If the unit needs a unique weapon, I guess that makes sense. I’d be fine with it having a non-unique weapon – e.g. sling, javelin, bow – provided it has a somewhat appropriate name.
I think such a civ would have the same problem, since the Continental Saxons had good cavalry, at least in the later middle ages.
At least as much sense as some other bonus damage in the game, anyway.
I really like the design of Goths – one of the best civ designs, in my opinion. Very unique playstyle achieved through very simple types of bonuses, techs, and tech tree restrictions. I’d like to see more civs designed that way, and fewer with gimmicks like auras and charge attacks.
I agree they shouldn’t have gunpowder though.
Fun fact: Goths not having stone walls is actually a reference to the Ostogothic king Totila razing the walls of cities he conquered. (Source: Age 2 Design Document, p. 53)
This would also work. I think I’d rather give them Parthian tactics than arbalesters – that way, they’d have fully upgraded cavalry archers, representing the Alans and Sarmatians that Wikipedia tells me they had in their armies.
In a sense, having the Militia-line split in two and having them upgrade/replace to the Civ unique unit would be the better alternative.
Like, Swordsman and Two Handed. Swordsman is the cheap gold cost and better pierce armor unit while Two handed is the higher gold cost, lower pierce armor but high damage to figh infantry and cavalry.
Militia → Man-at-Arms → Long Swordsman → Heavy Swordsman (New)
NONE → NONE → Two-Handed Swordsman → Champion
Then the two would be replaced by the unique unit of the faction. So for example, the Huskarl would replace the long swordsman while the Samurai would replace the Two-handed swordsman.
The problem is that people would want to add new unique units to all these factions…
Also, for me the main problem is the archery range. The way how archer turn into crossbowman is really silly. Ironically the Battle for Greece did the right thing and archers just upgrade for better archer.
They really needed to change the Archer and Crossbowman into two different units. The crossbowman should of course be upgraded to Hand Cannoneers for the civs that have then, so civs that don’t use powder can have their poor-man hand canonners, like the Goths.
Neither of those is a game plan. Boom into flood is the usual aim, but you have to get there with bonuses and a tech tree that don’t obviously help you get there.
I’m not interested in an argument and I’m not trying to change your mind, just voice my opinion. I like Goths and don’t want them to be changed to be like Aztecs. We already have a civ like Aztecs, it’s called Aztecs.
Have you heard of this game call Age of Empires 4?
Jokes aside. I agree with you but we both know that that much change is impossible.
The only generic land unit added to the game since AoC is the Siege Tower.
The devs are really afraid of bigger changes.
For example Camels used to share an armour class with ships so some units that were supposed to counter Camels had ship bonus damage for example.
After they added a Camel armour class almost all the units with anti ship damage also got anti camel damage and units that were supposed to counter camels kept anti ship damage.
Now Spearman and Camel Riders have bonus damage vs. Ships while all buildings have bonus damage vs. Camels.
Even new units like the Flemish Milita do bonus damage vs. Ships for some reason.
There are a lot of roles that could be covered by new units.
Like there is no real generic anti infantry unit because Hand Cannons are only available to half the civilisations and also limited to Imperial Age.
Usually only civs with good xbow/ cavalry archers do not have access to hand cannoneer. Devs original design should be ranged units countering infantry hard.
It is not a question of making the Goths into Aztecs. But if we agree that HCs and bombards make no sense for the Goths, their power spike should be moved slightly earlier imo
But a Free Update, entitled for example ‘The Men of the North’, in which you improve on both the Goths, the Vikings and the Celts, would be really good, wouldn’t it?
Gothic armies were primarily composed of heavy infantry equipped with a shield, spatha or scramasax and the occasional francisca and pike formed in wedge formation, with a supporting heavy cavalry force equipped with lance and sword.[3] Although Goths were the first of the Germanic tribes to place more honour in fighting on horse than on foot, equipping cavalrymen was expensive and infantry remained the larger force.[4] Visigoths had fewer cavalry, Ostrogoths had more cavalry than the Roman army, while Vandals were dominated by cavalry.[5]
For example, in the Goths you could swap:
Hand Cannoneer → Thumb Ring
Hussar → Plate Barding Armor
Bombard Cannon → Siege Ram
In the Vikings you can move the Berserkers to the barracks and add the Jarl to the castle. And the Celts would actually need more robust work, with a new name and certainly a new UU.
