Clearly balancing is nontrivial, but none of the three civs is top tier (except mongols on maps with a lot of hunting) or very weak. Buffing Aztecs or nerfing Turks is a big problem, but slightly affecting these 3 civs is not that huge for the meta.
Anyway, if SL and knights will be different, the most reasonable effect, which is what we want, is that the 3 civs will be better in some situations, worse in others.
With the range you canât make it as tanky and powerful as a knight, removing the range, might as well just reskin the knight 11
but with only 80 health, it isnât going to do the job the knight does, and if it is intended to replace the knight, it has to do the job of the knight.
so exactly my point, yeah you could do it, but it would still be a âknightâ.
This was essentially my argument against the steppe lancer being a stable unit in the first place.
âSteppe Lancersâ in name were already represented by mongolian knights and etc since inception because a lancer from the steppe would be a steppe civilizationâs iteration of heavy cavalry.
But no, for some reason the devs concluded that the game needed this as a generic unit that only 3 civs get despite that it doesnât fill a role that other stable units donât. All it has going for it is itâs 1 range which is good on paper but not role-defining enough to give it itâs own identity as a stable unit - a unique unit for one civilization at best.
My view on this is that the Knight-line should me more exclusive to European civilizations than they are now, especially Cavaliers, if not Knights themselves.
It is more work to rebalance, but it pays off in the long run, and also leading to significantly better design and more unit variety. Especially in this case, where we literally have a unit so similar to the Knight, that is also just asking to be rebalanced.
EDIT: I expect a standard NCBMW (No Changes Because More Work) response to this, even as I type.
so after 20 years of this game being the way it is, are we just going to start introducing region specific knight lines, scout lines, camel lines, archer lines, etc?
why not ask for this in AoE 4? its perfect for that game, what with different civs having different gameplay styles.
does it though? what guarantee do you have? yeah it might after months and months of balance changes, but in the meantime? the game design is a mess for those 3 civs. and what guarantee do you have that it wonât push people away because youâre changing the way the game is designed 20 years after it released?
I didnât read it through but definitely a big no from me.
thats because youâre making big game design changes to a game that is over 20 years old, instead of introducing them as ideas that could be used in a new game. the game has been this way for over 20 years, and you want to change that. this would be a great idea for AoE 4, where the game isnât out, and we can have civ/region specific units and designs. but for AoE 2? youâr talking about a big change.
A typical NCBW/NCBMW appeal to tradition. What shall I say.
Logical Arguments donât apply when this is in play.
Keep an open mind is all I can say.
because when i want to play aoe 2 i want to play aoe2.
not aoe 2 completely changed with region specific units.
logic would dictate that aoe2 should be aoe2. i shouldnât have to go back to the old cd or HD/2013 for that.
aoe2 is not a game with region specific knights, region specific swords, region specific etc. you have UU for that.
what you want? you could have that in aoe4, easily, game isnât even finished yet.
I know that seeing european knights as units for asian civs doesnât make much historical sense, but in the the âknightsâ are just a unit representing heavy cavalry. While it may make little sense, it works fine on a gameplay perspective, so I donât think itâs worth changing.
As for the steppe lancer, I really cannot see what kind of role they were supposed to fulfill. They donât really excell at anything except raiding, but that you can do pretty well with light cav too. In their current implementation, SL make little sense. I think they need something that lets them fulfill a unique role, but I honestly have no clue what that would be.
knights are hardly the only units where this happens either.
we donât have region specific anything except UU.
reduce their cost to 60/45, increase their attack speed, leave their attack as is, and they can become solid raiders.
Laughs in Steppe Lancer(the literal topic of this thread), Battle Elephant and Eagle Warrior
iâm talking core units.
you know like pikes, militia, knights, scouts, archers, skirmishers, cavalry archers, and hand cannons. let alone siege units.
Yeah, I know. But there are so many things which make the game a complete nonsense historical-wise, I think itâs a bit too late to worry about that 
Iâm not sure, would you still pick them over light cav line? They are kinda expensive compared to hussar. I think SL need a bit better hp too.
You know what didnât have anything region specific except UU?
Your absolute favorite Age of Kings (i.e. AoE 2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0)
Havenât we come a long way⊠from your absolute favorite Aoe â2.0â 
I wonder who still plays your favorite Aoe â2.0â 
Exactly. this game has been this way for 20 years, and i have loved it that way for 20 years. when i bought AoE2 DE it was being it was AoE2.
they have less food cost, more pierce armor, and higher base attack.
they have less food cost, more pierce armor, and higher base attack.
hussar have more pierce armor (2 compared to 1) and food cost difference doesnât really matter in late imp, when most of the raiding happens. Though donât get me wrong, steppe lancers are still way better at killing vills thanks to that 1 range.
Regardless, I went off topic.
I do think Mongols and Tatars specifically should lose knights in exchange for a buff to SL.
This is because it solves two problems:
And it also solves a third, which you would deny is a problem, but I can see it coming:
yeah but i would increase the elite steppe lancer pierce armor to 3, to make it effective at raiding.