The tech tree description of Steppe Lancers explicitly says “light Cavalry unit”. So no point of arguing there. Knights are heavy Cavalry units - high HP, heavy attack, heavy armor, slower movement (among Cavalry units).
Steppe Lancers have low HP, low attack, 0 armor, faster movement.
mangudai? cavalry archers in general seem very strong right now as well. knights do better in lower numbers but cavalry archers once you get a deathball are downright terrifying.
Today, the Bulgarians are a Slavic group but during the Middle Ages, they were known as the Bulgars which is a Turkic ethnic group that mainly lived in Eastern Europe which is why it can still make sense that we have Bulgarians and Slavs as separate civs.
Polish and Ruthenians are already represented by the Slavs even though the Slavs. Perhaps if we get new civs for AoE2, they should be 3 new civs that are more eastern focus. The 3 civs can be the Nubians, Siamese, and Venetians.
Venetians=Italians
They are as Italian as Poles are Slavs, hence we don’t need them.
By the time of the AoE2 campaign, they were already slavic lol
So instead of wanting to improve the game, like we are suggesting, you want to KEEP it historically inaccurate… because reasons? Oh because of previous inaccuracies! Got it.
Since Cumans are so recent there is literally no reason to have them keep Paladins. For the old civs, we have nostalgia. The Steppe Lancer needs improvement, and a better Imperial version would make sense. It won’t take that much effort for them to implement, anyway.
And don’t get me started on the Meso civs… the bar has been set pretty low with those ones.
a good find, good that you bring this up and I did confirm it with strings text, otherwise the whole intention thing seems off as there are way too many variables involved. it would seem devs did want it to be treated as lighter cavalry units but with gold cost. I was wrong and @MatCauthon3 was correct
Yes, the misinformation is due to the gold cost of the Steppe Lancer. Any person new to the game would consider them a slightly weaker version of the Leitis (70F 50G vs 70F 45G), which clearly is not. The only similarity between the two is the pierce armor.
The higher gold cost of steppe Lancers means in Imperial Age, you either select Cavaliers (well technically Cumans will go for Paladins, Tatars will go for Keshiks and Mongols will leave the stables) if you have gold and Hussars if you don’t have gold. They are seen here and there in Castle Age though.
The lower gold cost of the Leitis means it performs gold efficiently in situations where Paladins do not. Like trash wars. The armor ignoring effect has the biggest effect on Elite Skirmishers (non Viet) and trashbows who simply die in 2 hits without relics. With 1 relic, they take out Hussars in 5 hits and (non Viking) Pikemen in 3 hits. With 2 relics, they take out Halberdiers and Forced Levy Swordsmen in 3 hits. The Lithuanian Hussar at this stage becomes a spectator.
Nope, venetians were never part of “Italy” (a state that didn’t exist until 1800), they were an indipendent state since the byzantines abandoned them until Napoleon, and they had a different language than the rest of Italy (more similar to Latin a Greek than germanic).
I guess that with the italians civ, they wanted to represent the longobard kingdom, and all the city states that originated from its collapse, but Venice was never a part of it.
Saying that venetians are Italians it’s like saying that scots are english, or that lithuanians are the poles.
Italians=Every Italian state
If the devs wanted to represent Longobards, they would have named them differently. You can’t make Venetians different to Italians.
Ah ok, so if you say so it has to be true…
Then sicilians are Italians too, despite being different from the north Italy city states, and despite people see the old peninsula with like the modern state.
I guess that everyone can have their preferred potential new civs, or think that there is no need for new civ, all legitimate thoughts, but distorting history for strength own preferences…
That’s another thing, I can agree that probably at the time of the forgotten devs wanted to use an inexistent Italian civ to represent all the peninsula, and that you can argue that venetians may be represented to some degree. Like the silk road UT and cheaper dock techs could represent altogether the 4 maritime republics, but aren’t that accurate as bonuses…
Also the south Italy was supposed to be represented by the Italians, but they rightfully added the sicilians, because they were a different culture.
Now can we have the game without the venetians?
There are solid arguments in support of the fact that venetians are its own culture and civilization, different from the Italians? And there are arguments that venetians could be a worthy addition as a Civ?
I know you really want to have venetians in the game. You know your history and have your arguments. I would support having them as civ different than italians, but:
Those priorital potential additions imo already exceed the (overly optimistic) limit of 50 total civs.
Also we should have some cosmetic features like:
Ah, but we can make more Indians? There was no unified Italy back then, if we can split up Indians, we can make a Ventians civ
Italians= Many states with same people
Indians=Many states with different people
Do I remember correctly that Venetians had some links to Byzantines? At the beginning of their independence/state creation?
I would like to see Venetians in the game, your civ proposals are awesome.
I have to disagree here. The history records are really nice regarding India, but they are by far the best in europe. Europeans were the most diverse of any kind of people, so bohemians, poles and rus were quite different with many unique technologies and units.
This is not that true in India - I would understand one more faction from the Indian peninsula (even though they were “different people”, they were very similar), though unnecessary, and I think the Italians are fine ( even though Venetians COULD be added), but that’s not the case with the rest of Europe.
And about other countries from Polynesia, Americas and Africas → their levels of advancement were so poor and so were their historical records, it’s quite unfair to represent their own factions in the game. Add zimbabweans/kongolese + iroquis and 1 southern american civ? Yes - But “many” more factions from these areas? No, thanks. Besides, remember that People with European roots and Chinese are the most prominent communities in the game, so going to the eastern Europe next makes the most sense;)
Yeah, they were a provence of the ERE, but then the empire abandon them since they can’t defend Italy anymore, and they self elected a dux, later called doge.
Thanks man.
Yeah I know that, I know that the chances that the civ will made to the game are very very near the zero, since there are so much potential new civs that could be added, but still, trying doesn’t hurt.
Who knows, maybe they’ll never made it for aoe2, but they will appear in aoe4.
India was more diverse than Italia @Juggernaut8704 can easily show why, because he is an expert at Indian history. We have every possible European faction now
Africans had arquebus, cannons, plate mail and everything advanced in the Medieval Age and the other Native Americans aren’t less advanced than Azt/May/Incas