Thematically splitting Archers and Crossbowman into separate trees is great and i totally agree with the direction. Aoe 2 needs more "pawn variants" if you mind the chess expression. Personally, i think the militia line would need this before the archer line because even after the gamebson change, militia still need work. And giving people the option of "tank with shield" vs "dps with greatsword" would be impeccable for every civs replay-ability. Imagine playing as Persians and still being able to fall back on your swordsman for something other than a meme because you still get the full shield tree, but staying in theme with the way Persia has always played, you dont get the greatsword tree. That would be so freaking cool, aoe 2 would open up in almost every way. No one expects the Spanish inquisition. And no one expects the imperial age persian immortal swordsman ram rush, but its actual scary.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hey, thank you dark ranger! Really glad you enjoyed it man! I would actually agree with you that the sword line deserves to be split more than the Archer line, I even think it's much more likely for it to happen at some point! Reason I chose to focus on the Archer line first is mostly because I think it's a shame how much of the game revolves around this one single unit just because of how dominant it is. But you're totally right, strategic and functional diversity in core infantry units would likely make a huge difference for the game going forward. Expect a theorycraft on it for sure!
@afz902k
Жыл бұрын
Awesome unit theorycraft as usual! A few things: - About bow type techs, there could perhaps be a third one called "Recurve Bow", something available to steppe civs who had those very compact, fast and manoeuvrable recurve bows, maybe this would be focused on increasing RoF or lowering reload speed/frame delay for archers/bowmen. - About techs/upgrades, there could be a single tech called "Ranged combat" that both upgrades bowmen to war bowmen and also makes crossbowmen available, this makes it easier to "go archers" without much sacrifice, it's less strategically interesting but it's a way to make the hardcore fans deal with these changes better ;) - Love the latchbow, cool crossbows in Feudal. Maybe some or all civs should be able to build an archery range in the dark age and train archers there (weaker than a bowman) but that might be too broken
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much Fergus, really glad you enjoyed it man! And some really interesting ideas here. You aren't the first person who said to me that you really like the latchbow, so I think I've got to introduce that in the next recraft! And I think your idea for hybridizing the archery technologies is very interesting, it's kind of like how War galley is currently handled. I prefer the more intricate route of course, especially since it seems like people are pretty open to the idea, but if it ever became a problem I think your solution is a great way to go about it. Now, the thing I found most interesting about this comment was your Recurve idea! My concern with this one is that recurved limbs were a common feature on both self and composite bows rather than being a distinct category all their own! Nowadays you see them classified separately, but that's only in contrast to modern compound bows (and occasionally long bows, which in modern archery are pretty much universally tall self bows). Historically speaking, I'm pretty sure that literally every single composite bow the world ever saw had recurved limbs, and as such I'm not sure the tech would have a unique historical niche. I'm not an expert in archery history by any means, so if I'm missing anything please do correct me! And I should clarify that I'd actually really like another technology for the archery range that's agnostic of the self/composite duo I've created here. Something that increases rate of fire would be great, I love capstone technologies like that and I'm not sure that thumb rings were universal enough to be a common technology. So what do you think Fergus question? Does my logic here seem coherent, and can you think of any alternative routes we could go? Great to hear from you as always, and thanks for the excellent input!
@shanerooney7288
Жыл бұрын
This was surprisingly hard, but I found a way to give each range unit its own niche... 🔹Skirmishers are trash tanks. 🔹Slingers★ are trash glass cannons. 🔹Hand cannoneers are the expensive glass cannon. 🔹Bowmen are longer ranged harass units. 🔹Cav archers are very fast raiding units. 🔹Elephant archers are very tanky. 🔹Crossbowmen are ... Shock troopers. High damage (armor pen), short range, moderate tankiness, fast train time. You mass them fast. Force a fight. Push the advantage. Giving the crossbowman a unique role from the hand Cannoneer and the slinger was the hard part. I think I gave it the right balance of stats to make it something unique instead of just a halfway point. ★ I should clarify.... Slingers - as they are in the game right now - are an Inca unique unit that acts as a cheaper (and available sooner) hand cannoneer. Consider this a rebranding of the slinger, making them available to more civilisations.
@riseALK
Жыл бұрын
Nice ideas
@HistoricalWeapons
11 ай бұрын
Yes but we are talking about fundamental mechanics built in the 20th century, a game back in the day that pioneered this genre and archery historical accuracy was not their priority
@zan4336
Жыл бұрын
I think AOE4 exists just to have room for the cool historical stuff and complex gameplay without changing iconic AOE2 units lol
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
You're not wrong Zan! But hey, I can dream. I got comments like these fairly often, and I think that there is some truth to it though at the same time there's something about AOE4 that doesn't do it for me like aoe2 does. Do you think that would be a good topic for me to dive into in a future video?
@zan4336
Жыл бұрын
AOE2 is legendary. Would be a great watch for sure man.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hell yeah! Thank you so much for the vote of confidence my friend!
@Taydris0
3 ай бұрын
i think so too. i wish aoe4 was more realistic and nuanced tho. the heat seeking arrows absolutely kills it for me
@psssshhh7730
Ай бұрын
It was going well until relic doomed it.
@slkdfjklasasdfasdf
Жыл бұрын
This is a really clever idea - while I agree with your ultimate conclusion that this is likely too big a change to ever see light, I think it is one of the most elegant, accurate, and painless approaches to splitting the roles and functionality of the archer line. I never even thought of the benefits of this approach, but now that you've laid it out, I'm sad it likely won't be implemented. The part that really resonates with me is how your suggested mechanics reflect the real-world manner in which these units were used, while still offering opportunities for counterplay, balance, and most importantly, fun. I frequently see arguments to make units behave more realistically in games, and while these suggestions are often technically accurate, many would likely make for boring or painful gameplay. While I'm not a game designer, I have played AoE2 since I was a kid in the early 2000s, and your idea seems to avoid that pitfall really gracefully. As an example, I remember AoE2 developer Sandy Petersen mentioning in an interview that they had considered having spearmen do bonus damage to cavalry only when facing a specific direction (to reflect the act of bracing against a charge). While I think that idea would have been very realistic (and super cool in games like the Total War series), I'm glad they didn't include it for AoE2. A couple of years ago, I saw a very long Reddit post by a user named Alastan who had a similar idea suggesting splitting both the knight line and, strangely, the cavalry archer line into two different versions, citing reasons of historical accuracy and gameplay functionality as well. Unfortunately I can't remember the specific suggestions, but they are still in his original (very detailed) post. When I first read it, I basically discounted it as unfeasible, but after having seen your elegant solution (as well as your video about the Footman), I'm curious if you've ever given that any thought, or if you believe there might be any value in considering splitting other units as well. Keep up the awesome work - I really look forward to these videos!
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Wow, thank you so much for saying all this slkd. I am legitimately very touched that you think this proposal is so effective! And I couldn't agree more, the balance between historical authenticity and actually fun gameplay is a tricky one! And I've certainly fallen on the wrong side of that in the past. It's funny that you should mention splitting the knight line! That is a plan I most certainly have for the not terribly distant future. And I have similar plans for quite a few other units as well. Are there any that you would particularly want to see? Great to hear from you my friend. Really hope you continue to enjoy the content!
