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.
Thats just wrong though? If you’ve looked at the trailers at least 3 civs are confirmed to have cannons or a variation of a cannon.
They don’t. The mongols and now the rus are the only civs with horse archers.
You’re making a lot of assumptions based on Aoe2 knowledge which I can understand. But it’s also just wrong.
I was also confused seeing Cannons in the HRE army - but the official site says the cannon is unique to the French.
As to the second bit, I’m not basing that on AOE2 knowledge but on history. The Chinese, Delhi, Abbasid, and Germans all used horse archers in real life.
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.
“Unlike the Bombard” so that means other civs have bombards. What have I misunderstood?
They are specifically comparing the french canon to bombards of other civs that will have to set theirs up.
There is same or similar cannon in new HRE trailer. Also its weird that Russians got only proper harquebuses unit so far. (Not complaining I like Strelci)
Cannon is a very vague term as bombards are considered to be a type of cannon. Gun is just as easily a synonym of cannon as well. But this very quickly can end up as an argument of semantics.
It’s fair to say the name they came up with wasn’t great but it’s easy enough to understand what distinction they’re trying to make.
Ok- I think you thought I didn’t know that other civs get bombards and that the cannon is a special version of that. I thought you were in denial that cannons are a unique unit
I know it’s a special version of the bombard, I just mean it doesn’t make sense for it to be unique to the French.
Oh yeah fair. There isn’t anything in french medieval history that indicates their cannons were more mobile than others. However they seemed to heavily rely on them.
They could have probably come up with a more interesting buff to the french cannon besides just moving on wheels and not having to setup. They also could have come up with a more interesting name.
