The Landsknecht needs a redesign... like this?

[Morrneyo]

While Landsknechts’ attacks are incredibly powerful, they are light infantry with very low health (They have 10 more hit points than Castle Age archers.), making them easily countered by even a small number of archers. They function more as a unit that forces the opponent to use micro to pick them off.

My proposal is to give the Landsknecht more hitpoint and remove the light-armor tag. Increasing their Castle Age hitpoint to around 140 (for comparison, Men-at-Arms of the same age has 155) would prevent them from dying so helplessly. If they were given the “Infantry” tag (like Freeborn Warriors), they wouldn’t be quite so vulnerable to archers. Since it lacks the high ranged armor of Freeborn Warriors, it would still be susceptible to ranged units in general, but not to the same extreme degree as it is now.

I don’t think they need to serve the dual purpose of harassing ranged units like Freeborn Warriors or Condottieri do, since they lack high movement speed and inherent armor. However, that doesn’t mean they need to be designed with such extreme vulnerability. After all, they should at least land a hit once before die! Only with these changes would their high cost be justified.

[JogadorNove]

Some drastic change needs to be made to this unit. I don’t care how it’s done, but I think it should represent the HRE and OOTD civilizations, just like the unique units of other civilizations are: Desert Rider for the Ayubids, longbowman for the English, cataphracts for the Byzantines…

[GoldenArmorX]

The thing is, when HRE were designed (2021), it seems one of the developers’ intentions was for players to mass-produce Landsknechts—fielding around 90 of them per match to take advantage of their area-of-effect (AoE) attacks. They likely thought this would be a popular strategy, much like massing 90 Royal Knights or 90 Longbowmen. I knew that, because one of the Steam achievement consist in kill 10’000 units with Landsnecht, so they really wanted to us to use this unit in that way.

To reflect their status as “mercenaries” and to balance their cost, the developers made them “ultra-expensive,” with a heavy reliance on gold (60 food, 100 gold). The relic-focused Landmark was presumably intended to help generate the necessary gold.

BUT, in the practice: they ended up being highly "cost-inefficient.

• Cost-Effectiveness: Their extreme vulnerability to archers, crossbowmen, hand cannoners, horse archers, and—more broadly—any form of siege weaponry (mangonels, springalds, cannons, ribauldequins) makes them exceptionally poor units.

• Cost Comparison: Despite costing twice as much as a Spearman (60 food, 20 wood) and requiring gold, the Landsknecht actually has fewer hit points (90 in Age III / 105 in Age IV) compared to the Spearman (70 in Age I / 90 in Age II / 110 in Age III / 140 in Age IV).

• Achievements: Even the Steam achievement—which clearly signals that the developers wanted us to mass-produce these units—is completed by almost NO ONE.

Now, that covers only the original intention versus the actual outcome.

In practice, the unit serves as a support unit—typically employed after you’ve already produced several melee units and want one or two more to gain an edge against an opponent who is also fielding melee troops. This, however, happens quite rarely, as players generally prefer to “save gold” for University upgrades, late-game tech, Culverins, or other types of units.

[Morrneyo]

You’re right. The design flaws from the very early days of AOE4 are still present today, and the Landsknecht being one of them.

[GoldenArmorX]

2.- Historicity

In terms of historicity, the Landsknecht were a distinct type of troop—mercenaries hailing from the Holy Roman Empire—who fought primarily as pikemen (a form of anti-cavalry light infantry), adopting tactics pioneered by the Swiss.

The unit in the game represents a specific type of Landsknecht known as a Doppelsöldner (“double-pay” soldier). These men received double the standard wage to undertake near-suicidal missions: attacking enemy pike formations to inflict heavy casualties, despite the extreme risk of death.

They typically wielded Zweihänder (two-handed swords) to maximize enemy losses or to shatter opposing pikes. Later, they also employed arquebuses at close range before quickly withdrawing.

To understand the significance of this role, one must consider the context: during the era in which these units were active (1480–1600), “pike and shot” tactics began to emerge in Europe. Pikemen became a mass-produced staple of many armies—most notably the Swiss, the Landsknecht, and the Spanish Tercios. As a countermeasure against rival pikemen, the Landsknecht incorporated Doppelsöldner into their ranks to gain an edge over the Swiss, allowing them to neutralize large numbers of enemy troops while risking relatively few of their own men.