@slkdfjklasasdfasdf
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Other than the knight line, not really. Maybe the cavalry archer has some merit, though I can't immediately think of any justification for it off-hand. Rome Total War distinguishes between faster skirmishing cav archers and heavily armored cav archers (often with the capacity to hold their own in melee if necessary). But I'm not sure how that would translate into AoE. Looking forward to hearing more of your ideas as they arise.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Oohhh, that's quite a good one! I hadn't even thought of that before, but I could see a cavalry Archer distinction working pretty well! Thanks very much for taking the time my friend. I have a pretty big unit and building theory craft coming out tomorrow, so I'm definitely excited to hear your thoughts on that when it comes!
@tetrahedron9196
Жыл бұрын
Perfect time to drop this, right when I was searching for more aoe 2 content!
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hell yeah bud! Really hope you ended up enjoying it!
@foxnyl4141
Жыл бұрын
On the one hand, I like to keep the archer line as it is for nostalgic reasons. On the other hand, I think that changes like these are necessary going forward. I like to see more civs in the game, but at the same time, they should still feel unique. Unique techs, units and boni help out to a certain degree, but the combination of techs and units available in the tech tree is still a key factor to make a civ truely unique without it revolving just around its unique unit. The more civs we have, the broader the tech tree needs to be, to still give us reasonably distinct civs. Splitting up a unit line like this, adding new techs and regional units goes a long way to keep new and old civs interesting and to give each of them their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Since I want more civs to be added to this game, I would also approve of such radical ideas, that bring more complexity to the game, even if some of the nostalgia is lost on the way. Of course it also makes the game less approachable to new players, to add yet another layer of complexity to it - but that should not be a main concern right now. Great video, as always!
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for saying so foxy! And a brilliant analysis on the topic, I'm much in the same boat as you. Nostalgia is very important to me, but even more so is keeping the game vibrant, healthy, and evolving! Really glad you enjoyed the build my friend. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!
@smaoproducts
Жыл бұрын
I completely dig this. Bows and crossbows both have an important place in the unit roster for later ages. The bow and the crossbow both have their unique strengths and weaknesses, especially in terms of range and pierce attack. I have hope that the Return of Rome DLC will bring in the AoE 1 roster of bowmen, improved bowmen, and composite bowmen into the main game. Seeing those guys up against the AoE2 archer line would be bonkers but epic at the same time.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hey, thanks a lot for saying so my friend! Really great to see you and others being so enthusiastically supportive of this proposal. As I mentioned in my likeliometer, I think it's very unlikely the developers do anything with this idea, but who knows? Maybe Return to Rome will give us some treats! Thanks as always for watching my friend. Really glad you enjoyed it!
@Grevnor
Жыл бұрын
A pair of excellent unit builds. This is indeed Good Friday
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
You're a good man Johannes! Couldn't ask for a nicer comment to kick off the video with. Really glad you like them my friend, great to hear from you!
@Edelweiss1102
Жыл бұрын
So, who thought giving both of of these lines with all techs and upgrades to Egyptians with 20 min immunity treaty, +1 Attack per age and 3 market/economy bonuses was a good idea? I'll be honest, I was going into this video with mixed feelings based on my stance about historical accuracy and unique flavor vs game design and easy to understand. The archer line is iconic and while not entirely historically accurate, it works well for the intended basic rock paper scissor system in the game, and it's easy to rebuild a simple but working concept into an overbloated and unnessearily complicated system. But after watching it I like what you have in mind and I think it's a reasonable change that incorperates more historical accuracy and options while keeping it relatively simple and easy to understand. Bows and Crossbows were used differently throughout history as you have said, so the split makes sense and I think you make some great points on how to implement them.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hehehehehe guilty as charged! Though you'll be glad to know that after today's recraft stream that is likely to be far less of a problem. Really glad you felt the build was compelling my friend! And it's great to hear from you as always.
@bjarkekiaer
Жыл бұрын
Another unit video. Sweet! It's been a while since the last one, so very nice to see. Thanks, Robby!
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely my friend! Really hope you enjoyed it! A question for you then, would you like to see more unit videos? Right now I have it scheduled such that every 5th vid is a unit, but if you and others are really enjoying them I could see making them more frequent. Also, awesome having you at the stream today man! Really great time getting to chat live.
@bjarkekiaer
Жыл бұрын
Hard to say actually. On one hand I'd like to see more unit videos, but on the other hand having them be somewhat rare just makes it extra special when they do arrive. And yeah, the stream was a blast! I think it's a really good way to do the recraft of the civs. Thank you for streaming.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Well reasoned! I think the best way to address this is with a good old-fashioned poll we'll see if anyone else has different thoughts to you on the topic! And streaming was my absolute pleasure man. We got to do it again sometime! I think at the very least my recrafts will always do that format from now on, if for no other reason than that it's fun.
@stfnknbb
2 ай бұрын
Your unit theory craft videos are my favorite. This channel rocks
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
Thanks so much for saying so my friend! In more recent videos I have been focusing way less on units, but I will almost certainly be returning to them someday! And almost everything I do introduces some sort of regional thing at least, so hopefully you enjoy some of that newer stuff as well if you end up watching it.
@ivanstrydom8417
Жыл бұрын
A really good video sir. I deeply approve of your ideas. Although it would also be good if the devs just give us proper unit skins for the basic A,B,S,M units. Thus correct Archer skins for the archer line will be perfect. Civ appropriate castles and eventually Civ appropriate units (Skins) for each civ. But yours is a very good idea. I love it. Bowline - long range, high damage at all ranges , fast loose rate, takes a long time to train/Upgrade + expensive and has a minimum attack range. (Available from feudal age) Crossbow line - very slow movement speed, Shorter range but very high damage, slow loose rate, cheaper and trains much faster than bow line. (Available from castle age) (China can train Crossbows from feudal age) Papal States/Holy Sea Bonus: The Papal States get an added tech called : Papal banning. When researched, all enemies that are European can no longer train crossbow line (Including you) . Goths. Goths should lose Hand cannonneer and gain a skirmisher bonus. The throwing axemen should become a shared unit: Throwing axemen - Shared with Goths + Norse Franks only get regular, no elite.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for saying so Ivan! It really means a lot that you think so highly of this one. I love your Papal States idea! And it's funny you mentioned the throwing ax men, that's a regional unit I plan on making a video for in the not too distant future! Thanks so much for watching my friend.
@ivanstrydom8417
Жыл бұрын
Always look forward to your Vidoes sir. Hoping we see these ideas become reality soon :) Have a good day sir.
@epicseadragon1692
Жыл бұрын
That would be a radical change, but it is still an Interesting idea. After all, AOE4 has the archer/bowman line and crossbow line separated. I also know that there is an unofficial mod of AOEII called Rome At War which uses the AOE2 game mechanics, but covers the Antiquity period, where certain civilizations unlock the crossbow in the final age (with a tech called "advanced weapons" or something like that), and the crossbow has much larger attack compared to the archers. Also I believe I heard the alpha version of AOE2 was actually splitting archers and crossbows, but they didn't have any upgrade to their archers (much like in AOEI where base archers were fairly cheap but were basically irrelevant from mid-game onwards).
