Not the same thing, hussars were professional soldiers (supplied by taxing 20 households, hence the name in hungarian). So it’s a fitting name that did exist in the late medieval period, though only in central Europe. Meanwhile “raider” feels more appropriate for the tarkan.
well what is the difference between magyar unique unit huszar and hussar and regional winged hussar? I think they are all the same historical unit.
Or just remove hussar upgrade alltogether except for polish magyar and lithuanians as winged hussar as they all have wings its strange.
1 Like
Yea but thematically it makes sense for the Cossacks to be a regional unit for those civs much more than the Boyars. You could give Boyars to Bulgaria if you really wanted to make it a regional unit, but since they also have the Konik I don’t see much point as there would be too much crossover in the roles of those units.
Yea this has always been an issue, its another case of old actually regional units being used as generic units across all civs.
Oh yeah that was the unit I was thinking off not the Korean War Wagon.
I mean how would the “shield wall” function? How to make it not just a few units that happen to be slower but more armoured.
It would function by forming a quick wall to protect for example archers or siege behind them. Obviously it won’t be literally as tough as a wall, but a bit more hardy than normal infantry and it could also poke back.
The Paladin is already a European regional unit. I think there could be only one or two more at most.
Throwing Axeman? I think it would fit in with any early medieval barbarian civ, so I’d add Celts and maybe Britons and Burgundians.
I’d like it to be a anti-infantry infantry in Barracks from the Feudal Age. Its speed should be slower than 0.96 (eg 0.9) so that it would be effectively countered by Archers, especially while the Man-at-arms are getting faster now.
In the Castle Age and Imperial Age, it might not have an Elite upgrade, so by the time the game enters the High Middle Ages, axe throwing would be no longer popular. In the early Castle Age, researching Iron Casting and Chain mail might somehow help extend its lifespan, but eventually you have to switch to others like the Hand Cannoneer.
As an exception, only the Franks could have an Elite upgrade and the UT to improve it in the Castle Age. This helps it offer similar gameplay to the current Throwing Axeman for the Franks, with a longer lifespan than for other civilizations, but it should still be more efficient to use Hand Cannoneers in the later game.
Clearly, the Franks would need a new UU in Castles.
As for regional units of the Spanish and Portuguese, the first choice will be the Missionary, after the gold discount no longer affect Monastery units.
I’d like to rename the current Genitour to Zenata Rider, so that alles can train them as if hiring the warriors from the tribes of Zenata Berbers. Then, maybe, we could introduce a new mounted skirkmisher unit named Genitour for the Spanish and Portuguese, costing gold, with more solid stats than the Zenata Rider, and with a Christian appearance. Perhaps this new Genitour would replace the Cavalry Archer, but I believe the Cavalry Archer itself is not inaccurate, for example they had hired Moor horse archers.
In contrast to the above two, these are not necessary.
The Cossacks’ active period seems to make them more suitable for AoE3.
Isn’t the Hobelar only for the Britons and Celts?
Why is Pavise Guard available for those civs? Why no the Italians?
I don’t like the concept of Venitian Merchant Galley. I would rather remain a navy to protect Trade Cogs if the water trade does be important. Any trade unit replacement can be more expensive and take longer to train, but should not carry less gold.
1 Like
When in the campaign they have a Viking AI player specifically playing as Varangian Guards, what to do after the Byzantines themselves have access to the Varangian Guards? Furthermore, it seemed more likely that the Byzantines would gain the Legionary.
Also, while they were warriors of Norse or Rus’ origin, they served the Byzantine emperors rather than the Viking or Rus’ rulers, so it’s a bit strange to see that Vikings and Slavs have access to them.
Not opposed but not a fan. Looks like a bit of change for change’s sake.
Maybe I’m ignorant, I’m not aware of any actual combat achievement or large-scale usage with their mounted crossbowmen. I believe they had used crossbows on horseback, but it seems that bows on horseback were still more popular for them.
This seems reasonable and is something people often discuss. Apparently the Slavs would need a new UU.
Maybe rename the current UT Druzhina to, for example, Voyi or Rogatina, and then the Druzhina can become the new UU:
- A powerful melee infantry that can switch to cavalry mode with lower attack and higher speed.
- Or, a weak melee cavalry with low attack and HP that becomes a powerful melee infantry after being knocked down. Similar to the Konnik but the dismounted one is the stronger one.
For the civs that currently have access to the Heavy Scorpion, they could lose it and have the training button for the Organ Gun at where the Heavy Scorpion upgrade button is at, after having the Chemistry of course.
The new UU could be a soldier using a swivel gun, which might uniquely have infantry + siege class armor, firing a grapeshot or canister with a blust radius, and looking like the Cannoneer from AoE3, so that they can maintain the gunpowder identity and anti-infantry capability.