They typically wielded Zweihänder (two-handed swords) to maximize enemy losses or to shatter opposing pikes. Later, they also employed arquebuses at close range before quickly withdrawing.

[JogadorNove]

We’re talking like barking dogs here, they don’t care.
I doubt that in the next patch the Landsknecht and Black Rider will become the main units of HRE and OOTD. Any buff to these units can be easily balanced by altering the prelate rate, so there’s no risk of them becoming OP.
It seems to be intentional so that German-speaking civilizations don’t have unique representative units.

[GoldenArmorX]

Apologies for changing the order in which I address these paragraphs; it helps provide better context for my response:

@JogadorNove

We’re talking like barking dogs here, they don’t care.

Oh, they definitely read what we write.

However, the situation regarding the DLC—and the fact that there may not be many changes to the base civilizations until the state of the game (or how the existing civs interact with the new ones) is fully assessed—is a different matter.

So, while there might not be any immediate changes for the HRE, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of future updates. Especially since—finally, as of the last patch—Spearmen are actually useful, and infantry-focused civilizations have become viable (particularly on certain maps). Plus, we have two more civilizations of this type on the way.

@JogadorNove

It seems to be intentional so that German-speaking civilizations don’t have unique representative units.

Well, I theorise the actual reason is a remnant of the state the game was in when it first launched.

I’ve brought this up a few times, but it actually goes a long way toward explaining the dissatisfaction with the limitations on unique units for the original 8 base civilizations.

Self-censorship for the sake of balance (2021)

My theory is that when the game launched in 2021, the developers wanted it to be “balanced,” so they essentially “self-censored”—limiting the number of unique units or concepts so that every civilization ended up with the exact same number of unique units. This is no coincidence:

Almost all of the initial 8 civilizations have 3 unique units (plus early-game military units, excluding naval units). The only exceptions are the Rus (who have 4) and the Chinese—for whom the original design intended for you to use only “one dynastic unit per game.”

• In fact, with the Rus, you can see a form of self-censorship: in the campaign, they have “cannons” (as they did historically) rather than bombards; however, for the sake of “balance” in the base game, their cannon was changed to a bombard—making it “unique” to the French—which leaves the Rus with only four unique units (excluding naval units).

The lack of a campaign also limited their balance design

In the case of the HRE, because no campaign was developed for this civilization, the developers never tested—for instance—a hypothetical “historical battle featuring Landsknechte” to see how they would perform in large-scale combat or in specific numbers, and whether they lived up to their historical counterparts.

Had they done so, they would have realized that:

• They forgot to include Pikemen, who were meant to complement the two-handed Landsknechte, not replace them.
• Historically, Doppelsoldier Landknecht (AoE4) were primarily deployed against other melee-infantry Civs (such as the Swiss, the Bohemians, or the Papal Guard)—yet the HRE was the only melee-infantry-focused civilization in the base game (2021), so for the time the game launch, they didn´t have much use.
• They were made too “squishy,” and their cost-to-utility ratio was inefficient.
• They are ineffective at sieging cities due to their low HP (95), despite their historical reputation (consider the Sack of Rome or the Landsknecht fury). In fact, their counterpart in Age of Empires III is quite effective at sieging. I believe they should have a higher torch attack—as their historical counterparts did.

Attempts at historical accuracy for the civilization

Following the positive reception of the Malians and the Ottomans—civilizations that feature more than three unique or early-game units—as well as the addition of more unique units to several of the base-game civilizations, players expected more for the HRE. For the time being, there were:

• Technologies such as Awful Pikes and Steel Barding
• Cisternian Abbeys
• Black Riders

---

Note: Now, that is just my theory as to why the civilization is the way it is; but i thinks it have to be improved, with more unique units.

@JogadorNove

I doubt that in the next patch the Landsknecht and Black Rider will become the main units of HRE and OOTD. Any buff to these units can be easily balanced by altering the prelate rate, so there’s no risk of them becoming OP.

Well, regarding the Jin Dynasty DLC, we had to wait two weeks for a major patch that introduced numerous changes.

But then again, it’s impossible to know for sure when the developers might introduce improvements for the base civilizations.

In any case, any proposal to change or improve the Landsknecht—at least regarding their “core” identity—cannot focus solely on the unit itself; it should take the entire civilization into account, particularly through the addition of new unique units.

I’ll discuss that in a future post.