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
That's very interesting sea dragon! I had no idea Rome at War did so, but it makes sense that they did. It was a technology that was largely available during late antiquity. Even Gaulish warriors are said to have used simplified crossbows copied from Roman designs!
@lukelangman4948
3 ай бұрын
Just found this channel and this checks all my boxes for aoe2 and historical content. Looking forward to watching more of your stuff.
@robbylava
3 ай бұрын
Excellent to hear! Very glad that you have found me, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my stuff!
@thomasfplm
4 ай бұрын
19:21 Instead of giving the unit a reload time, it might be simpler in terms of how the programing works to give the crossbowmen a big attack delay. Also, I think it could be interesting for them to be an anti armour unit, by giving them increased minimum damage. I know you did that for the Slinger, but it would fit quite well here too. And the Slinger could be a regional substitute for the Crossbowman.
@robbylava
4 ай бұрын
I unironically love this idea. With your permission I will be using it!
@thomasfplm
4 ай бұрын
@@robbylava, as always, feel free to use.
@erikdw8379
Жыл бұрын
Throughout this I'm thinking "what about Thumb Ring?" I know you said you weren't going to dump ALL of your Archer/Crossbow ideas all at once but Thumb Ring is such an iconic part of the current archer meta that it would be nice to know if it could still fit into your built, if at all. Personally, I'd like to see it become a regional tech available only to nomadic steppe civs like Mongols or Tatars, since I've heard that the Thumb Ring is a Mongol invention. It could largely effect Cavalry Archers while also affecting the Bowman to an extent.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
You're not wrong at all Erik! Thumb ring definitely fits into my bigger picture for archers, but like you mentioned I didn't want to clutter this video too much. To give some impromptu thoughts, I don't think I'd want it to apply to crossbows if the technology were kept in its current form but it could certainly apply to the bowman line. Making thumb ring regional is a very interesting idea, historically it's largely correct! I do believe though that similar devices were used elsewhere, so I could see maybe clustering them all under the same umbrella and keeping it as a common technology. But it's going to take some research for me to come to a good conclusion on that. Hope you enjoyed the video man!
@tomasstanek2982
Жыл бұрын
Well, with that you would also need to rebalance the skirmisher completly, as the archers now become far more practical anti-crossbowman, while all the ranged units become actually countered by cav. Nothing wrong with that though, I guess, the current skirmisher makes almost no sense. I also have to say that I am a bit concerned with windlass, the rate of fire boost is HUGE. I'd rather see it have smaller effect and work on scorpions and maybe mangonels too. As for the pavise, I think it could work as a tech removing the crossbowmen's inability to reload up close and the archer's minimum range? Would definitely have to be a pretty expensive imperial tech though.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hey! Totally agree with you Tomáš, the current skirmisher really wouldn't work well against these units. I do have plans for it though! Thanks for saying that about windlass, that definitely gives me the confidence I needed to make it apply to Siege units as well. I'll probably make it a university technology! And of course it'll help me feel less bad for designing a tech that only applies to a single unit. Also, HOLY SHIT dude, your suggestion for pavise just blew my mind! That is an absolutely AMAZING idea and, with your permission, I will 100% be stealing it! Absolutely brilliant input my friend. Thanks as always for watching Tomáš! And really great having you in chat today during the stream, it was fun getting to hear from you live!
@stevestrangelove4970
Жыл бұрын
i was theorycrafting that milita should be split into shielded soldiers (militia) and two hander soldiers (vanguard). The first one having 0/+1 armor naturaly, while the later having 0/0 armor but increased movement speed (little bit slower than eagle warriors probably) and extra damage against villagers and infantry in general. The later could work for your rework of the viking civilization with the raiders, as instead they are fulfilling the raider role and you only need to add the resource stealing mechanic. I did also theorycraft the bowman and crossbowman split and i had a similar idea on adding range to bowman upgrade line but starting with less range. This is mostly to make it less oppressive at the start and because early archery technology was incredible bad. I also went a similar route with the crossbowmen (not the bonus at closer range) with extra damage against armor and lower RoF BUT I grant them perfect accuracy (cant be upgraded) and when all upgrades combined it has 1 range less than a full upgraded bowman. I am also fooling around changing steppe lancer for just lancer. A charge cavalry (like burgundian special unit) and keep the knight line as the long sustain tank they are.
@dragonlord4643
Жыл бұрын
look up at RobbyLAVAs video about the Footmen, we discussed that a lot, and even split the whole Infantry further appart into - Levys/Footmen (Shielded) Raiders/Axemen (Shockinfantry), Spearmen/Pikemen (Ranged Anti-Cav Spear-Infantry), Billmen/Halberds (Anti-Armor Polearminfantry) Two-Handed Swordsmen/Champions (Anti Spear- and Unique-Unit Infantry) there are a lot of nice concepts about Infantry and their functions
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Dragon lord said it right! Changing the sword line to something much like you propose is high on my list of things to do Steve. I also really want to do a lancer change much like you propose! Only thing I disagree with you on at all would be your comment that early archery was incredibly bad -- if we're talking like Sumeria then I'd agree with you, but even the archery practiced by the ancient Egyptians was remarkably sophisticated, with bows easily able to fire a projectile over 100 yards accurately! By the time we hit the AOE2 time frame, archery was an absolute mainstay in virtually all world cultures. So I disagree with you on that front, but I still agree with how you chose to implement the units!
@stevestrangelove4970
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava what i mean with early archers being bad is that the development of heavy bows and better components for composites was way worst, as greek records call the archers {toxotai) as pretty lack lusters with a range only better than peltast. Making the slingers the kings of range fighting on early warfare. Obviously this changed later, but early archery was really relegated to elites (chariots), specific civilizations or skirmishers (hippotoxotai or scythians).
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Good clarification Steve, I definitely agree with you that early archery among commoners or rank and file soldiers was definitely a far cry from what it became later in the Middle ages.
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
alright so - Bowman 40w 35g, Selfbowman 45w 25g, Composite bowman 25w 45g. So that neither tech makes the unit more expensive. - Crossbow can reload in melee, just not while moving. Keeps the design less convoluted and the unit less awkward and niche. - Crossbow deals its full damage at any range, but has short range (perhaps 5->6 base but no range gain from Fletching) and significant spread on missed shots. Also not affected by Thumbring - I do think that Windlass can just be merged into the Arbalist upgrade
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
Longbowmen could continue training much faster than bowmen, while also hitting noticably harder than them at maybe the cost of a bit of reload time
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
That seems like a very valid way to approach it Iwer! Though I do personally really like the crossbow being stronger when closer to a target. You definitely tend to favor these more elegant solutions, while my designs are far more elaborate!
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Yeah, absolutely. I like when new things stick as close to precedent as possible while achieving what they're trying to do. I also really don't like the Shrivamsha rider. It's my least favourite unit in the game
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting! I'm guessing you don't like the Dodge Shield. How would you remake the unit while preserving its current identity and use?
