Nubian Archer (replace Crossbowman, is the Archer of the Eyes).

Malian: Lifidi Horseman (replace Knight).

Huns, Magyars: Szekely (replace Cavalry Archer).

Turks, Saracen: Ghazi (replace Light Cavalry).

Chinese: Three-eyed Gun (Chinese version of and cannoneer). Alternatively, Firelancer (replace Spearman).

Korean: Hwarang (replace Archer, I have no idea why this is not originally the Korean UU).

Japanese: Sohei (replace Pikeman).

I skipped some civilizations that have 2 UUs or unique mechanisms (and Meso civs, as I am not too familiar with the history there). Note that the unit names are just for discussion. If there are too many units, they can be further generalized geographically. (For example, the Firelancer can be a UU for Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.)


Do u play pvp?pvp is more about interesting tactics and civ diversity than unit names

Byzantines should have Legionary, albeit a weaker one since they don’t have Centurions


You are the one suggesting different unit names.

How am I misunderstanding? Isn’t this what the topic is all about? Diversifying old civilizations units?
I think Byzantine getting Legionary made a lot more sense than Camel raiders.