[GoldenArmorX]

3).- Regarding solutions: Unique Units of HRE

I have several proposals, though I feel many should be approached with caution; I welcome any and all feedback. The worst-case scenario would be an idea that appears attractive in the short term but proves counterproductive in the long run.

In fact, the case of the Landsknecht—discussed in this thread—illustrates this very problem:

The Case of the Landsknecht (Two-Handed Sword Version)

• 1.- As I pointed out in Part 1, the Landsknecht was likely created with the good intention of being a unit whose area-of-effect (AoE) attack would truly “decimate” large groups of enemy units. There’s even an achievement designed with this in mind. However, it didn’t turn out as intended.

• 2.- The HRE (Holy Roman Empire) has only 1 military unique unit, a “situational” unit—the Landsknecht—that rarely sees play (1/5 matches), and even then, only in a support role—typically just 3 or 4 Landsknechte for every 20 or 30 melee units.

• 3.- Nevertheless, for several seasons, the HRE remained a Top SSSSS+++ plus 5G (Movistar Joke) civ. This wasn’t due to clever strategy, but rather for an economic Bonus so massive (+40% gather rate since Dark Age) that one could win simply by overwhelming the opponent with sheer military production, no strategy at all.

• 4.- In fact, when the power of the Prelates was nerfed by just 5%, the civilization plummeted to C or D-tier—which goes to show how poorly the civ was originally designed. Essentially, it functioned more like an “exploit” than a well-balanced civilization.

• 5.- Resolution: Thanks to the developers listening to our pleas, the HRE now features Black Riders, Cisternian Abbeys, and additional unique technologies. The civilization finally has more identity. But this brings us to Part 2:

The Case of the Black Rider

• 1.- The Black Rider is also a unit designed for the late game—a unit intended to be mass-produced to secure victory. Since it was designed to be very powerful, its production would be limited by the number of Castles—five for each one. My theory is that this balancing concept mirrors the “Lancaster Lord”—capped at four, but only because the bonus stacks (+5% x 4 = 20%) and requires a limit.

• 2.- However, in practice, this unit suffers from a worse issue than the Landsknecht: It is too expensive. Since it isn’t available until you’ve built several Keeps, it isn’t worth producing. Why? Because it ties up a control group slot for a unit capped at five; in the late game, massed unit groups usually consist of 30, 40, or even 90 units (e.g., 40 archers + 30 knights + siege, or 90 Camel Archers). It simply isn’t cost-effective in combat. Furthermore, basing your strategy on building Keeps just to maintain the cap for this unit isn’t particularly efficient.

• 3.- It sees very little use—far too little—even in games that reach the late-game stage.

---

Now, let’s look at a hypothetical scenario that is absolutely worth considering:

Potential New Units for the HRE:

• 1.- Landsknecht Pikeman (1470→1650).- These were mercenary pikemen from the HRE who adopted Swiss techniques and developed their own fighting style. They formed the core of the Landsknecht forces.

• 2.- War Wagon (HRE model): Many types of War Wagons existed. In fact, the unit became common among many Eastern European civilizations, and the HRE continued to use them for a considerable time after the Hussite Wars.
  – Bohemians.- They were the original creators; they should possess the first War Wagon—the original version—which utilized crossbowmen and, later, hand-cannoneers.
  – Hungary.- By employing Bohemian mercenaries, they acquired War Wagons and incorporated them into their Black Army.
  – Poland.- They used them under the name tabor.
  – Cossacks.- They also employed them.
  – Rus.- They used a variant known as the gulyay-gorod, designed not for transport but purely for defense.
  – Mughals.- They used them at the Battle of Panipat, implementing an idea introduced by Ottoman engineers.
  – Spain.- Uses some War-wagons in the Ravvena Battle.

• 3.- Ministerialis (826–>1800?).- These were commoners or sef granted weaponry and military training equal to that of nobles so they could fight on their behalf. Many eventually rose to become members of the minor nobility or at least as “serf with priviligies”. They could serve as heavy cavalry or heavy infantry. In fact, the HRE’s standard “Man-at-Arms” unit could be renamed to this if granted a special ability.

---

Well, now that we know the HRE could get more units, but ¿What would happen if the same thing happened to them as the Black Rider or the Landsknecht?

I mean, I think we should consider that if we want to balance these 2 units, we should also consider the units to add in the future, and that their roles do not clash with each other.

So i gonna make another post with that in consideration.