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Hard to say. The old and boring solution is to give them high pierce armor and speed, maybe a bonus vs. archers. An even more boring solution would be to give them Knights and do something else about the archer matchup. The main design philosophy I see behind the shield is to make them good in small numbers, which could be achieved by giving them a large hitbox so they'd bump more. So maybe 4 pierce armor, speed of a camel or more, and a large hitbox to make them ineffective in groups
@carlosmartinezcaballer8203
Жыл бұрын
Wow, it feels very aoe2. Love itt
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Thanks bud! Great seeing you in the live stream chat today!
@Xastor994
Жыл бұрын
I love how you dubbed this build weird or controversial, where I think it really isn't - it's very elegant and fits into the current AoE2 design philosophy very nicely (even the increased damage based on distance isn't weird at all and I think people wouldn't have trouble adapting to it). Maybe it's weird because it's less complex than your other builds? Anyway I have mostly comments of agreement and I think this would work very nicely even if just slotted into the game as-is. First off, Bowman line icons are **fire**. Anyway, I agree that having bonus damage only would be very lazy and I would have gone with the armor penetration thing as well. The real world analogies are very clear and it opens a lot of doors for interesting design going forward. You mentioned archer unique units - IMO, while some like the Chu Ko Nu can stay, honestly, the Longbowman could probably be changed to a unique or regional (Welsh, English split?) upgrade to the Bowman since it works in a very similar manner and the only difference is range and melee armor. Can you tell I like unique and regional upgrades to common units? I also love the idea of the Latchbow idea as something that some civs would have but not others (though it might not be necessary, as in Feudal they would only really be better than Bowmen against Scouts and Serjeants). I like the idea of mutually exclusive technologies (it really bugged me in AoE1 that some civs get both Polytheism and Monotheism) as a way to futher make units more different rather than just weaker/stronger. When you first mentioned it though the idea that popped into my head was that some civs would have both but you could only research one, sort of selecting the direction you would want to go (similarly to how Unique Techs currently work in Rome At War). This split would also open up the way for the Britons team bonus to affect only the Bowman line at the original 20% again, which certainly makes more sense than helping with CA and HC. I also agree with other comments about people maybe avoiding Composite Bow to avoid the additional gold cost, since the effect is not that huge. I get what you were going for there and that this would make their cost on par with the current Archer line, but if they started out at 35 gold, making them cost more just for an upgrade is really more of a tradeoff. Maybe this will be different for different skill levels (pro games tend to end sooner and gold is fairly fast to gather in the mid game), but currently no techs increase the gold cost of a unit and it's difficult to estimate how much that cost increase is worth in unit power. Playtesting would probably show. Having common techs like this affect unique units of the same type as well honestly should be a thing, and with the current Supplies and Gambesons situation I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction we see the devs go, since Infantry UUs are already more expensive and with regards to cost more of a tradeoff than an upgrade compared to the Militia line. There is even precedent for this with how Parthian Tactics works. I also like how the techs are fairly low key and I think it shows a certain development in your design style compared to earlier builds - even subtle changes can have a huge impact and feel completely different. Windlass affecting siege is a very AoE feeling idea and I love it. Having the Crossbow line not be affected by archer attack upgrades would also be really interesting (I have said previously that I feel like Bracer is way too ubiquitous compared to most other techs). Rome at War has the Crossbowman as basically a reskin for the Hand Cannoneer performing basically the same role as this would here, so I'm not as crazy about that since it would be treading a bit into Gunpowder unit territory. Maybe they could benefit from the range but not the attack? Again, I'm not sure that's at all necessary, just throwing ideas out there. Now, one slight issue that may arise from this build is that now no foot archer units can work on their own (they all essentially need meat shields) and while this is realistic, it would also make them difficult to take advantage of (might actually make box formation useful?) since a few scouts in your archers would disable them for good. You should need screens for your archers, but with the way formations and pathing work currently, I'm afraid that bodyblocking someone's cavalry with your spears would be much less effective than it should. For Bowmen this makes more sense and having 1 minimum range is not as punishing as the 2 of Skirmishers, but for the Crossbow specifically I think maybe not being able to reload at all while moving or being attacked is a bit too punishing, since with their slow speed and complete inability to fight back, there would be no coming back from that. Some games have units automatically switch to a weak melee attack when moving into melee, but since AoE2 doesn't have that (you could do a Ratha on that but I think it would just be very janky and not fun), having them able to fight back but not very effectively seems to me like a way to make the risk not as great, and to allow you to skill your way out of a bad situation. **So**, you mentioned Pavise as a big ass shield. So, what came to my mind was having Crossbows only reload at 50% rate while moving and 25% while being attacked, but the Pavise as a tech increases their pierce armor by 1 while standing and their reload rate while being attacked to 50% (so, same as while moving). It's not the spiky barricade things from AoE4 but it's close.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
You saying that you find this build to be elegant is an absolutely tremendous compliment Xastor, thank you so much brother! And I'm VERY glad that you liked the Bowman icons too -- I was pretty pleased with how they turned out as well! Also, you saying that you like the Latchbow idea really makes me want to use it. I think I'll implement that in the next recraft. Totally agree with you about the longbow just becoming a regional upgrade. And yeah, I think I'm going to give composite bow a little bit more oomph to make sure people find it worthwhile to pick up! I could see certain civilizations having access to both, but I think it would be very rare due to requiring both historical and play style justification -- can you suggest any candidates? A couple other commenters have mentioned really liking windlass also affecting Siege units so I definitely think I'm going to go for it! And your pavise suggestion is super similar to another commenters, which I absolutely loved! Typically speaking, when multiple people all come at me with the same good idea, it's absolutely something that needs to be implemented! So I definitely plan on adding pavise now, as well as your proposal to have crossbows reloading just be greatly nerfed rather than completely invalidated. As always, your feedback is utterly invaluable Xastor. Between reaffirming the ideas I put out to coming up with great ones of your own, these builds just wouldn't be the same without you man! And thank you so much for your kind words. The fact that you're seeing growth within my design style means a lot, and I really hope that trend continues into the future
@Xastor994
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava I don't really know enough history to know which civs could get access to both, I just thought it would be interesting as a "tech tree bonus" to have the option to pick either one (but not both). In general I think we too often overlook the tech tree in favor of the civ bonuses and unique techs, but a lot of the way a civ works is baked into their tech tree. For example, the Persians had an unofficial 3rd bonus from AoK until RotR where they were the only civ with a complete Stable. Similarly, Magyars were the only civ with both Paladin and HCA fully upgraded. Malians have every tech until Imperial (though that will change with the April patch) but pay for it with missing both Blast Furnace and Bracer, the only civ for which this is true. The most famous example is probably Spanish being the only civ with all three trash units fully upgraded. There is a ton of these design aspects that are just as important as civ bonuses, where a civ has a unique combination of units or upgrades that allows it to go for a specific strategy, so maybe we should start talking about those as civ bonuses as well. Food for thought.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
No doubt about that Xastor. I do often consider such things when I'm doing builds. But the tricky thing is that there are only so many permutations of actually useful technology combinations within the current limited tech tree that we have available! If I ever do start making builds with my own expanded tech tree I could see this being a much, much bigger deal though.
