You can still upgrade them further through the storage pit.
For example say you have extra wood and food, dropping barracks and mixing in axeman with your gold units can still be very viable beyond age 2 with the storage pit upgrades. Please don’t let this be age of chariot archers repeat 
. I remember fully upgraded Axemen (& trash units etc) carrying quite moderately mixed into your gold units… let them stand out from and take the damage just a fraction earlier then when your gold units clash after them, hence the axemen (etc) take the hits and death, whilst still dealing moderate damage and tanking likewise with the storage pit upgrades while your gold units are more conserved in the back, just like IRL tactics Rome used much to its success in its legion formation of putting the new recruits at the front, and the old no doubt more wealthy veterans at the back. This tactic will be pretty important with greater population caps and bigger economies to support bigger & more extended military confrontations.
If the enemy attacks with same size full gold army then you are doomed 
@Zsombro said:
If the enemy attacks with same size full gold army then you are doomed 
Gold units should be superior to trash.
@ID said:
There is only one scenario with infinite gold in AoE 1 with dock trading and infinite scenarios with infinite food (from farms), with a 400 population cap you are never going to be able to field (in 75% of cases except for when its a team water game) full gold armies so trash mix is important.
Most important in this case is the map control to make more gold unit.
@ID said:
You can still upgrade them further through the storage pit.
For example say you have extra wood and food, dropping barracks and mixing in axeman with your gold units can still be very viable beyond age 2 with the storage pit upgrades. Please don’t let this be age of chariot archers repeat 
. I remember fully upgraded Axemen (& trash units etc) carrying quite moderately mixed into your gold units… let them stand out from and take the damage just a fraction earlier then when your gold units clash after them, hence the axemen (etc) take the hits and death, whilst still dealing moderate damage and tanking likewise with the storage pit upgrades while your gold units are more conserved in the back, just like IRL tactics Rome used much to its success in its legion formation of putting the new recruits at the front, and the old no doubt more wealthy veterans at the back. This tactic will be pretty important with greater population caps and bigger economies to support bigger & more extended military confrontations.
still cant see any reason not to make chariots they even cost less food so ;D
@SlinkyDrop69409 said:
@LegoVogel said:
@qweytr24: Yes. But still it would be nice to see axemen and archers coming back in the late game instead of building a handfull in the Tool age.
this is exactly what should not happen. Main difference between AOE1 and AOE2 is that early game units can’t be upgraded to match late game units.
Yeah I get you. But that idea of tool units not being upgradable is most interesting in the switch between Tool and Bronze don’t you think? That’s where the idea of having to build a completely new army to get relevant units have any impact. By Iron Age the Tool units serve no purpose and is simply taking up space in the production buildings.
So what about offering upgrades for Axerman/bowman/slinger in Iron age? That way non-chariot civs still get to produce something in low gold lategame and we still preserve the idea of having to build new units in Bronze to swich out your Tool army.
@GepardenKalle said:
So what about offering upgrades for Axerman/bowman/slinger in Iron age? That way non-chariot civs still get to produce something in low gold lategame and we still preserve the idea of having to build new units in Bronze to swich out your Tool army.
My thoughts as well. If I had some programming skills, I’d make a Mod for it. 
This is a remake of Rise of Rome, Iron Age will be Age of the Scythe Chariot, wreak havoc in the woodline, but then that’s the risk you pay for letting your opponent with SC in their armoury get to Iron and to be fair most civs that didn’t get Scythe Chariots were able to hold their own with Horse Archers.
I even remember playing Yamato on Hills and having some joy with centurions (and a few HA for priests) against Egyptian Scythes.
I don’t think Axes/Slingers/Bows need to be upgradable to be honest, the Tool Rush was devastating as it was (no TC’s to hide in unlike AOK) if you gave the best Tool Rushers like HTTP Nightmare the ability not to only tool rush but also be able to upgrade their whole tool age army excessively when they belatedly hit Bronze it would skew the dynamics.
@GepardenKalle said:
@SlinkyDrop69409 said:
@LegoVogel said:
@qweytr24: Yes. But still it would be nice to see axemen and archers coming back in the late game instead of building a handfull in the Tool age.
this is exactly what should not happen. Main difference between AOE1 and AOE2 is that early game units can’t be upgraded to match late game units.
Yeah I get you. But that idea of tool units not being upgradable is most interesting in the switch between Tool and Bronze don’t you think? That’s where the idea of having to build a completely new army to get relevant units have any impact. By Iron Age the Tool units serve no purpose and is simply taking up space in the production buildings.
So what about offering upgrades for Axerman/bowman/slinger in Iron age? That way non-chariot civs still get to produce something in low gold lategame and we still preserve the idea of having to build new units in Bronze to swich out your Tool army.
you already have nice bonuses to all those units when you get them all upgraded.