[MatM1996]

@GoldenArmorX

• Cost-Effectiveness: Their extreme vulnerability to archers, crossbowmen, hand cannoners, horse archers, and—more broadly—any form of siege weaponry (mangonels, springalds, cannons, ribauldequins) makes them exceptionally poor units.

Yes, if Landsknechts are expensive, they should be much stronger units…

@Morrneyo

You’re right. The design flaws from the very early days of AOE4 are still present today, and the Landsknecht being one of them.

I’d say the entire Holy Roman Empire as a civilization… when the game came out I loved it, but now it’s very meh…

@GoldenArmorX

In terms of historicity, the Landsknecht were a distinct type of troop—mercenaries hailing from the Holy Roman Empire—who fought primarily as pikemen (a form of anti-cavalry light infantry), adopting tactics pioneered by the Swiss.

Yes, the Landsknecht should replace the HRE Spearman directly after Castle Age and be fully anti-cav UU…

@GoldenArmorX

Almost all of the initial 8 civilizations have 3 unique units (plus early-game military units, excluding naval units). The only exceptions are the Rus (who have 4) and the Chinese—for whom the original design intended for you to use only “one dynastic unit per game.”

In fact, they had more UUs (the AoE wiki doesn’t count the early versions as UUs), but yes, the average civilization had 3-4 UUs at most (when the game came out, the English only had the Longbowman and nothing else)… now all civilizations have 5 or more than 10 UUs (except of course the Abbasids and the original Western European civilizations: English and French, and obviously, the HRE which only has 3)…

@GoldenArmorX

In the case of the HRE, because no campaign was developed for this civilization, the developers never tested—for instance—a hypothetical “historical battle featuring Landsknechte” to see how they would perform in large-scale combat or in specific numbers, and whether they lived up to their historical counterparts.

@GoldenArmorX

• 1.- The Black Rider is also a unit designed for the late game—a unit intended to be mass-produced to secure victory. Since it was designed to be very powerful, its production would be limited by the number of Castles—five for each one. My theory is that this balancing concept mirrors the “Lancaster Lord”—capped at four, but only because the bonus stacks (+5% x 4 = 20%) and requires a limit.

Yes, we’re missing a campaign for the HRE (1174-1547) to take advantage of a rework for the HRE and the Order of the Dragon…

1. Act 1: Barbarossa (1174-1190) (remake of the AoE 2 campaign):

The Lombard League (1174): HRE vs. Italians

Barbarossa’s March (1189): HRE vs. Byzantines

The Sleeping Emperor (1190): HRE vs. Ayyubids

2. Act 2: Sigismund (1396-1421):

Battle of Nicopolis (1396): HRE vs. Ottomans (you would start by winning, but then the Ottomans overwhelm you and you have to begin the retreat of your allies while losing territory)

Battle of Vitkov Hill (1420): Order of the Dragon and HRE against Hussites (you defend Prague until the Hussites manage to…) kick you out)

Battle of Kutná Hora (1421): Dragon Order and HRE against Hussites

3. Act 3: Charles V (1525-1547):

Battle of Pavia (1525): HRE and Italians vs French

Siege of Rome (1527): HRE vs Italians

Schmalkaldic War (1546): HRE and Spanish vs HRE

@GoldenArmorX

• 2.- War Wagon (HRE model): Many types of War Wagons existed. In fact, the unit became common among many Eastern European civilizations, and the HRE continued to use them for a considerable time after the Hussite Wars.

Yes, like the one in AoE 3…

@GoldenArmorX

• 3.- Ministerialis (826–>1800?).- These were commoners or sef granted weaponry and military training equal to that of nobles so they could fight on their behalf. Many eventually rose to become members of the minor nobility or at least as “serf with priviligies”. They could serve as heavy cavalry or heavy infantry. In fact, the HRE’s standard “Man-at-Arms” unit could be renamed to this if granted a special ability.

I’d add a Bavarian villager just to add a civilian UU…

[GoldenArmorX]

4).- Regarding Solutions: in the short and long term

I will share some scattered ideas:

4.1).- Landsknecht

Landsknecht (AoE3 case).-

Click to see my inspiration.

Drawing from the version in AoE3—which I’ve played quite a bit recently—I find several aspects of that unit truly impressive:

• In AoE3, it’s a killing machine; it’s quite intimidating once you realize it deals area-of-effect (AoE) damage. When you see them, your best bet is to run or have a massed counter-unit (like skirmishers/riflemen) ready.