@thomasfplm
4 ай бұрын
7:37 The hussites were a good example of that. They used a lot of crossbows and the first guns to fend well trained armies.
@The_Stray_King
29 күн бұрын
Great idea. This would be an awesome addition
@robbylava
28 күн бұрын
Thanks so much for saying so!
@gurugru5958
Жыл бұрын
A lot of interesting stuff and very valid. My main concern is the Composite Bow tech. A lot of people may choose to just not get it, rather than having to spend an extra 10 gold/unit. Also, here's a thought: what if you made a video about your research process? That could be interesting
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
You make a valid point there Guru, maybe I should amp the benefits composite bow gives so it doesn't feel as bad spending more gold. And thanks for the suggestion there man! I actually really like that idea. It would probably be a very short video if I were to do it by itself, but maybe I can put a section on that topic in another related video idea I have coming up sometime later next month. I'm honored that you think my research process is potentially interesting enough to merit inclusion! Thanks as always for watching my friend.
@gurugru5958
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Yeah, no problem! I've just been surprised by some of the stuff you've dug up that I've never seen.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hehehe why thank you! In that case I'll definitely have to make sure I address it. Again, appreciate the suggestion Guru!
@RocketHarry865
2 ай бұрын
Crossbows is one of the reasons for the transition from chain mail to plate armour for the nobility
@divicospower9112
Жыл бұрын
Hello Robby! I really like what you did with these units. I feel that it's the right call. The idea of increasing damages for crossbows when ennemies come closer is great. It fits them well. The different creation time shows what it took to have batallions of bowmen/crossbowmen. I also love the fact that bowmen could not attack at close range. It reflects history so much better. When I was watching, I was thinking "Windlass must be a technology for the crossbows" and you added it! Perfect. Do you think that thumb ring should affect crossbows? I mean, what will you do with this ring on your crossbow? It won't help you to shot faster. Now for the history behind these changes. Of course I am not an expert on every civilizations of the game but I will talk about those that I know. - Franks should have greatbowmen. It sounds weird but actually French had decent bowmen. At the begining of the time frame of aoe2 they had trash bowmen but in 1445, Charles 7 created the compagnies d'ordonnance, mixing knight with 4 bowmen well trained. To reflect that, they could have a bonus in the really late game but not in feudal nor castle age. The same goes for the Burgundians. - The Celts could have greatbowmen too. If you look at the 15th century, you realize that the Scots had bowmen companies, famous for serving the French kings during the 100 years war. - At first I thought "Japanese should have composite bow" but when you look at their bows, it's not quite the same. Maybe they could have a unique technology for their bowmen... - I like the fact that American civilizations don't get the crossbows. - I am not sure that the Byzantines should have crossbows (even if they are not great for them) because Anna Comnenos wrote that the crossbow (that she saw when the crusaders came in the Byzantine empire) was a barbaric (meaning foreign) weapon so it means that Byzantines did not use it. - Did the Japanese have crossbows?
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Really glad you liked it Divicos! I'm honestly delighted that so many people are enjoying how this build shaped up. I don't personally think that thumb ring should affect the crossbow line, though I wouldn't be surprised if it boosted accuracy should the unit be implemented. I wouldn't personally do so though. Ask your history points, you make some very good ones! Since the Celts and Franks encompass such a broad time range and, in the former's case, quite a few different civilizations, I don't necessarily know that I want to change their civilization identity so radically by making their archers too strong. Though they both do miss bracer... Maybe I could buff them up a little bit at least. If nothing else, these units would definitely play a part of eventual theory crafts for more specific subdivisions of those civilizations! As for the japanese, I totally agree that they should have something more unique with their archers. I could say the same about many of there are other units too, but I would say archers are a particularly interesting case for them! And yes, there is some evidence that the Japanese used crossbows, almost one man ballistas it seems. Though such evidence is somewhat scant and might be fabricated, seemed like a decent enough justification to give them weak crossbows at least though. Thanks again for all the feedback my friend! It's always good to see you in the comment section.
@divicospower9112
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Ok I did not know for the Japanese. For the Franks I see what you mean. But to be more accurate, they should not have haleberdiers nor plate mail armor but instead have bracer and arbalesters. Devs have really messed up with them.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Yeahhh they definitely went for more "evocative" than accurate! I do plan on doing some potential Frankish breakaway civilizations at some point, so maybe when that comes I can start to make their tech tree a little less silly.
@langoloql
Жыл бұрын
I like this idea,would be really nice to have this especialy in campaings where civilization didn't have crossbow (like the americas natives) I think I would make something like Archers (bow): faster shooting,costing more,slower training time,longer range (start with 4 range) Archer (xbow): slower shooting,cheaper,faster training,short range (start with 3 range) I like the idea of the xbow do more dmg the closer it is to the enemy,but +1 dmg and -1(enemy armor) for every distances is a little to much,maybe make it do +1 dmg every tile is closer up to a max +3.Also making the xbow almost useless when is at melee range can make people simple not going to train them since they'll require more micro. About technologies,the self bow and composite differences are hard to translate to ingame mechanic. Self warbow needed to be longer and thicker to make them powerfull but where quite fast to make,compared to the composite,that can be made quite smaller, and since most if not all of composite bow had a recurve, that make them shoot the projectile faster and and required less lb to be effective,yet they took longer to make (some took 2years and some more) So something like "Self bow : archer get faster training and +20% hp" "Composite bow : archer get 25% faster attack" For xbow I would give something for their hp and/or armor.GIven that they're already hit harder than archer and benefit from being closer to enemy. The pavese is a good idea,give it to west europe civs,given them something like +0/+2 armor and 15% hp For east civs, idk,maybe silk armor for a +1/+2 armor.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot Langolo! Really glad you enjoyed it. I think that your designs are very valid, and it's great to see you engaging with the idea! Me giving both of them more range is part of a broader vision I have for changing archers, but I think your route is probably closer to how it would end up actually being implemented. A note about the self bow though: it was in fact much easier to make than a proper composite bow, and because of that I was also considering having it reduced training time, but I decided to go a different direction with the cost adjustment. Why? Because I figured that the majority of an Archer's training time, as represented in the game, is best realistically translated as the time the Archer needs to train in order to be able to wield the weapon! Obviously making the bow is important, and in the case of the composite very expensive, but training with the damn thing is even harder! Especially if you are an elite Archer rather than just a local levy. Hope that explains my reasoning! Either way, really cool to see your thoughts on this one.
@simbelmyne1476
Жыл бұрын
I would fundamentally agree with the feeling that AOE2 shouldn't have everything about it changed and x-bow is one of those things to leave (mostly) in its classic state. This theorycraft is also very AOE4 like others said. That said, I think that the design itself is competently done and has some interesting points & aspects! Nevertheless, leave our x-bows alone 1111111111111111111
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Why thank you Simbelmynë! Even if you don't want it anywhere near the game, the fact that you think it's competent is a big win in my books!