Thinking about it, what about Parthian Tactics?
The Goths did hire mercenaries from the steppes. Parthian Tactics plus Thumb Ring would give them fully upgraded Cavalry Archers, wouldn’t it?
Goth Steppe Lancers would be funny but I think that would move to much away from the Infantry focus.
I thought about the idea of splitting the Milita Line some more.
I came to the conclusion that the Spearman Line should change too to fit better into the mix.
Spearman Line
Starts in Dark Age
New Heavy Pikeman in Castle Age
Increased cost to 40 Food 30 Wood (+5 Food and Wood)
Spearman
Available in Dark Age
HP: 40 (-5)
Everything else unchanged
Pikeman
Available in Feudal Age
HP: 50 (-5)
Everything else unchanged
Heavy Pikeman
Available in Castle Age
Attack: 5 (+1 from Pikeman, -1 compared to Halberdier)
HP: 60 (+5 from Pikeman)
Bonus damage in between Pikeman and Halbedier
Everything else unchanged
Halberdier
HP: 70 (+10)
available to less civilisations compared to now
Everything else unchanged
This line is mostly unchanged. A little more durable but a little more expensive. This is to balance the fact that it’s available since Dark Age now.
Fine tuning of this unit line can easily be done by adjusting the Spearman Bonus damage for ranged units.
Milita Line
Starts in Feudal Age
Supplies and Gambeson removed
Cost is the same as after Supplies (45 Food 20 Gold)
Militia
Armour: 1/1
Everything else the same as current Man-At-Arms
Man-At-Arms
Armour: 2/2
Everything else the same as current Long Swordsman
Long Swordsman
Armour: 2/2
Everything else the same as current Champion
This unit line is very similar to the current Milita Line with the core advantage of requiring a lot less upgrades:
Stats in 1 Age later
Has only 1 Imperial Age unit
No Supplies and Gambeson required
Other then that it only offers +1 Melee Armour.
It’s overall supposed to be a generalist unit line. Kind of just like a dismounted Knight.
Two Handed Swordsman Line
Starts in Castle Age
Cost: 25 Food 40 Gold
Speed: 1.1 (Faster then Spearman or Huskarl, slower then Eagle Warrior or Condottiero)
Does 25% AoE damage in 0.75 Tile radius
Take 50% less Pierce and Melee damage from Siege units (anti Infantry bonus damage unaffected)
Two Handed Swordsman
Available in Castle Age
Armour: 2/0
Everything else the same as current Long Swordsman
Champion
Armour: 3/1
Everything else unchanged
This unit line is more of an anti Melee and anti Siege while being weak to Archers. They naturally counter Spearman and Milita Line units but are also better against cavalry because of the Area of Effect damage.
Their reduced pierce armour is somewhat made up by increased speed.
Their special anti Siege armour makes them a natural counter against the Halberd+Siege combination.
Their higher Gold cost makes them easier to mass in Castle Age but less viable in the late game when Gold is running low.
Summery
Spearman Line
Bad against Archers and Siege
Good against Cavalry
Countered by both other Infantry Lines
Milita Line
Bad against Siege
All round unit
Countered by Two Handed Swordsman Line
Two Handed Swordsman Line
Bad against Archers
Resistent against siege
Good against other Infantry
All numbers are up for debate of course. Especially the new Two Handed Swordsman Line needs some testing.
Is the 0 base Pierce armour in Castle bad enough to make them entirely useless? Are they just better Urumis?
Is the anti Siege armour OP?
Can civs without good Archers (Like Celts) deal with them at all?
Civ bonuses
Armenian early access bonus needs to be changed
Japanese attack speed might have to be reduced
Goths discount might have to be reduced
Roman double Armour upgrade bonus might be too strong in Castle Age
Tech Trees
Most Tech Trees have to be changed
Imperial Age Infantry upgrades should be more rare then they are now
Squires and Arson should become less common
I know that’s all never going to happen because AoE2 will never change that much. But one can dream.