• In AoE4, by contrast, they are essentially target practice for archers—a complete waste of resources and barracks training time.

• The reason the AoE3 version works so well is that it has enough HP to be a truly fearsome unit. This is balanced by a higher population cost than standard infantry (2)—or 3, in the case of the Doppelsöldner (the AoE3 equivalent).

---

My Solutions (My ideas):

Here is one of my proposed solutions:

• 1. Increase the Landsknecht’s population cost to 2. Keep the cost the same, but double (or significantly increase) its HP—from 95/105 to 190/220—while maintaining its current attack power. They will now be just as dangerous as the Gilded Landsknecht.
• 2. Increase the Gilded Landsknecht’s population cost to 3, and adjust its cost (perhaps by a factor of 1.5—e.g., 180 Food / 250 Gold), while raising its HP to 270 (Age III) and 330 (Age IV). They become more formidable, but their production capacity is more limited. In this way, both units will be formidable—and while they will remain situational, they will now be more useful in army compositions and a higher-priority target for the enemy to eliminate.

4.2).- Black Riders

The issue is that the lore doesn’t clearly explain why their unit cap should be tied to Castles. They were mercenaries; their availability should logically be limited by the gold one has to spend on them.

My Proposed Solutions

• 1).- Production Cap (Changes): Adopt an approach similar to the Conquistador for Spain in Age of Empires III—set an initial cap of 20 to 30 units. The cap should increase not only with Castles but also with Town Centers. For instance, 10 units per Town Center or Castle, plus an additional 15 if a specific landmark is constructed.

• 2).- Introduce a “New Building” for the HRE in the Imperial Age (Age IV)—a “Mercenary Camp” (or whatever name fits). This building would house technologies for mercenaries and serve as a hub to balance “all mercenaries”—I will elaborate on this later. The point is that this allows for better balancing of the unit and creates a unique mechanic for the HRE.

• 3).- Population Cost and Stats: Increase the population cost to 2 and boost the base HP (from 225 to 250). While this might make them overpowered, it would at least reflect their true nature—that of a powerful mercenary—and ensure they are no longer easily countered by archers of equivalent cost.

4.3.- Other New Units, Primarily Pikemen:

The real issue—let’s be honest—is that the actual armies of the HRE during the game’s Imperial period (1480–1650) relied heavily on “mercenaries”—as well as levies—specifically German mercenaries, which were unique to the German lands. However, the game lacks a specific mechanic to incorporate these units—neither through Age IV Landmarks, nor via buildings or technologies. This is the real reason why balancing these unique HRE units is so difficult.

Given this, and considering that the War Wagon is a unit that many civilizations might eventually possess, I propose the following idea:

My Solution (Idea): Mercenary Camp

A building available in Age II. It contains upgrades to unlock mercenaries and their associated technologies, and allows for their recruitment in groups. You may only activate two mercenary contracts per game. The number of mercenaries you can field is no longer tied to Castles, but rather to your Town Centers and Castles. Here are some examples:

1.- Italian Contract (Age II): Grants a group of 5 Italian Crossbow Militia—units specialized against melee infantry.

• Habsburg-Italy Contract (Age IV): Upgrades the Militia to “Genoese Crossbowmen” with improved stats.

2.- Low Countries Contract (Age II): Grants a group of 5 Brabançons—units specialized against heavy cavalry.

• Burgundian Circle Contract (Age IV): Upgrades Brabançons to “Black Guard” with improved stats.

3.- West Germany Contract (Age III): Reduces the cost of Landsknechte by 10% and enables the recruitment of early Pikemen (Age III).

• Saxony Circle (Age IV): Enables the recruitment of Arquebus-wielding Landsknechte at the Archery Range; increases production limit by 10.

4.- Bohemian Mercenaries (Age III): Provides a number of Tabors (War Wagons); increases production limit by 5.

• Bohemian Crown Contract (Age IV): Enables the production of Tabors at the Siege Workshop; increases production limit by 10.

5.- Saxony Contract (Age IV): Enables the recruitment of Black Riders at the Archery Range; increases production limit by 10.

---

4.4 Some other ideas

Unique techs:

• Tross.- Landskecht units (Pike, Swormand, Arquebus) regenerate HP after 10 seconds out of combat.

[MatM1996]

@GoldenArmorX

Drawing from the version in AoE3—which I’ve played quite a bit recently—I find several aspects of that unit truly impressive:

• In AoE3, it’s a killing machine; it’s quite intimidating once you realize it deals area-of-effect (AoE) damage. When you see them, your best bet is to run or have a massed counter-unit (like skirmishers/riflemen) ready.