@newbossbro3180
2 ай бұрын
I would make it this way. Xbows increase damage but no range Bowman increase range but no damage However upgrading them(like Bowman to Warbowman) to will make damage system more sanitized to keep up with later age units
@riseALK
Жыл бұрын
Crossbowman -> Gastraphetes -> Arbalest Slow fire rate, hard hitting Archer -> Marksman -> Sharpshooter Lower damage (relatively), fast fire rate, more like Skirmishers like in AoE4
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Very similar to my iteration! Just with notably different names. I specifically didn't go with the Gastraphetes as a name since it's from a much earlier era. So do you think that my build here also reflects your vision of the unit pretty well?
@shanerooney7288
Жыл бұрын
This will uproot the entire game balance. That's what? 50 civs to rebalance?
@Grevnor
Жыл бұрын
He specifically said it wouldn't work in the game as is, on its own, without a lot of other major changes. Think of it as a preview of things to come? And it's 42 civs in the current game, well over 50 now with the civ builds on this channel included. You have to look at the bigger picture. 😊
@shanerooney7288
Жыл бұрын
@@Grevnor Speaking of "looking at the bigger picture", we have to consider all other ranged units. Not just the Archer. This was surprisingly hard, but I found a way to give each range unit its own niche... 🔹Skirmishers are trash tanks. 🔹Slingers are trash glass cannons. 🔹Hand cannoneers are the expensive glass cannon. 🔹Bowmen are longer ranged harass units. 🔹Cav archers are very fast raiding units. 🔹Elephant archers are very tanky. 🔹Crossbowmen are ... Shock troopers. High damage (armor pen), short range, moderate tankiness, fast train time. You mass them fast. Force a fight. Push the advantage. Giving the crossbowman a unique role from the hand Cannoneer and the slinger was the hard part. I think I gave it the right balance of stats to make it something unique instead of just a halfway point.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
I'd say johannes's analysis is bang on the money! But your rebalancing proposal is very interesting Shane, I really enjoyed reading it. I would say I agree with over 75% of this breakdown, and even the bits that I'm not completely on board with I think are very respectful. Very nicely done my friend! There's no doubt that a good number of the builds I do on this channel, specifically the unit ones, just wouldn't be viable to be dropped into the game as is. But I think that the more I chip away at the overarching plan in my mind we might get to see a more cohesive picture form! Until then, hope you enjoy the ride my friend!
@shanerooney7288
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava I should clarify.... Slingers - as they are in the game right now - are an Inca unique unit that acts as a cheaper (and available sooner) hand cannoneer. That being said, If we have rebuilding the archery units, now's a good time to make the slinger available to more civilisations. Thus, a rebranding as a trash unit. Skirmishers for tank, slingers for damage.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Oh yeah, totally understand you. I of course did something similar in my Zapotecs and Polynesians builds and intend on giving the unit to pretty much all American civilizations I end up doing going forward! And maybe more besides.
@Taydris0
3 ай бұрын
Notes on the Likeliometer: having a building produce more than 4 different general units goes way against the game's parameters; hotkeys are already limited and having to have another one for additional general or regional units is problematic. Likeliometer less than 1/10 :( I do like these ideas though. I think we'd have to scrap skirms or HCs for any civs involved.
@robbylava
3 ай бұрын
Really glad you like the ideas! I agree with you that it's somewhat unprecedented, BUT there is one big exception to that: the DOCK! When I talk about this topic more in future, I will be using that as my point of justification for adding a whole bunch more units to all of the production buildings without making the UI completely impossible. Is it likely? Definitely not, unfortunately. But is it possible? Absolutely!
@RocketHarry865
2 ай бұрын
Japan is one of those civilisation that used a non-composite laminate bow the Yumi due the lack of sufficient numbers of animals that would have provided the horn and sinew suitable for the construction of a composite bow, as a result they had to use mostly bamboo as an alternative.
@borisalarcon7504
29 күн бұрын
I missed a reference for the first separate crossbowman, the one in Empire Earth which was kind of a sharpshooter, one-hit killer
@robbylava
28 күн бұрын
Yeah, I remember that as well! It's a goofy game with plenty of interesting ideas, though I think that one was more than a little silly. Certainly more interesting than the way AOE2 does it!
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
I'm not too sure about a tech that makes a unit permanently more expensive. Maybe the cost after Composite Bow could be 25w 40g instead of 25w 45g?
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
I see what you mean there Iwer, but it doesn't technically change the total resources! And I've learned from players who are much better than me in the comments section that, while gold is the most valuable resource late game, it's actually considered one of the easiest resources to come by earlier on. As such, the cost adjustment mostly changes where different types of Bowman want to be prioritized during the game -- composite will be more dominant earlier on when gold is more available, and self will be stronger later on when they are easier to mass up. That's the theory at least! Seem like sound logic to you?
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava I can see that. Still doesn't feel all that satisfying tho to have a tech that will eventually come back to bite you
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Definitely true. I think what I'm going to do is make composite bow give more impactful bonuses so it's a bit more tempting to take the trade off. Really appreciate you chatting back and forth about it though Iwer!
@Tucher97
Ай бұрын
you know, I never played AOE2 but I will assume crossbows are just straight upgrades but I can see them being split like crossbows are great against infantry especially heartier infantry, but will melt against archers and cav. Assuming those bows archers get the drop first.
@harpo5581
Жыл бұрын
Great Vid! Accurate likeliometer lol. Wish it could be so, I'm not sure they have this right in AOE4 either, seems pretty hard to balance. I got the sense that you were pushing to make it slower to mass "good" range units, but all civs should have some reasonable ranged units for desperation or counters. And that correlates with your ideas around having Infantry take center stage again. Looking forward to hear more of your thoughts on Archers, Inf Pierce armor/ counters, what do do with Ballistics, Massed Archer damage vs single sniper unit damage and LOS vs Ranged damage. Any thoughts on putting together a Robby's Generic Vanilla AOE2 Civ? A civ with all your proposed updates to units and cross civ techs, but no "true Identity"? I heard from Sandy Peterson that the original game devs purposefully nerfed the Monks in Aoe2 cause the Monks in AOE 1 were just too powerful out of the gate. That's why they get so many techs that only affect that single unit. What about a theorycraft around the Monk/Monastery? I always thought it was a miss not having Holy Orders/Holy wars- enable some super powered additional units or time limited units or something. Or if you could designate an opposing player for a Crusade, all your allies could do bonus damage against them but less damage against others. Lots to play with in that building.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hey, thanks a lot for saying so Harpo! Really glad you think I got this one down well despite the enormous unlikelyness that it's ever implemented heheheh And I'm very much looking forward to sharing the rest of my thoughts on archers! You make a very interesting point about putting out a "Vanilla Robby Civ", that could be a really good idea in future. Especially once I've added a bunch more things, since right now I don't think there'd be a tremendous amount of difference. But you can absolutely expect to see something like that at some point! I do remember hearing Sandy Peterson mention that, and it's not too surprising they took that approach! Since aoe1 was a much slower and clunkier game, a slow and clunky unit like the monk was not nearly as held back as it is in the faster and sleeker AOE2. More religious units will definitely be forthcoming in the future! I recently released a poll on that topic and the only thing people wanted to see more than that seems to be a new Siege engine! So definitely look forward to seeing one pretty soon, and many more down the line! And your holy war idea is extremely cool. With your permission I will definitely steal that idea for a future build! Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts Harpo, it's great to hear from you my friend! And awesome seeing you in chat yesterday.
