This new Legionary makes the Serjeant look really, I mean REALLY bad.
Serjeant needs a total overhaul.
Byzantines don’t need another anti-infantry/multipurpose unit.
1 Like
The Byzantines also need Greek voices.
5 Likes
In what sense? Visually, stats wise, or abilities? I would assume you mean stats, and I would agree, but want to confirm anyway.
1 Like
If I got things correctly, Romans get double infantry armor bonus from the blacksmith, so they end up with +4/+4 in Castle Age which is equivalent to getting gambeson AND plate mail armor one age earlier. I think their Feudal and Castle Age infantry rush may end up being deadlier than an Imperial Age one with legionaries.
EDIT: I brainfarted, gambeson and plate mail armor is +3/+5 so they end up being quite solid against melee but not as tanky against ranged as fully upgraded champions. Not ideal against towers, castles and town centers so they will not necessarily be good at rushing the enemy base directly…
Nah, the Legionary UU is from the 5th century AD, it would be 1000 years out of date by the time the Byzantines reach their Imperial Age.
Stats compared to cost and access (barracks va donjons)
Imperial Age doesn’t really mean late Middle Ages.
I mean why can Franks upgrade the Dark Age unit Axe Throwers with a unique tech in Imperial Age?
Also Byzantines have a cheaper Imperial Age to represent that they are basically already in Imperial Age at the beginning of the time frame of AoE2.
In most of the campaign missions in Early Medieval settings the Byzantines are already in Imperial Age.
From that perspective it makes sense to give them Legionaries.
Balance wise that wouldn’t change much because Byzantines have no bonuses for them and don’t have all Blacksmith upgrades.
You could also take Gambesons away from them to balance out the +1 Pierce armour they have compared to the Campion.
Actually, Roman legionary have the same pierce armor as FU champion in Imp and have 1 more melee armor. If Byzantine ever got legionary, they would be +7 pierce armor, which is higher than west Rome legionary by 1 and are 15 food cheaper to train. However, they do lose 2 melee attack and 1 melee armor compared to West Rome’s legionary and no charge attack.
They could very easily remove Gambesons or even supplies when they add the Legionary to the Byzantines since both those technologies only affect this unit line anyway.
It depends on where you make byzantines start.
If you make them start with Constantine, Theodosius or the fall of Rome then it’s fine for them to have legionaries but I think they should then have an upgrade called tagmata otherwise you risk to represent only early byzantines (not really byzantines yet).
If you make them start like I would generally do after Heraclius then no legionaries, you could still argue for tagmata as a separate unit
3 Likes
Well, the AI names do have Belisarius and Justinian I (It somehow even got Constantine I as well] so it isn’t that much of a stretch I guess…
Byzantine have cheap skirms, spears, camels, FU arbalest, Cataphracts, BBC and Fireships adding Legionaries to their composition is a bit excessive.
Their Legionaries wouldn’t really be better then their current Champions so it wouldn’t really impact the balance.
-1 attack (+4 vs Infantry) , +1 melee armour, +5HP compared to their Campion if we take Gambesons away.
We can also take Supplies away too.
1 Like
You’re right, indeed in my custom Constantinople campaign I think I’ll leave you play byzantines expect maybe the first scenario in which you play with Constantine and where I think Romans would be a better fit… But technically I think until Heraclius it would be better to have byzantines playing as Romans if not for variety’s sake.
Ai names can easily change or split I guess.
No WRE units to Byzantines, thanks. Byzantines are not a latin civ. to have Legionary in their final age, especially that Legionary which erases the 2-handed swordsmen. Byzantine Two-Handed Swordsman & Champion represent the medieval Frankish & Catalan heavy infantry mercenary recruits they employed:
Byzantine player can definitely use the infantry-line, because it’s FU before Blast Furnace. By suggesting to take away from them a whole bunch of technologies (Supplies and Gambesons really?) is like suggesting a devastating blow (a nerf) to the known Byzantine versatility; their wide range of options includes their FU Long Swordsman play that uses those techs. And with the recent infantry changes is more feasible than ever.
Legionary and Centurion seem that are designed specifically as the crumbling WRE’s identity units. Beefy units with increased cost, used as long as you can pay for them; else you crumble. They also lack Heresy, to tactically punish them by converting their expensive units (representing of course the frequent switching-of-sides of their Germanic recruits).
It’s better to add Varangian from the Castle to Byzantines, in order to push them that way to invest more on heavy infantry play (image 1), or the Cheirosiphon, portable projector of Greek fire, prescribed for use both against siege machines and against defenders on the walls (i.e. Unique Petard) (image 2):
2 Likes
If Two Handed Swordsman represent Catalanian mercenaries for the Byzantines what do they represent for the Aztecs, Malians or Mongols?
I think Legionaries would work well as a regional unit and would be the connection between both halves of the Empire.
How exactly they should be balanced is a different question.
No Blast Furnace makes them not very strong anyway but with Gambesons and Supplies they could be too good for a civilisation that doesn’t need a buff like that.
I’d love to see civilisations having more unique units like the Varangian Guard for the Byzantines but AoE2 fans are too afraid of change.
They would cry if they see anything else but a Crossbow or Knight in the Castle Age.
You can replace Militia with them if you want the connection 
. Αfter all, that was the time Byzantines had Legionaries. Byzantine “Lrush fc”.
It makes no sense to have the same unit in different ages.
Why do Franks have Throwing Axeman in Castle Age and then get a unique Technology for thrm in Imperial Age if it’s a Dark Age unit in real life?
Why are the Byzantines in the Attila and Alaric campaigns in the Imperial Age and not the Dark Age? Why aren’t the Goths and Huns either?
Ages don’t really represent Ages in AoE2.
They never really do in Age or Empires until AoE4 (for now, besides the Castle Age Janissaries).
1 Like
I feel like even with gambesons and supplies, the Legionary for Byzantium isn’t too strong. They lack blast furnace and the charge attack after all. However, it would definitely be a buff to the infantry line for them.
I think the main issue is that they have an attack bonus against Infantry, which is supposed to be the speciality of the Cataphract.