• In AoE4, by contrast, they are essentially target practice for archers—a complete waste of resources and barracks training time.

• The reason the AoE3 version works so well is that it has enough HP to be a truly fearsome unit. This is balanced by a higher population cost than standard infantry (2)—or 3, in the case of the Doppelsöldner (the AoE3 equivalent).

Sure, that would be the idea… the Landsknecht should be a heavy, bulky unit with an area attack that wipes out archers (but not crossbowmen, cannons, or bombards) (like the Chinese Palace Guard) or horsemen if it’s a Pikeman type… who would think it could be a light unit?..

@GoldenArmorX

• 1. Increase the Landsknecht’s population cost to 2. Keep the cost the same, but double (or significantly increase) its HP—from 95/105 to 190/220—while maintaining its current attack power. They will now be just as dangerous as the Gilded Landsknecht.
• 2. Increase the Gilded Landsknecht’s population cost to 3, and adjust its cost (perhaps by a factor of 1.5—e.g., 180 Food / 250 Gold), while raising its HP to 270 (Age III) and 330 (Age IV). They become more formidable, but their production capacity is more limited. In this way, both units will be formidable—and while they will remain situational, they will now be more useful in army compositions and a higher-priority target for the enemy to eliminate.

@GoldenArmorX

• 1).- Production Cap (Changes): Adopt an approach similar to the Conquistador for Spain in Age of Empires III—set an initial cap of 20 to 30 units. The cap should increase not only with Castles but also with Town Centers. For instance, 10 units per Town Center or Castle, plus an additional 15 if a specific landmark is constructed.

• 2).- Introduce a “New Building” for the HRE in the Imperial Age (Age IV)—a “Mercenary Camp” (or whatever name fits). This building would house technologies for mercenaries and serve as a hub to balance “all mercenaries”—I will elaborate on this later. The point is that this allows for better balancing of the unit and creates a unique mechanic for the HRE.

• 3).- Population Cost and Stats: Increase the population cost to 2 and boost the base HP (from 225 to 250). While this might make them overpowered, it would at least reflect their true nature—that of a powerful mercenary—and ensure they are no longer easily countered by archers of equivalent cost.

@GoldenArmorX

A building available in Age II. It contains upgrades to unlock mercenaries and their associated technologies, and allows for their recruitment in groups. You may only activate two mercenary contracts per game. The number of mercenaries you can field is no longer tied to Castles, but rather to your Town Centers and Castles. Here are some examples:

1.- Italian Contract (Age II): Grants a group of 5 Italian Crossbow Militia—units specialized against melee infantry.

• Habsburg-Italy Contract (Age IV): Upgrades the Militia to “Genoese Crossbowmen” with improved stats.

2.- Low Countries Contract (Age II): Grants a group of 5 Brabançons—units specialized against heavy cavalry.

• Burgundian Circle Contract (Age IV): Upgrades Brabançons to “Black Guard” with improved stats.

3.- West Germany Contract (Age III): Reduces the cost of Landsknechte by 10% and enables the recruitment of early Pikemen (Age III).

• Saxony Circle (Age IV): Enables the recruitment of Arquebus-wielding Landsknechte at the Archery Range; increases production limit by 10.

4.- Bohemian Mercenaries (Age III): Provides a number of Tabors (War Wagons); increases production limit by 5.

• Bohemian Crown Contract (Age IV): Enables the production of Tabors at the Siege Workshop; increases production limit by 10.

5.- Saxony Contract (Age IV): Enables the recruitment of Black Riders at the Archery Range; increases production limit by 10.

---

4.4 Some other ideas

Unique techs:

• Tross.- Landskecht units (Pike, Swormand, Arquebus) regenerate HP after 10 seconds out of combat.

Yes, those are very good options… besides, the mercenary camp would be similar to the same building as the Byzantine one…

@GoldenArmorX

The issue is that the lore doesn’t clearly explain why their unit cap should be tied to Castles. They were mercenaries; their availability should logically be limited by the gold one has to spend on them.

Yes, I would simply remove the limit, and if they are very OP I would limit it by population (like each Black Rider would cost between 2 and 3 population and that’s it) (in AoE 3 it’s like that)…

[JogadorNove]

I am against all suggestions to increase the population of HRE and OOTD units, and the reason is that it has the worst population efficiency units in the entire game (OOtD has the Handcannoneer which is good). This situation becomes clear in the late game.