@quasibrodo923
3 ай бұрын
Would love to see a CA split. IDK if the game can even handle it, but it bothers me CA can’t fire while moving. It also seems like a lot of euro civs shouldn’t have CA, but rather some alternate mounted archer unit, perhaps mounted xbow.
@robbylava
3 ай бұрын
Couldn't agree more. The Cavalry Archer has some of the most missed potential in the game in my opinion. Hopefully it's something I can tackle in a future video!
@arcomegis9999
2 ай бұрын
When I moved from Age 1 to Age 2, I was quite surprised that the archers were the weakest unit and their linear upgrade was crossbows. The slingers were axed by this time period and it was replaced with skirmishers ( clones of peltasts, velites and javelinmen ), in which the latter would have fit perfectly into Age 1 timeframe. It made me miss the old bowman and composite bowman variant from Age 1. The axing of the bowman via upgrades and the multiple instances of games where a bowman can "skirmish" no less than a cavalry archer left me a great distaste. In addition, so many RTS and RTT ( real time tactics ) games bloatedly encourage winning through massing range and cavalry units, completely trashing infantry mechanics. I'm sure that this change, even when it start with such ideas, will make players be more conscientious with all their units.
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
Really well said, I genuinely couldn't agree more.
@Jallorn
Жыл бұрын
The extra range will make mangonels less of a counter late game, as a mass of archers could take it out before it reaches shot range. The value of gold in AoE2 makes the cost shift of Composite Bow feel like a trap if you don't have a mass of archers prior to getting it- I think I would ditch that downside (and it is a downside) and instead treat it as a unique upgrade. If you want the distinction to feel more impactful, increase the bonus of Self Bow's cost shift, but generally, spending on an upgrade that also downgrades the unit tends to end up being bad design.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
A couple other people have mentioned the gold thing as well. One of my goals going forward is to make gold less of a finite resource, there's still one that will often feel more valuable than the other two, but even so I do think that in this current build the trade-off isn't quite worth it. I do have a few updates planned in the recraft that should make it a lot more worthwhile though -- I quite like the wood/gold trade-off, so my current plan is to improve the benefits that composite bow gives to make it much more tempting. We'll see if the change pays off or whether it's still not enough to justify it!
@Jallorn
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava @robbylava Given that the English warbow required a very specific quality of a very specific age of yew to make, perhaps the Composite Bow could justify a training time decrease? So the Composite Bow pays a premium for faster production while the Self Bow produces slower but is cheaper? Then the additional stat modifiers match up better. I'm still in favor of Composite Bow leaving the cost unchanged, personally, so long as gold is more valuable than wood (and I like that it is. The dynamic of late game levy fights is interesting, strategically. It keeps resource allocation choices more relevant.)
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
In my research I actually found it to be the exact opposite! While the wood was very specific for selfbows, pretty much no matter where in the world you find them, they were very easy to make once you found the right tree, and such trees were not exactly uncommon! Composite bows, on the other hand, took hours upon hours of laborious work to make. I saw accounts that some bows would take more than a year to finish by hand. But to compensate they were much smaller and easier to handle, hence my emphasis on speed!
@SergioGomez-ib2te
5 ай бұрын
What do you think of split de knight line ? One can be the paladin line and the another the cuirasier line with pistol ( less atack, piercing atack, 1 of range and cheaper than the paladin) It's historical and it's in the time frame of aoe 2
@robbylava
5 ай бұрын
I've thought about it myself! Definitely something I would like to see, though I might implement it slightly differently. Totally valid for the game though, you can expect to see it on the channel at some point!
@SergioGomez-ib2te
5 ай бұрын
@@robbylava I will wait curiosly for the balance of the unit
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
Can you respond to SotL on the naval rework in the Rome at War mod?
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Hey, so sorry Iwer, I only just saw this. I really enjoyed his video on the subject! And I do think that the Rome at War naval balance is many times better than what we have now. But it isn't exactly how I would have gone about it, though there are some similarities, and I definitely plan on doing a larger water video at some point in the future. Is that something you'd be interested in seeing sooner rather than later? And what's your take on the Rome at War approach?
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava I think the rome at war approach is awesome, maybe there should even be 2 military docks and 1 eco dock instead of just 1 eco 1 military. I'm not sure if every single one of these ships makes sense, but the existence of most of them is probably a good idea I think I'm excited for the infantry video first at this point
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Totally. I'm definitely planning on doing infantry first as well. If you were to break the current dock up into three buildings, what would they all be?
@iwersonsch5131
Жыл бұрын
@@robbylava Nah the current dock can't be 3 buildings, it can only be 2. But the Rome at War dock should be 3 buildings - one for economic ships, one for galley/fire type ships, one for demo/siege type ships
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Ohh, I see what you mean! Yeah, that sounds very cohesive to me.
@thomasfplm
4 ай бұрын
9:25 It is also funny how many movies and RPGs depict the bow as something used by weaker people. Frequently putting them in the hands of women. A woman capable of using a warbow would have no problem using a sword in terms of strength. I'd say that it is easier for a weak person to be a good swordsman than a good archer. Obs.: It is interesting that D&D 3 and 3.5 (I don't know about the others) apply your strength bonus to the bow if it is negative.
@robbylava
4 ай бұрын
Yeah, that has always baffled me too. You a D&D player, Thomas?
@thomasfplm
4 ай бұрын
@@robbylava, my group has played more Iron Kingdoms RPG, but I personally like D&D 3.5 quite a lot.
@viktordahlman3542
2 ай бұрын
Because (I think) you could move around with a loaded crossbow without needing to use anymore strength to continuously pull the string back unlike the normal bow, would it be reasonable to remove the delay of shooting once it is loaded? Like you fire almost immediately when you click attack. This could increase its ability for micro but you would still have to wait for reload after the first volley.
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
Yep, that was definitely part of my intention. Very low attack delay
@viktordahlman3542
2 ай бұрын
@@robbylava This is a separate question but do you think it would be suitable to add 1/3 or 1/2 range to polearm units?
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
@viktordahlman3542 honestly not sure. I think it would need to come as part of a much more substantial overhaul of infantry in general. As of now spears seem pretty okay, and I wouldn't really want to nerf them in order to accommodate such a powerful adjustment. That said, what I would REALLY like to see is an entirely new Pikeman unit, separated out from the general spear line. It could cost gold, have much beefier stats, and actually get a little bit of range. That said, I do think there are slightly higher priorities for infantry even than that.
@viktordahlman3542
2 ай бұрын
@@robbylava I really liked the sword/greatsword video. Giving shields purpose and the 180° attack by greatswords. But maybe the temple/shrine was even better.
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
@viktordahlman3542 thanks a lot my friend! Really glad you're enjoying the ideas
@quaintserpent
Жыл бұрын
Separating archer from crossbow and shieldmans (man at arms) from swordsmans (two handed swordsman is necessary.
