So, straight away, the French being the only civ with cannons makes no sense and drives me bonkers. They certainly didn’t invent them and I don’t think their cannons were unique from anyone else’s so I don’t understand that at all. EDIT: I know the other civs get bombards and the cannon is a special version. My point is it’s silly regardless. Give the French Veuglaires or whatever - something actually unique to them.
That aside, with the info drop about the HRE and Rus I couldn’t help but notice that the horse archer is being billed as a Rus unique unit. It’s weird already because the Mangudai is already a unique horse archer, making it a unique unique? But then of course, by all rights most civs already in the game should have access to horse archers, so what gives?
This brings up a concern I already had about war elephants, camel riders, and of course cannons. Which is, as soon as another civilization is added that by all rights ought to have the same unit, what will you do? Will we wind up with the same “battle elephant” instead of “war elephant” goofiness?
Please, please don’t mark units as unique if they aren’t actually. It just messes things up for the future civs.
The french have a unique Canon but other civs can make a weaker version/different version of them. (based off the description)
The distinction between canon and bombard is very thin and im willing to believe the abbassids and HRE have a further variation as theirs look different.
I see this in the same way previous games have dealt with unique units. For example in Aoe 2 Jaguar Warriors VS Teutonic knights. Teutonic knights win that engagement always. But Jaguar Warriors are still a super useful unique unit for the aztecs. I don’t think unique units should just always be objectively the best at their role.
The English have “Villagers” as unique units on the website, which I think is kinda funny.
My theory is that Cavalry Archers will be available to future civilisations like the Turks/Ottomans or Hungarians.
The French “Cannon” might also be available to the HRE and future civilisations like the Ottomans that were known for early adoption of cannons. But maybe the Ottomans get a unique Great Bombard anyway.
So maybe future civilisations will also have War Elephants and Camel Riders, but probably not Longbows and Magudai.
I was thinking why delhi doesnt have camels? Should they have historically? Because in aoe3 they have. And why some units are named in their native langugage like streltsy or lanschnecht and others in english like warrior monk or war elephant?
Camels weren’t used much in combat in general, even in AoE4 they are just support units because the Abbasides still have Horseman and Knights/Lancers.
The AoE3 Indians are like the worst mix of stereotypes and should not be copied.
I think for an English speaker Landsknecht and Strelisy are more familiar words than anything Indian/Persian or Chines.
English people at that time had contact with Germans and also Russian people so using their names makes more sense than more “exotic” civilisations as in 1500.
I don’t know why the French Knights are just called “Royal Knights” though.
They might be- we already know that there are some Chinese UUs that aren’t featured on the website.
It just seems odd what units are being highlighted as UUs. I’m not a proponent of the idea that every civ should have the same number of UUs. English only have one real UU while China has a bunch and that’s fine. As long as the civs have equal overall uniqueness.
I just worry about what it means to call a unit unique for other civs that might be added later.