Want to share this 
i canāt help but read this as āformula 1 camelā and I am imagining really fast camels running around a race track
5 Likes
3K civs nuked from multiplayer or you never get a dime from me again
Itās that simple FE
7 Likes
Splitting Camel into 2 units was on my list since Hei Guang replacing Knight line for 3k. I even finalized stat for Castle Age version similar to Hei Guangās low HP but high armor and attack. But I lost the note[ad and had some trouble with Heavy Camel replacement as their bonus damage is too huge compared to have another similar yet different performing unit.
As I already stated I want more W.Hussar like regional variants and a couple of more Legionary/Savar like units, I think Iāll also add more Hei Guang like units to replace a generic line on my 2026 wish list. CA is probably the best choice as current skin is only suitable for Steppe civs. And from Celts/Vikings to Japanese/Malay all having horse archers (except Bohemians) feels weird.
4 Likes
Too many horse units in this game. I would rather see some love for infantry as well.
2 Likes
Welcome to the Middle Ages. Cavalry is the king-maker during this period, so most civs have cavalry to pick from for UUs.
1 Like
I bet you are Central Asian
No, infantry was the mainstay of most armies.
2 Likes
No, they were not.
As the Roman Empire started to shrink, infantry numbers across Europe shrank. They became harder to maintain due to high food and pay costs, and became less important to victory on the battlefield. This coincided with the stirrup arriving in the region, which made cavalry much easier to use.
Meanwhile many armies had cavalry as their focus. The Middle-East and Central Asia were dominated by them. Japan was as well until they reformed their military after the Mongol invasions. India became more cavalry focused once they gained the stirrup as well; with the Gurjaras using armies with 0 infantry at times and the Kannadigas using their heavy cavalry as the crucial arm of victory. And in Africa, the Malian empire used as many horsemen as infantry, if not more.
Itās not just numbers, but also who were the most elite and contributed the most to victory. Even in places that still used infantry to larger degrees, their cavalry was still where the most experienced troops were. There are exceptions, but most of these were because the region was just not suitable for cavalry warfare, like northern Europe.
1 Like
African and American civs should have more unique skins IMO (I even add the SE and Indian civs). They need the same treatment as the Savar/Legionary for a final upgrade units.
1 Like
Horses are more expensive to maintain and feed and required more training to use compared to feudal levies which most armies in Europe used, the steppe civs could only afford it because of nomadism and searching for pastures in the steppes region and having it as their lifestyle since young.
They are strong but i doubt every christian king could afford entire armies of cavalry. And moreover, you canāt use cavalry to siege and assault a city.
4 Likes
This is where the āimportanceā part comes in. Yes, horses in parts of Europe are expensive, but due to the decline in infantry power and the rise of inventions like stirrups, their importance on the battlefield is greater than what infantry can provide.
Nor can you use infantry. You need siege equipment for that.
While that is the reason the Central Asian peoples could do it, there are other regions where large cavalry armies were the go-to way to fight.
They were elite and important for victories but not ādominated the armyā during all the middle ages, most of the army was composed by foot soldiers. Good archers and Spearman were important too.
So who assaulted the cities and forts then? Siege equipment is a tool but not the only thing needed for a siege, and the defenders also need to have a lot of infantry.
Cavalry is expensive and crucial in open field victories, but middle ages also had a lot of sieges too where elite cavalry was not useful.
1 Like
do you have any sources for that? Iād be curious to read them. Of course the mongol army was known to be mostly cavalry, however looking at European battles and art from the time, infantry and archers seem to be the majority of soldiers. Same goes for Japan.
I think as a rule of thumb: Unless the culture was highly nomadic, most soldiers were on foot.
eg here it estimates the ratio of infantry to cavalry as 1:7
and a ratio of 1:4 for the Fatmid armies:
Japanese art, depicting a battle with mostly infantry
which aligns with contemporary accounts that armies consisted mostly of ashigaru (ie feudal levies), with only a few samurai. with samurai also usually fighting on foot
4 Likes
Depends on the place and time I have different sources.
Of course infantry will be more numerous in a lot of armies that used them, but the cavalry carry more importance. The numbers difference isnāt what you find in antiquity as well; where cavalry are a fairly small proportion compared to infantry.
This demonstrates my point.
In Europe, yes infantry is used more. The terrain tends to suit it in more climates than other parts of the world. So look at the Muslim armies, way more cavalry.
This demonstrates my point. With a larger proportion of the army comprised of cavalry (and all your best soldiers found there) there will be more opportunities for UU choices to be cavalry.
This is likely post reforms. Earlier Japanese armies had fewer Ashigaru (as they were not deemed as important) and the Samurai were mostly mounted. This changed after the Mongol invasions, as there was a realisation that their old style didnāt work as well verses other armies.
Iāve already gone over this point earlier.
Whoever is part of the army who can get in once thereās an entrance. Mongols assaulted cities on horseback once there were holes/the gates were down.
2 Likes
Are you going to make a mod for this hussar reskin? I love it so much 
1 Like
Have you ever paid heed to otherās ideas?
1 Like
Fine by me. Regional upgrade of Militia Line will be my biggest priority. Followed by regional Cavalier/Paladin, CA and finally Camel.
1 Like
ah, i misunderstood. I thought you were saying that cavalry wasnāt just important, but was also the majority of most medieval armies.
Of course.
But this isnāt ideas. This is history.
No. Although it would have been the majority in some, like Central Asia, West Africa and Western India.