For scout (horse): +15% health points (66 total making it able to tank one catapult shot), +7 attack damage, +6 armor.
for slinger: +2 attack damage, +2 range, +3 piercing armor.
for axeman: +7 attack damage, +6 armor, +3 piercing armor.
for bowman: +1 attack damage, +6 armor, +3 attack range.
getting axemen or scout in range of catapult or priest can be fatal.
Slinger does do scale well in iron age. having 5 piercing armor and 4 attack damage whilst taking only ½ population makes it viable. Maybe increase the siegecraft (iron age research from market) bonus from +1 attack and +1 range; to +2 attack and +1 range.
bowmen seems to be bad unit anyway. I haven’t used it much so i don’t know. Seems weak even in tool age. Only good if you want to harass enemy worker. (+2 armor means almost no damage from workers and 5 range grants you possibility to shoot enemy workers under their turret by side stepping turret arrows.)
@GepardenKalle said:
@SlinkyDrop69409 said:
@LegoVogel said:
@qweytr24: Yes. But still it would be nice to see axemen and archers coming back in the late game instead of building a handfull in the Tool age.
this is exactly what should not happen. Main difference between AOE1 and AOE2 is that early game units can’t be upgraded to match late game units.
Yeah I get you. But that idea of tool units not being upgradable is most interesting in the switch between Tool and Bronze don’t you think? That’s where the idea of having to build a completely new army to get relevant units have any impact. By Iron Age the Tool units serve no purpose and is simply taking up space in the production buildings.
So what about offering upgrades for Axerman/bowman/slinger in Iron age? That way non-chariot civs still get to produce something in low gold lategame and we still preserve the idea of having to build new units in Bronze to swich out your Tool army.
Slinger has three Iron age upgardes. giving total +2 piercing armor, +1 attack damage and +1 range. Increasing the damage and range bonus of Siegecraft from 1 to 2 would make it good enough to be useful in iron age. (mayby to powerful if +2 range)
Axe man is strong against priest and catapults with 12 attack damage. it would be stronger, if the movement speed was slightly increased with aristocracy (same as hoplite movement speed bonus). Making axe man only fast unit with 3 piercing armor. (cataphract and horse archer has one)
Scout gets +15% health making it 66 total thus capable of tanking one catapult shot.
As for bow man… i dunno it feels weak unit even in tool age. And slinger is good enough for a ranged trash unit.
@SlinkyDrop69409 said:
this is exactly what should not happen. Main difference between AOE1 and AOE2 is that early game units can’t be upgraded to match late game units.
I agree by all means. There’s an interesting switch happening at the tool/bronze divide
@SlinkyDrop69409 said:
@LegoVogel said:
@qweytr24: Yes. But still it would be nice to see axemen and archers coming back in the late game instead of building a handfull in the Tool age.
this is exactly what should not happen. Main difference between AOE1 and AOE2 is that early game units can’t be upgraded to match late game units.
Yeah I get you. But that idea of tool units not being upgradable is most interesting in the switch between Tool and Bronze don’t you think? That’s where the idea of having to build a completely new army to get relevant units have any impact. By Iron Age the Tool units serve no purpose and is simply taking up space in the production buildings.
So what about offering upgrades for Axerman/bowman/slinger in Iron age? That way non-chariot civs still get to produce something in low gold lategame and we still preserve the idea of having to build new units in Bronze to swich out your Tool army.
@CoiledBenis said:
still cant see any reason not to make chariots they even cost less food so ;D
The problem with Chariots is not the strength of the unit itself, but that they far outperform any other non-gold unit. Low gold situations always become chariot wars and nothing else. It’s boring and any Civ not capable of fielding chariots are out of the loop by default.
What if we made chariots cost 10 or 15 gold rather than their 40 food. Would that solve the issue?
Bows are used to protect against scout rushes and as people already have archery ranges going up in Tool for the transition to bronze and CA’s and compies its often worth sending a couple of tool age bows to disrupt the enemy econony in the transition period to bronze and researching the Wheel. A couple of tool age bows with the armour upgrade can screw up a players economy and cause lost villager seconds
@GepardenKalle said:
@CoiledBenis said:
still cant see any reason not to make chariots they even cost less food so ;D
The problem with Chariots is not the strength of the unit itself, but that they far outperform any other non-gold unit. Low gold situations always become chariot wars and nothing else. It’s boring and any Civ not capable of fielding chariots are out of the loop by default.
What if we made chariots cost 10 or 15 gold rather than their 40 food. Would that solve the issue?
and then comes the great axe or bowman war so nothing was achieved
imo rather make the axeman and bowman more viable so you actually can choose