What to do with the classic civs (Franks, Britons, Teutons....)?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
918

Well, if Longbowman replaces Xbowman, infantry is probably the best choice. Unless we respect their civ tag “Foot Archer Civ” and add another Foot Archer UU. My main issue is absence of a unique role playing unique unit.

I usually don’t like a generic name for UU like Temple Guard or Genoese Xbowman. But if devs decide to make longbowman replaces Crossbowman, I have no problem with a new archer UU called “English Crossbowman” as long as it is totally different unit. For example Genoese Xbow already have only 4 range. So if “English Crossbowman” have 4+2 range compared to Longbowman’s 6+2 range, that will already be a huge difference.

919

Genoese corssbow isn’t generic.

It even has its own wiki page for how renowned they are unless you wanna call them Balestrieri genovesi

Technically longbowman is generic since longbows were used by Caddo of Texas and Arkansas, different people of India made of bamboo and Japanese even use longbow on horseback calling themselves Yabusame

920

It would be pretty funny to replace crossbowmen with longbowmen and then give them a unique crossbowman. That said, in the Age of Chivalry mod one of their unique units was Gascon crossbowman, described as “short-ranged, but well-armored crossbowman with small bonuses vs. infantry and battering rams”.

Yes, those other longbows are quite different though. If you want to be more specific (and don’t want to identify it as “English” because some of them were Welsh, or vice versa) I suppose it should be “yew self longbowman” or something.

921

I’m thinking of the Yeoman (as a unique Imperial upgrade to the Briton Halberdiers)…

image
image960×1265 1.18 MB

Not a unique unit, but perhaps a unique upgrade (although in some ways it would be almost the same)…:man_shrugging:

Yes, like in AoE 4 HoL (in AoE 2 it could be a unique upgrade for the Light Cavalry instead of Hussar)…

image
image360×360 108 KB

Yes, Wynguard Palace is actually Hampton Court Palace, built in 1514 by Henry VIII… the Wynguard Footman is simply a reskinned MAA from the Norman era (could it be considered an evolution of the Saxon Hearth Troop from AoE 2?) and the Wynguard Ranger is simply a reskinned Longbowman…:man_shrugging:

Yes, I wouldn’t call him Sergeant because it sounds the same as the Sicilian Sergeant (I’m torn between Billman and Yeoman) (in AoE 4 you have Yeoman but he’s more of a reskinned Longbowman for HoL)…:man_shrugging:

Yes, if you move the Longbowman to the archery range, then you absolutely need another unique unit for the castle…:man_shrugging:

In AoE 3 the Genoese crossbowman is called Pavisier (although that sounds more French than Italian)…:man_shrugging:

Yes, in AoE 3 you have the Yabusame, although it’s kind of weird that instead of using a Yumi he uses a Longbow…:sweat_smile:

Yes, it doesn’t sound bad… the question then would be if they include a civilization from Aquitaine or the Basques in an Iberian DLC, what would happen to Gascony?..:man_shrugging:

922

Exactly what Britons need; maybe except the attack bonus vs infantry.

923

I know you love posting pictures, but they shouldn’t look like this; this is a modern uniform.

Then why call it Wynguard Palace? Do you (or anyone) know why they chose that name?

I don’t know what you mean by “an evolution of the Saxon Hearth Troop from AoE 2”, but he seems to be using a combination of 11th century and 15th century equipment.

I say no to Yeoman because there’s already a unique tech called Yeomen.

I do find the idea of replacing crossbow with longbow and then giving them a unique crossbowman weird though. I think the way to do it would be remove Yeomen, make the range bonus part of the elite longbowman upgrade, make the tower attack a civ bonus, and add a new unique tech that gives their archer line a bonus against rams/siege weapons.

(Not that I’m really suggesting such a big change to a classic civ.)

924

I would like britons logbows and elite longbows to replace crossbows and arbalester and have a new UU like a foot knight with a poleaxe (good damage, maybe a small bonus vs cav) and good armor

925

Well, it’s conceptual; obviously, they’re aiming for something more medieval…:sweat_smile:

Nobody knows for sure… The gaming community and history experts have pointed out that the team at Relic Entertainment and Xbox Game Studios used fictional or altered names for two main reasons:

• To avoid strict historical anachronisms: The game covers a very broad period. Hampton Court Palace (the real one) began construction in 1514, almost at the end of the game’s timeframe. By calling it “Wynguard,” the developers give themselves the creative freedom to offer a landmark of the Imperial Age with a purely military function without having to justify its exact chronology within British history.

