Give more civs elephant archers! (AoE2)

[@sebc6369]

11:09 Let’s be honest, we all know SOTL made this video just so he could have an excuse to put the steppe lancer and magyar huszar side-by-side. I’m not complaining tho it looks cool

[@shaan4308]

why not give the magyar huszar +1 range, he is also carrying a long spear.

[@LeftJoystick]

@@shaan4308 I dig it. I’d like to try a mod with “realistic weapon reach” or something similar. Longer spear = more reach per unit.

[@NestorKYAT]

I main tatars, and the primary reason for that is that steppe lancers + keshiks looks really cool, so I get the appeal 100%

[@yuuya5985]

@@NestorKYAT another tatar main!! high five my friend :D

[@NestorKYAT]

@@yuuya5985 🤝

[@Vityaz69]

Only if you put more elephant facts in your videos should they consider adding more elephants.

[@xthetenth]

You understand.

[@grabik4402]

Still waiting for the bombard elephant, trebuchete elephant, skirmisher elephant, infantry elephant (elephant with a sword) and probably the most desired one the elephant elephant (an elephant riding an elephant) 🤞🤞🤞

[@andrewbrown6745]

This is the way

[@johnconnor8206]

Comrade

[@unnamedtheanonymous763]

@@grabik4402 also scout elephant, and ofc flaming elephants

[@kodys2087]

From a strictly historical standpoint and not necessarily related to game design, Southeast Asian civs like Burmese, Khmer, and Thai primarily used polearms as their weapon of choice in the elephant corp, like the ngao. So I think it's fine for them to just have Battle Elephants and leave Elephant Archer as the South Asian Regional Unit. More Regional Units would be cool!

[@tyranitararmaldo]

Persians on the other hand did use archers in the howdah. Hell, it even says in the in-game description for Persians that they do this haha!

[@SCH292]

Lol. Your comment got me thinking of something and it's way off topic...Remember the whole..."cannons on elephants" myth history? I recall seeing a old YT video about cannons on elephant. The video tried to prove that the Khmer did mounted cannons on elephants and they try to prove by using...paint ball cannons on elephants. For me the cannons on elephants is 100% nonsense made up by stupid fake historians. Why? First of all cannon is heavy. That's gonna be a lot of weight on the elephant + you have to carry cannon balls and powder. How are you going to reload it? Second there weren't any "breach loading cannons back then". Remember that cannons back then reload from the muzzle. Pour in gunpowder, insert the cannon ball, ram them down tight and light the little rope/match from the rear. Third. Recoil is massive. It's gonna stop or even push the elephant back. If they put a small cannon..well..that's stupid because now the cannon + ball are too small to break down walls or damage enemy formations and the range is too short.

[@Achilles75]

@@SCH292 yeah i guess ur probably right. I haven't watched the episode tho so i really am not fit to say anything but there are pictures on cannons on elephants during the world wars tho i have no clue what they were attempting to do and if it was just ceremonial just like cannons on camels are(check out the aoe subreddit for the pics of cannons on camels during the Indian republic day parade)

[@JimRFF]

@@SCH292 as fas as I know, there *were* historical examples of guns being used from the backs of elephants and camels in the 1600-1800's (which is admittedly well out of date for the time period of AoE2) but they were closer to something like the "hand cannon," not an actual full-sized piece of artillery... the mounted guns would be swivel guns (like naval deck guns used to clear an area at close range before boarding) and fire a projectile smaller than your fist, something that a single person could handle and operate... definitely NOT the giant muzzle-loading wall-pounders that the game uses haha

[@minikawildflower]

agree, I think the regional units that like, 2-5 civs get and share, are really cool and adds different aspects of similarity and contrast. Like two cav civs share similarities, but might have those regional differences, and two civs with a shared regional unit might be more archer or cav based, etc.

[@CappnRob]

I love all of these choices tbh. AoE2 adding more and more regional units to more diversify their civilization identity and aesthetics are very nice. Steppe lancers in particular are considered really underpowered right now so giving more civs access to them may help them find their place better… and they do look very nice riding around with the Magyar Huzsars.

[@eRic-hr3yl]

Keep in mind that even tho no civ misses it, elite upgrade could be removed for Steppe Lancer if it was too strong in a particular civ (would be rare since Steppe Lancers are at their strongest in early Castle Age) Also not all Light Cav bonuses need to apply to Steppe Lancers neither all Battle Elephants bonuses need to apply to Elephant Archers/Armored Elephants, and civs recieving any new unit could have their bonuses a bit changed to make room for the unit rooster change without turning OP

[@The-jy3yq]

I think it would give a nice "time fuse" option, akin to Burgundians vs Franks where one is better only at a certain time Also Flemish Revolution

[@Retax7]

I think the suggested changes can enhance a lot the thematic and gameplay experienced. Thanks for the insights!

