Replacing or renaming of "knight" for those peoples who did not have knights

Knight (and his evolution) is an absolutely logical and even mandatory unit for European nations in such a game. But due to the symmetry of the gameplay, it turned out that the steppe peoples and the Japanese, and in general almost everyone, have knights. This is one of the most historically ridiculous moments in the game. I suggest replacing them with several other units. May be there is no need to change their characteristics, just giving them different names and skins could be enough.
For example it could be like this:

  • Asian nations - mounted monk
  • Indian nations - Jagirdhars
  • Steppe peoples - Batyr
  • Muslim nations - Sipahi or Janissary (also Samana could be for Iranian related)
  • Slavic nations (especially after separation of umbrella Slav civ) - Voivoda (War-leader) or Ratnik
  • African nations - Jockey

As you can see, I’m not suggesting a 2-3 stage evolution here, instead they could have an upgrade that makes them stronger without changing the name or adding the word “elite”.

Perhaps for some nations it would be possible to remove knights at all. I do not take upon myself to judge the balance of the game, but I can say offhand that some nations already have a large number of units on horses and camels and they simply may not need knights. If any of the players who have scrutinized the balance want to say about ​​removing knights for some nations, do so.

It would also be worth considering a mixed solution and dealing with different nations differently: for some, just give the units a new skin and name, for others, also change the characteristics, for others, simply remove them. For example, the Tatars have a lot of types of horsemen and they won’t lose too much if they just remove 1 unit.

Also I remind that more skins for priests and workers are needed for different nations.

1 Like

Yes, of course, this irks me too. It’s the same issue with American civs and the militia line, that is, units who wield a steel sword. Removing knights entirely should definitely not happen, though. Not for the tatars, not for the huns, not for the byzantines, and not for the burgundians - civs that have a heavy cavalry unique unit. It would be nice to have accurate names for different regions, but unfortunately, it won’t happen.

Why cant we keep the game simple


I wish siege was less complex. I wish there was a long-range siege weapon available in castle age like in AOE1. But no, devs decided to make things more complicated and implemented a bunch of siege weapons that have to slowly crawl towards the buildings. So, things stopped being simple already.

Eh? Those 4 slow siege weapons have the same name no matter what of 40 civs use them so… how is that complex? You’re twisting my words if you actually know what I mean? We have 1 fast cav unit why do we need to rename and need up to 3 coats of paint per region


I meant that siege has been made complex, compared to AOE1. If devs made the very important decision to add complexity to siege, they could very well rename one unit. It’s no big deal.

1 Like

Renaming it and redesigning new sprites/models 10+ times isnt super simple.

We are talking about two different issues here altogether and i Think you know that

1 Like

Renaming it is - the OP already did. As for the sprites I agree that’s it’s extra work and they would have to pay graphic artists. That’s why I said that it will not happen, even if it would be a nice addition.

knights are heavily armoured nobels on horseback. isn’t that exactly what samurai were? so how does this not fit the japanese?

1 Like

I am against such ideas in general. Its all wrong.


Because it’s historical.
Want simple? Minecraft.


Minecraft is anything but simple nowadays.


Just 6 units. I am sure such company is able of doing this and doesn’t require your personal protectorate.


This has always bothered me a bit too. Civilizations which did not have Knights having Knights when they have a historical equivalent that could be used instead. It could honestly just be reskins of the Knight with the same exact stats just the proper name and look for whatever Civ had an equivalent to Knights but weren’t actual Knights. Would make things more confusing for new players though.

Hilarious response, but the historical argument is not gonna sway a lot of people if it comes as a sacrifice to visual clarity that helps keep the game accessible to everyone
That being said, I care more about monasteries, monks, traders, and castles being unique to cultures


Want 100% historical? History books.


Okay, you’ve not played minecraft I see.

People have made 8-bit computers on Minecraft, they have formed small communities with goverments. They have servers going back decades, with sizes in the petabytes if you combine all of them. Heck, they have re-created minecraft inside minecraft with redstone circuitary.

Minecraft is so much more complex than AoE2 that it’s like comparing a 1960s digical calculator to a modern supercomputer.

Your original argument is wrong, but at least there is some subjectivity there. This minecraft claim? It’s just silly.


Heck, you can probably recreate AoE2 within Minecraft! This guy named Fundy made a working PC emulator within Minecraft using datapacks, so not technically vanilla, but still impressive. And yes, he used it to play Minecraft.


How do you reckon Minecraft aoe2 pathing would be?

100 times slower. Minecraft isn’t very fast with computations unless you use datapacks to display the actual program in Minecraft.