• To separate “historical fantasy” from reality: As with Berkshire Palace (which is loosely based on Windsor Castle), using invented names with Anglo-Saxon influences allows them to create unique gameplay mechanics (such as Wynguard’s special armies and battalions) within a medieval legend context.

The Linguistic Meaning of “Wynguard”

Etymologically, the name was designed to sound distinctly English and military:

• Wyn/Win: In Old English and Germanic languages, it is associated with concepts such as “friend,” “joy,” or, in military contexts, derived from words linked to winning or achieving victory (win).

• Guard: It means “guard,” “protection,” or “defense.”

Therefore, the name was chosen simply because it evokes the idea of ​​a “Victory Guard” or a fortified noble bastion, fitting perfectly with the military aesthetic of the English civilization in the game…:man_shrugging:

I’m referring to a cultural level; just as the Heart Troop is an evolution of the Gothic Huskarl in Anglo-Saxon times, the Wynguard Footman could be an evolution of this in the Norman era (but the Footman itself would already be anachronistic for the Imperial era, with Wynguard Ranger being more accurate and also a nod in name to the Ranger from AoE 3)…:man_shrugging:

Well, then let it be Billman…:sweat_smile:

927

Screenshot 2026-10-04 205342
Screenshot 2026-10-04 205342839×572 102 KB

In short, constantly power creeping is the reason why classical civs feel less interesting.

1 Like
928

At least the Jarl is fairly standard. It’s just a Mameluke with different bonus damage.

3 Likes
929

Infantry that is heavily armoured, moves very slow, has conversion resistance and adds arrows to buildings when garrisoned

So many features in one unit, would have never happened in AoK.

930

So tell me this hypothetical civ, does its other troops share any of those features?

931

That’s not a feature, that’s an disadvantage.

Was not in AoK and the OG comment didn’t mention Hamask UT. So Crenellation should also be skipped.

937

It’s kinda silly having an army of Jarls though. Oh well. It’s a very cool unit.

938

Just rename it “Skeggox Raider”.

939

Don’t introduce new bonuses that will confuse and confound returning players who haven’t played the game in 2, 4, or 8 years.

For Britons just revert their team bonus to the way it was back in the old days to “Archery Ranges work 20% faster” instead of 10%. Then buff their sheep bonus.

For Franks just buff the foraging bonus and the Knight line of sight and you will be fine.

And for Teutons just make their farms and Unique techs cheaper. Don’t replace any of their unique techs or bonuses or give them light cav. These civs have to be familiar to returning players (who make up the majority of the player base.) Most people have not been playing consistently since 2020. I will play AOE 2 for a while and then drop it and then come back.

1 Like
940

yes but all Danes units also loot resources when destroying buildings.

Yes but it’s an important trait. Also they were much slower back then.

yeah but that doesn’t make the list all that much different.

I just generally think Jomsvikings are really in line with AoK unit design. Also they are not that powerful, they lose to Archers and Infantry in Imperial Age, only being good against Cavalry and Buildings.

941

The conversion resistance was originally just the team bonus effect and not built in to the unit. Similarly the extra arrows are part of the effect of Crenellations, not built in to the unit, and were not in AoK anyway. So really the concept for the unit is heavily armoured but slow, which is pretty simple.

Even with their torch throwing attack? Which AoK unit do you think has a similar mechanic?

942

AoK did not have any units with different attacks but just because a thing didn’t exist doesn’t mean it wouldn’t fit on. If the Samurai didn’t exist do you think people would say that a unit with bonus damage against unique units would fit into AoE2? Or the Cataphract a cavalry unit that takes less anti cavalry bonus damage.

The Jarl obviously perfectly fits into AoK. The Heath Trooper is a type of unit that I imagine the original developers would love but struggle to implement themselves. A lot of cut AoK features are a lot more crazy then what DE has ever added like Longboats being able to train Berserks.

1 Like
943

That’s true. Let’s compare all design traits between TK and JV -

Teutonic Knight:

  1. High food cost.
  2. High MA.
  3. High HP.
  4. High Attack.
  5. Low speed.
  6. Conversion resistance.
  7. Can fire arrow while in garrison. (not in AoK)

Jomsvikings:

  1. High food cost.
  2. Low gold cost.
  3. Low base Attack.
  4. Attack Bonus vs Cavalry.
  5. Huge Attack bonus vs building.
  6. Able to attack from distance against ship and building.
  7. Loot 25% of building cost after destruction.

They have equal design traits. But all of TK’s traits are reflected on stat, not in a new mechanic unique to them.