[GoldenArmorX]

Regarding the Black Rider—and other mercenaries—without needing to turn the HRE into the Order of the Dragon (OOTD), the developers could take a page from what recently happened with the Conquistador in Age of Empires III:

Conquistador (AoE3)

• In AoE3, there is a unit called the Conquistador. Previously, the Spanish could only field 10 of them—obtained via a specific shipment card—which severely limited their utility, despite them being a signature Spanish unit.

• In the latest expansion (during the Public Update Preview/PUP), the cap for the Spanish was removed, allowing for up to 99 units—which made them extremely overpowered. Their area-of-effect (AoE) attack and movement versatility were incredible.

• Because they were dominating in ranked play, their cap was adjusted; they are now limited to 20. Even so, they remain so effective that many players still incorporate them into their build orders, often choosing them over Dragoons.

---

Increase the Initial Limit

The same approach should be applied to Black Riders: simply increase the “initial limit”—perhaps to 20 or 30—so that players can comfortably include them in their late-game compositions.

The current issue with using them in 1v1 matches is that building Keeps isn’t always cost-effective; they are generally reserved for strategic defensive positions (securing gold mines, sacred sites, etc.). In a typical late-game scenario, a player might only have one or two Keeps—not nearly enough to produce even 10 Black Riders.

If the initial limit were raised, with the option to further increase it by constructing more Keeps, the situation would be much better. It would be even better if Town Centers were also factored in to increase the unit cap.

[Carlito]

@GoldenArmorX

In terms of historicity

The topic is interesting, but there is one point I need to address. The game completely disregards historical accuracy. We’re basically playing a more traditional Age of Mythology. The biggest proof of this is the ridiculous Order of the Dragon civilization. Several civilizations need to be redesigned from the ground up, especially the Golden Horde, Jeanne d’Arc, and most importantly, the Order of the Dragon.

[GoldenArmorX]

@Carlito

The topic is interesting, but there is one point I need to address. The game completely disregards historical accuracy. We’re basically playing a more traditional Age of Mythology. The biggest proof of this is the ridiculous Order of the Dragon civilization.

I think that, overall, the game is well-crafted and, in many respects, highly historically accurate. The inclusion of unique unit models for each civilization is, in my view, one of its best features.

However, yes, the first 4 variants were rightly criticized for their lack of historical accuracy, or content (95% equal to parent civs), and OOTD is one of them.

To summarize some of the issues with OOTD:

• Gilded Landsknecht: The Order existed from 1408 to 1437 CE. The Landsknecht emerged later—modeled after Swiss pikemen following the events of 1477—and the use of Landsknecht wielding Zweihänder swords came much later still. It is highly unlikely that the Order would have included Landsknecht; they were mercenaries—often lacking in honor—rather than members of the nobility.

• HRE-themed landmarks: The Order was, in fact, established by a Hungarian king. Maybe one hungarian or from the Order could have been better.

In any case, subsequent variants have been more historically grounded (Templars, Sengoku), and the game has increasingly incorporated more authentic historical elements.

I recall that, following the Many requests for “Mounted Archers” for the Ottomans, we eventually got the Akinci—so it is certainly worth making such requests, specially for base Civs.

[GoldenArmorX]

@Carlito

especially the Golden Horde,

The only thing I would change about the Golden Horde is their Wonder—I’d make it a mosque or a madrasa from Sarai.

I would also include a fourth-age edict, or a mechanic, that allows for the construction of mosques—or the conversion of existing ovvos (sacred groves) and prayer temples into them.

In that regard, I feel something is missing—something akin to the “total conversion” mechanics seen in Age of Empires III, for instance, during certain revolutions:

• Maya revolution (Mexican): Changes all your build units in Barracks, the Stables convert to War Huts and some building are replaced by others.
• 47 Ronin (Japanee): Destroy all your Landmarks and Castles and send you a inmense quantity of Ronins.

Interestingly, it seems that precisely this feature is being introduced in the new expansion, which focuses on the Vikings:

• According to the developers on Discord, at some point, you will be able to burn down your “Sacred Groves” or convert them into monasteries to house relics.

If Lithuanians are added in the future, it would be great if they also featured something similar—a transition from paganism to Christianity, much like what happens in the AoE2 campaign.