Functionally, it is. As a mechanic, I don’t think so. Let me explain what I mean, feel free to disagree.
The way I conceptualize a mechanic is as the broadest set of rules that can encapsulate a common phenomenon or occurrence. This set of rules cannot be the complete lack of existence of a thing. These rules should be described in terms of, and considered as being applied to general categories like “units”, “buildings”, or “siege units” rather than individual units like “leitis” or “hussite wagons”. However, it can, and should, take partial occurrences and numerical differences into consideration.
This is a general definition which might not be intuitive without any examples.
So, let’s take the rams and hussite wagons. The broadest possible set of rule I can find here is:
“A unit is able to block some, or all of the projectiles of some, or all of defensive buildings, archers, gunpowder units, and siege. A block here means to prevent the projectiles from moving across the unit, and/or defend other units across it from the projectiles”
So, rams and hussite wagons would fall under rule. If the devs create a new unit which can block only gunpowder projectiles in the future, that unit would fall under this mechanic as well.
True, and this falls under the category of “Transposition Mechanics” I’ve described in the post.
I completely agree. That feels like such an odd thing and doesn’t fit into the larger picture of AoE2 at all. It is the second worst mechanic in this mechanics creep problem, I feel. After the shrivamsha Rider mechanics.