True but what kinda role would they play?
I’m talking about the skins not the stats.
That’s another sad thing about the game Unique Units are often bad replacements for existing units. Why build a Tarkan when a Paladin is stronger in everything but siege.
Never said I want that.
I’d like 1-2 new units and technologies for old civilisations that slightly change up their gameplay.
The worst civilisation thing in the game from a historic standpoint in basically every way.
If modding AoE2 wasn’t so annoying I’d replaced the Crossbow sprites with the AoE1 archers already.
That’s kinda what I want. Some more units like those 3 that give some civilisations alternatives to generic units like the Knight and/or round up their gameplay.
An Eagle Warrior like unit (That has the same armour class for weaknesses) for none American Civilisations that don’t use much cavalry historically could be a nice addition.
Well, I can imgine 2 units:
-Maceman: Castle Age required, upgrades into Foot Knight in the Imperial Age, slow Infantry with good Armour and HP, low damage but has bonus damage vs Siege units.
-Axeman: Feudal Age required, upgrades into Poleaxeman in the Imperial Age, Infantry with a big Food cost, deals Trample Damage (when upgraded to Poleaxeman) and has good damage values, but low HP and no Armour, bonus damage vs Spearmen and Skirmishers.
One would be an actual new unit whose type is not covered (Maceman) and the other one would be a more optimized Trash Killer (Axeman) that is also cheaper than the Champ, but more vulnerable too, specially to Ranged attacks.
2 Likes
they aren’t bad, they just require a castle to make, which means late castle early imp at best for any sort of solid production.
because those units fulfill different roles. Tarkans are great at raiding and tearing apart buildings. Paladins are general purpose. also Paladin upgrade is insanely expensive.
those units would have to be strong enough to basically replace the existing options, which leads to power creep. also a lot of the older civs (britons, Celts, Vikings, Franks, Chinese, Mongols; just aok civs as is) are already top tier and don’t really need these type of buffs.
1 Like
Why don’t you get some help from another modder and make one? The archers are awesome in the original (except for the Tool age bowmen).
You are wrong about that in basically every way.
You are wrong about that in basically every way, and I dare you to come with some good points.
Huns are not even Medieval, and because this is a Medival game, their Tech Tree is all sorts of wacky.
2 Likes
The timeline of AoE II is 453 AD to 1571 AD and the Huns fall within that timeline.
I know how to make it for the most part it’s just a lot of effort.
- AoE1 sprites are in a different format, different scale and have twice as many angles.
- You need to have the exact same amount of animation frames as the original animation or you have to make a datamod and datamods are ugly.
I gave up on Datamods for AoE2 as they are not compatible with game updates.
A lot of visual mods also require datamods because the number frames are in the data and things like different skins for each civilisation can also only be done with a data mod.
Mongol language is wrong.
Central European Architecture is wrong.
Access to buildings like Universities, Castles, Docks and Monasteries is wrong.
Access to heavy cavalry (Paladin) is wrong.
Access to heavy siege weapons is wrong.
Having this super mobile horde adept to the generic AoE2 techtree is impossible.
Plus they died out before the Western Roman Empire. They are not a Middle Age Civilisations and would be better of in AoE1 than AoE2 (where they appear in a mission btw.)
Not much is known about the Huns so it’s of course hard to make them remotely historically correct.
The Western Roman Empire would be a better addition to the game in my opinion.
1 Like
The original timeline was after the Fall of Rome, and the Huns were extinct at that point. It was the Goths, not the Huns, that conquered Rome.
The original devs had to “extend” it, because of Atilla, since they did not want the Conquerors expansion to be seen as a “Renaissance pack”, but even they admitted that the Huns were too early, and would be more fitting as an AoE1 civ.
Adding a Nomadic Architecture set for the Huns, Mongols and Cumans would make them look so much better. They should have Yurts instead of houses and so on.
Yurts where placed a lot in campaign missions for those civilisations and are even on the Cuman wonder.
Persians have to get the Central Asian Architecture it just looks so Persian.
Is this confirmed or a rumour?
It has been confirmed in interviews. I think Slazadon posted the interview once.
http://aok.heavengames.com/gameinfo/conquerors-expansion
" EASTERN EUROPEAN - the choice was between Huns, Swiss, Magyars, Habsburgs, or Slavs (the latter being an all-inclusive group in which we’d put Poles, Russians, etc.) We speedily decided the Swiss were too Renaissance, the Habsburgs were too obscure (besides, I hate them. I think they were a bunch of untalented reactionaries who looked funny). This left Magyars, Slavs, & Huns. For better or worse we chose Huns. Here are the reasons why:
- Huns were strong at the very start of the Dark Ages, so it drove home the fact that this was NOT a “Renaissance pack”, and we wanted to make that clear."
AoE II captures their move to Europe and doesn’t capture any part of their Mongol ancestry.
A lot of the European barbarian civs use that and it makes sense to give the Huns CEA.
They didn’t want to stray too far and make Huns very different from the other civs
Balance.
Western Europe is complete but Eastern Europe is not. The East of Europe was inhabited by more nations, and there were the most changes in the Middle Ages (migration of peoples, invasions of Mongols and more). There is still no representation of Poles and Czechs (Wends) and the representation of Croats and Serbs (Serb-Croat).
I agree. There is a great lack of representation of the Caucasian nations. Armenians and Georgians are very important to this region.
So 2 Slavic civilizations (Wends, Serbo-Croats) + 2 Caucasian civilizations (Armenians, Georgians) = Eastern European DLC - Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition - Boyars of the East
All inclusive - you can’t do that. The Slavs present in this game are actually Ruthenians. There is nothing in this civilization that represents, for example, Poles, Czechs or Serbs. This creates problems - someone who knows nothing about the Slavs will think that they are only Orthodox who build Eastern Orthodox church (cerkwie - in Polish, храмы in Russian) and have boyars. It is worth comparing the Slavs from the west, south and east - you will see colossal differences. Western Slavs are Western culture (through Catholicism), Eastern Slavs are Eastern culture (Orthodoxy) and Southern Slavs are culturally completely different from the rest (Slavic culture combined with Mediterranean. In later centuries, Habsburg and Turkish culture will join). Slavs cannot be frankly presented in one civ. It is worth taking an interest in it to know what the Slavs really are.
It’s really mean. The Habsburgs created a unique civilization. Only they and the Prussians stood out from the rest of the Germans.
No they did not, they just ruled a whole bunch of nations, but they were not their own culture, they were an imperial family line.
But they created a civilization that was different from the rest of the Germans. But in fact, in AoE 2 they were not so unique - Austrians are more suited to AoE 3. In the Middle Ages it was simply East March (Margraviate of Austria).
Maybe HRE as a new civilization for AoE 2? Teutons are more like Teutonic Knights than standard Germans.
They did not, they created nothing except a multi-national, but very incoherent empire.
There is no Habsburg culture, only Habsburg family. The Austrians remained Austrian, the Dutch remained Dutch, the Spanish remained Spanish, the Portuguese remained Portuguese.
All of these were uner Habsburg rule at one point or another, and 2 of them rebelled precisely because the Habsburg monarchs were trying to change them.
I mean the later Austro-Hungary …