@qsywastooshort7451
Ай бұрын
I'm a little disappointed that you repeated the assumption that crossbows are inherently armor piercing weapons compared to bows, which is just not accurate. If you're gonna have a unit with a warbow in imperial age it's gonna end up shooting projectiles with the same punch as a crossbowman of the same level with their bigger crossbow. If anything the difference should just be that crossbowmen are trained faster and have a slower rof.
@robbylava
Ай бұрын
You're not the only commenter to bring this up. I found sources taking both sides in this discussion, and having shot both bows and crossbows before I feel like the idea that their flight dynamics and piercing power would be fundamentally the same is reductive. There's no doubt that the armor piercing thing is largely overstated though, and some sources that other commenters have brought to light since I made this video would mean that I would do it differently today. But I do still think that bows and crossbows are different enough that boiling their differences down to just cost and training time would lose a lot of depth and flavor both from a historical and a gameplay perspective.
@surgeonsergio6839
2 ай бұрын
The idea that crossbows were better anti armour weapons compared to regular bows is a myth. In reality the crossbows with the crazy draw weights of 900/1200 lbs or whatever aren't better than regular bows with only 120/180 lbs of draw weight. That is because crossbows use much shorter bolts which means they've got a shorter draw length or power stroke. Which actually means that they provide the same amount of energy in their projectiles. So in terms of quality the normal bow outclasses the crossbow in every regard, except for maybe accuracy, although a well trained archer would probably be more accurate than a low skilled crossbowman. Even in battlements the crossbow doesn't seem to have the advantage that one'd expect. The main reason they were used was cause you can train a crossbowman much faster than an archer and that they can have their first shot ready to go. Other than that it doesn't make any sense for them to be better, so the armour piercing crossbow thing is a myth. kzitem.info/news/bejne/tZp4mmtmpaFnoYI kzitem.info/news/bejne/zoCDr3yMqXeElII&pp=ygUZbG9uZ2JvdyB2cyBjcm9zc2JvdyBwb3dlcg%3D%3D
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
I both agree and disagree with this, but I do love Todd's Workshop and really enjoyed those videos (it's been a while since I've seen them though, so I'll be going off of memory). The crossbow has a lot of intangible benefits beyond the ones you listed, such as being able to have a round loaded and ready to fire without getting tired, but another element that I don't remember being mentioned in the video was the relative stiffness of bolts versus arrows. Arrows have to be bendy by nature, and because of this they are less effective at piercing plate, particularly at shorter ranges. I could be wrong, maybe Todd mentioned this, or maybe I'm talking out my ass, but I have practice archery a good amount and studied medieval archery pretty extensively, and this is what I remember being the main argument for crossbows being better anti-armor weapons, even beyond their higher draw weight. But even if I'm wrong about that, I think the biggest misconception I'm seeing here is that these metrics applied worldwide when Todd seems to only have been testing ENGLISH weaponry. Different parts of the world had many different bow and crossbow designs that handled very differently, and English bows were absolutely renowned for their armor piercing power, which other bows simply couldn't match, those due to the English archery tradition and some of their innovations with bow and arrow manufacturing, such as weighted arrow shafts and the bodkin. So in summary, I would still be inclined to have crossbows be an armor piercing weapon, particularly at shorter ranges, with different civilizations having different incentives to use them over bows or vice versa. What I think we can both agree on though is that it is absolute nonsense having the crossbow be represented as a direct upgrade to the Archer. The two lines 100% need to be split, at least in this history pedant's opinion.
@surgeonsergio6839
2 ай бұрын
@@robbylavaYou'd think that the bolt being stiffer would make a difference but actually it doesn't. The link below compares the two weapons' armour penetrative power and the crossbow performs poorly compared to the longbow, albeit they're using a 600 lbs crossbow, not 800+ and they do it at pretty much blank range. The fact is, Tod's theory lines up with reality, the crossbows don't necessarily excel in beating plate or as a matter of fact any type of armour better than a regular bow. It's simply that 120-200 lbs bows are actually comparable to the 800-1200 lbs crossbows. As for other cultures, they had equivalent weaponry to the Europeans and I don't necessarily agree that the English craftsmanship was that much better. There are reports of monglols, Chinese and many other cultures using 160 lbs recurved bows as well. Some exaggerated reports of 250+ lbs as well, but you can take them with a grain of salt. Other cultures simply had or could have produced comparable levels of armour penetrative power, even their armour piercing arrowheads are equivalent to their European counterparts. Many "yanone" arrowheads from Japan even had designs similar to the European bodkin and plate cutting types. Even if we accept that English archery tech was better than the others, the crossbow would still not perform better than the English bows itself. Thereby, either they'd both be equivalently armour piercing or equivalently bad at it. kzitem.info/news/bejne/0m-gp6R_mnt-dKg
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
Very well, if nothing else you've convinced me to rewatch these videos! I'll take a look and see what I can see. If it seems appropriate, I will gladly change the design. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention.
@longbow857
Жыл бұрын
I think the bonus damage and armour negating depending on distance might be too much of a game changer depending on how good the player is in micro. You claim it will be a low micro unit, whilst I would argue it would be the most micro intensive unit in the game. Yes you have no hit and running to do, but the micro comes in with other units shielding these crossbows and then firing at the high value targets at the right time. Feels to me like how BBC work right now. Yes you can just let the BBC shoot whatever, but if you actually micro the big blobs of ranged units in the back you get much more out of them. Also as long as you have no pavise upgrade I would argue that the crossbow should have the same movement speed as the regular archer. I see little reason why they would be slower then regular archers since they also gain armour from the castle age forward and making them slower completely shuts down the combined play you would like to see together with archers, because no one would want to micro 2 ranged units with different speeds.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
That's an interesting point longbow. I definitely don't think it would be anywhere near as micro-intensive as current archers, stutter step is a big deal, but it would make target prioritization more important. I do intend on adding Pavise as a technology due to all the demand from commenters! But even with that, I definitely don't think the crossbow should match the speed of the bowman. Having used both, the former is definitely more awkward to move with, and I think giving them different speeds helps distinguish the units more, which is always a plus in my book. I kind of see the combined arms vision working kind of like how the Turks alternatingly use hand cannons and cavalry archers right now. Each in different control groups, each serving different purposes. Whether or not it actually ends up working that way is anyone's guess though! Really interesting hearing your thoughts my friend. How would you personally have gone about this design? Thanks so much for taking the time to watch!
@crito3534
Жыл бұрын
Funny how spears were the most common weapon in the world and still it is the least common in AoE2.
@robbylava
Жыл бұрын
Isn't it though?! That's something that my Footman build tries to address, but I'd also love to see more Lance wielding cavalry commonly available in the game! The fact that the only two we have both wield swords is very silly to me.
@tonled6960
2 ай бұрын
too bad there are already Composite Bowmen....
@robbylava
2 ай бұрын
I put out this video almost a year before the Armenians were released! Plus, them having the Composite Bowman as a unique unit is absolute nonsense and is implemented terribly, so even if the official build were released before this I would still feel pretty confident in my proposal here.
Пікірлер: 146