1 Like
Actually, mounted crossbowmen was pretty prevalent in central Europe. Teutons, Poles, Italians, Bohemians, Swiss were using them. Later, they even equipped cranequin for stronger crossbow.
1 Like
It’s funny how two parallel threads are going -
- One says remove unique unit Organ Gun and add generic musketeer or generic cannon and call it unique.
- The other is this thread that asks for adding some unique regional unit to Europeans but clueless what exactly to add that’s not just renamed repurposed unit like Boyar.
Totally absurd weird topics like adding Latin Civ and Frisian Civ also exist.
This clearly demonstrates how saturated Europe really is.
I hope the devs move back to the tropics. There is a lot of actual potential there.
4 Likes
I searched on the Internet, and then I think their fighting style is more like a reiter and dragoon later on than a mounted bowmen due to the completely different way of reloading. Charge, fire when close enough, turn around and retreat immediately to avoid close combat, reload under the cover of allies, charge again, and if it is too late to retreat or run out of ammunition, then charge with swords like hussars.
And I still feel that even in where mounted crossbowmen had been prevalent, they were no more common than mounted bowmen. Replacing the Cavalry Archer with it is still a bit doubtful to me, but it might be interesting to have it be another unit that showed how they fight differently from mounted bowmen.
1 Like
It is possible to reload a cranequin crossbow with one hand holding the crossbow while another hand reloading. On horseback, Windlass crossbow would be impossible but cranequin was possible. There is cranequiniers in france
16th-century French mounted crossbowman (cranequinier). His crossbow is drawn with a rack-and-pinion cranequin , so it can be used while riding.
4 Likes
Cool hat, so I want this unit
3 Likes
The paladin is definitely the Western European regional unit. A knight in full plate armor is not a common occurrence outside of Europe. Plate armor was used in other regions, but always in combination with something else (usually mail) due to environmental issues — plain geography favors more mobile warfare, hot climates disfavor heavy armor, etc. — the war culture of each region, and sometimes both.
It would be wise, however, to analyze the general type of warfare of each region before selecting this regional unit. I really suggest reading this answer below, it’s recent, pretty easy to understand, and has some brief comparisons between war cultures:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jt62np/why_didnt_european_knights_fight_as_mounted/
3 Likes
Also the sheer tech level. Plate armour was very complex to produce, compared with mail & smaller plates which almost any smith can produce given enough time.
How modern was armour production is mind-blowing. Milan was a big center of production (for top quality gear) and smithing was centralised there, while they had a network of shops all around Europe, in which they’d take your measurements, send the data to Milan to produce the armour, then ship it back where you ordered it. To produce the armour itself, they had a high degree of mechanisation with mills to hammer the plates into shape.
By the 15th century Europe was spearheading the tech curve. It’s no wonder why campaigns end in 1500 in Europe while it’s 1600 for the rest of the world (Lepanto being an outlier), as in the 16th century the tech would change too much in Europe (pike & shot, much better field artillery, cavalry now switching to pistols as their primary weapons in the West, castles replaced by tracé à l’italienne star forts, the line of battle developped at sea with ships using their full broadside…)
2 Likes
I knew this before. Thank you for this introduction but that’s not what confuses me.
No matter how they reloaded, their fighting style was basically like this cycle: charge → fire when close → retreat immediately → reload (on horseback or on foot) → charge. Pretty different from the classic fighting style of mounted bowmen — kiting: lure the enemy to charge and chase, and always keep a fine distance. As people want to introduce the mounted crossbowman, why not try to reflect their unique fighting style? For example, it could have a high attack, but with a shorter range and a pretty long firing interval, or even have a charge bar, and have the stats of range and attack only when the bar full.
Furthermore, the potential civs that could have the mounted crossbowman in the game, that is, European civs west of Bohemia, all have no good Cavalry Archers. It feels a bit pity to introduce a new unit to replace an existing one without a civ being able to use the new unit well. If it’s a brand new unit besides the Cavalry Archer, things could be different.
On the other hand, there still another question. Had mounted crossbowmen really, really been used more than mounted bowmen for those European civs? Even for the french, I believe they also had had mounted bowmen still in history, like other civs such as the Britons, Spanish or Teutons, no matter they were their own warriors or mercenaries. Seems like the mounted crossbowmen were fairly niche even in the late Middle Ages. When I searched on the Internet, I found that their actual scale of usage and usefulness on battlefield has also been questioned, like a quora I saw:
1 Like
Fantastic idea. Kepps the same role and its historical.
1 Like
I think making it somewhat in between conq and cavalry archers will be fine.
2 Likes
I agree with this,making the unit too different for the sake of historical accuracy is not a good design choice.
3 Likes
Again I ask functionally why do we need 40 different regional units?
1 Like
Maybe we will have such number if new civs is continuously introduced.