Why Poles don't have long lances?

It was basically their Identity. The Winged Hussars were famous for their usage of the long lances.
With my research about Lances I found also this wikipedia page:

I think the whole Polish Civ concept needs an overhaul. Including changes to Folwark, mining bonus, Szlachta Privileges and also making the Winged Hussars their 2nd UU. Possibly some kind of improved Steppe Lancer with 2 range instead of 1.
I think Poles are misrepresented in the game and their current design is way too “gimmicky” aswell. They are designed around a insanely strong but vulnerable eco, which is silly - and absurdly OP powerspikes but bad scaling. But they miss a clear Identity and because of the gimmickyness of their bonus it is often really annoying and technical to play against them. Cause you need to make sure not to allow them to just completely spam you with (almost) trash cav. Which heavily limits your viable strategic choices.

It is the same with also some other of the new civs like Burgundians or Cumans. Their gimmicks just limit the strategic options of the opponents which leads to less diverse gameplay. And annoyance ofc, cause most players like me like to see the different strategic early choices to play out against each others which isn’t possible if the pure civ choice limits one sides strategic options so heavily like the named civs. Even Goths allow for more diverse gameplay than Poles. At least for the opponent.

The newer civs are better in this regard, though Hindustanis and Gurjaras are overtuned and Dravidians and Bengalis have too easy exploitable missings in their tech tree (Knights for the most part) and no feasible alternative/compensiation.

I think if we just orient more on the historic poland we would get a way better civ, fitting way better into the game, making more fun to play with and against.

you could say this about literally almost every civ in the game, why single out poles?
seriously, age of empires 2 has literally never claimed to be historically accurate.

literally the only place poles are problematic is closed maps like arena. they don’t need to be overhauled from the ground up and they sure as hell don’t need winged hussars with 2 range.


Simple reason the unit is a reskin of the hussar.hussar armed with sword so is winged one.


Yeah with this you can justify everything.

Seriously, I know that it isn’t easy to perfectly represent a civ in the game.

But I have something against not even trying but instead adding gimmicky stuff that don’t even fit in the game, make it annoying to play against. Just for the sake of it.

But Winged Hussars were no light cavalry. Officially they are even classified as Heavy Cavalry, but would be better described as somewhat in between (medium), keeping benefits of both classes.

This is exactly what this game does, misrepresenting units and then people start believing that winged hussars were just a different form of hussars. But they were not. They were completely different in almost every aspect.

No civ doesn’t need anything. Yeah again, just this kind of killer argument that allows for everything and nothing.

I agree the game has lots of issues when it comes to historical accuracy but this is just a game not a simulation of medieval history.


do you want historically accurate or balanced gameplay. pick one.

False dilemma. <20 chars>

nope. its not. what you would do is open a huge can of worms.

lets change poles to be historically accurate because casus is upset with how they are represented.

okay. now what about the people who aren’t happy with how Mayans are represented? or how cav archers aren’t close to accurate. or how Persians aren’t accurate? or how other civs aren’t accurate?

I want a historic representation that isn’t misleading.
It’s absolutely possible to make a balanced game that is in the core representing history accurate.

Don’t try to make a false dillema out of it.

1 Like

then you should be absolutely throwing an absolute fit about mayans, cav archers, and even mamelukes. not to mention gbetos and throwing axeman.

don’t cry accuracy when you don’t care about accuracy. you can’t have it both ways.

I think you don’t know the difference between accuracy and precision.

1 Like

Why does it need an overhaul? The knight spam can be a bit snowbally at times so I wouldn’t be opposed to tune it down to like 50% gold reduction but other than that I think the civ is fine. One might call it gimmicky but contrary to flemish, charge atk and whatnot imo it still fits reasonably well into the game.

Don’t really think this is the case for poles. Poles cav struggles vs both strong ranged unit and strong cav. So you can always overpower them with stronger units.

Can’t repeat it enough: Not even that. Imagine you are poles playing vs burgundians. If you don’t go for trush what can poles do here? Similar for other matchups (teutons, bohemians, britons, hindustani and many more). The civ really relies on going aggressive rather early which is always a bit risky.

Mayans historically DEPLORED the use of the Bow, preferring melee combat, but in this game they are an archer civ. what is even close to accurate about that?

you cry that the winged hussar was historically a heavy cavalry not a light cavalry. well guess what, in game they are represented as more of a medium cavalry, with high attack, decent melee armor and hp, and low pa.

meanwhile Gbetos were historically an all female force of soldiers who used fire arms, but in game they use knives. if that is accurate enough for you to be historically sound, then you have no reason to complain about winged hussar.

It’s not it relies on, but it is the best strategic choice. Everybody does it now with poles as we have figured out it is just so strong on arena. It gives map control, forces the opponent to react, and allows to set up for their insane midgame eco without being under pressure immediately.

Again, heavily restricting the strategic diversity of the game. It’s baiscally always the same with poles on arena. Yeah on arena this sometimes may be a relief cause arena is in it’s core repetitive, but it’s still a strategic bottleneck.


I focus on the things I read and know. I know that there are a lot of historic inaccuracies in the game, but I leave them to other people who know the things about them. I will ofc support them if they have a concept to change it so it fits in the game with historic accuracy. I can only do so much I can do, but the knowledge of my limits shall never stop me trying. If I would do that I would have given up.

so you would support overhauling the entire game to be historically accurate? no thanks. i’d rather not have balance upheaval for years to come and changing civs and units that have existed for years just to appease people who want accuracy from a game that has never claimed to be accurate. you want accuracy? games exist where that is preferred.


I support trying to make things better, yes.
I fight against holding back improvement just for the sake of it.

better as you see it anyway. you’d get along well with equalizer I think.

yes, because completely changing the design of civs and units in the name of accuracy instead of balance is totally an improvement.

balance, gameplay, and readability >>> being as historically accurate as possible.

Ofc. I’m subjective. And I respect other opinions aswell. If they are honest and don’t try to evade by using bogus arguments.

I don’t beleive that historic accuracy is in necessary conflict with the others. In case of poles actually right the opposite. Imo poles would be better balanced, lead to really interesting gameplay if they would be represented more historical accurate: Just a basic Cav civ (With the option to go arb, I actually like that a lot) with a decent eco bonus and the two UUs in Obuch and Winged Hussar.
This would be a dream, both in historic accuracy AND Balance + Gameplay.

it’s not bogus. you pretend to care about historical accuracy, but only the historical accuracy that you, as you admitted, even bother to research. If you cared about accuracy in teh game you would have done research accross the board. you care about the accuracy of stuff you care about, and that’s it.

except poles aren’t particularly problematic, so why do they need an overhaul on balance?

sounds like magyars, but without cav archers. sounds kind of boring to be honest.

except you arguably made the gameplay worse. they went from a civ with a strong eco to compliment units that aren’t as individually strong, but are cheaper, and turned them into another franks or Malians.

1 Like

On closed maps you do rely on it. If you just boom up to imp you will probably die vs any good arena civ. Poles don’t have good units post imp as everything they have lacks armor basically. In trash wars they are good again though.

It’s not always the same. Not sure where you get that opinion from. Sometimes you do see trush, sometimes you see the knight spam, sometimes you see fast imp arb bbc, sometimes obuch sometimes winged hussar.

What? 11 This sentence is in it’s core bs. Why you even bother to comment if you think that’s the case? Poles is a strategically diverse civ on arena and most of time they produce wild games. There is no strategic bottleneck.