[@xthetenth]

Elephant Fact: elephants are fascinating creatures, and more elephant units should be added to AoE2 as an opportunity for exposition.

[@laycey]

That's not actually an elephant fact, that's a pair of subjective opinions. That doesn't mean you should share them, or that they're any less valid and worthwhile to hold, but saying elephants are fascinating creatures is the same as saying that blue cheese tastes amazing: The truth value of the statement is dependent entirely on whether the person making the claim is sincere in their holding that opinion about elephants, or blue cheese respectively. Next time please actually give us real elephant facts, thanks!

[@erickcenteno7731]

@@laycey an elephant facts fanboy I see!

[@dj_koen1265]

I will supply an elephant fact to offset the elephant opinion And maintain balance in the comment section Elephant fact: Male elephants go into a state of “drunkeness” periodically where they become very aggressive and dangerous even to people with which they get along normally Therefore male elephants are traditionally chained and starved during this time in india until this period is over Female elephants do not share this phenomenon and are therefore much safer to work with and generally preferred as work animals

[@kukumarro]

Thematically-wise, it would make sense giving steppe lancer to the listed civs, but withhold elite steppe lancer from semi-nomadic civs like Bulgarians and Magyars. This would reflect the historical transition of these peoples from nomadic steppe civs to sedentarian european civs in the late middle ages. Turkic peoples settled in Anatolia continued their ancestral lifestyle much longer even under the Ottoman rule, so Turks having elite steppe lancer sounds correct.

[@samfire3067]

So byzantins should have berzerks because there was a group of vikings that reached the byzantin empire, beated then and decided to live and worm for then. (Viking in turkey)

[@ryans8122]

I'm a fan of giving more regional units. The elephant archers would be a bit of a buff to bad civs, and I think they could even go through with removing knights for the 7 civs who could get steppe lancer.

[@kylethomas9130]

Didn't realize the Howdah tech wasn't a part of a civ with Elephant Archers, that feels weird.

[@guillexparodiax]

In aoe 4, the Delhi Sultanate, which are similar to the Hindustanis, get a tech called howdah that will affect elephant archers by giving them xbows instead of arrows

[@YellowVillager]

@@guillexparodiax you are husband of jacqueline of hainaut right?

[@guillexparodiax]

@@YellowVillager I am the nemesis of Saladin. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine”

[@YellowVillager]

@@guillexparodiax 7 master of Templar they say

[@kashanabbas3946]

@@guillexparodiax give me an order master.

[@minikawildflower]

The regional unit idea is pretty interesting to me as I watch Ornlu's state of the civs this year. There are some civs where he notes that the balance or playstyle is weird and needs help, but isn't sure what kind of bonus nerf/buff would help. A few of those are cases where access to a new regional unit might help fix a gap, or make them feel more stylistically complete.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

YES! Units take a lot of time and effort to model, I understand unique units being exclusive to 1 civ, but regional ones should be much further spread out. I mean they changed the main tech tree for the game, might as well do more with it. Also I would extend the thought experiment to Elephant Archers to go to the Persians (although something would have to be done so that they retain Cavalry Archers, as it's a massive part of the irl identity). Then Steppe Lancers for Hindustanis (as they have lots of influence from the Timurids), Persians (a semi-steppe civ, and they literally have cavalry units that looked like them) and possibly Gurjaras (who have influence from the Hunas, and to represent the Rajputs heavier cavalry better).

[@voidgods]

Persians in-game don't use Cav Archers that much, they instead gave this identity to the Turks, so I think they would be fine getting Ele Archers. The issue here would be a different one though - currently Persians are know for being a cavalry only civ and their ranged option is the aptly named "trash"-bows. They already have an above average late economy, so giving them an actual good archery unit might 1. Make them too strong and 2. Change the identity they had since always and 3. Make the trashbow useless so might as well remove that tech

[@Igor369]

Yeah 2 generic units stables and barracks feel lackulster by today's standards, especially considering how pitiful swordsmen are. We could use a few more regional barracks units although I am not sure what would fit without breaking the game.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

@@voidgods personally, Persians not having fully-upgraded (or equivalent) Cavalry Archers in-game is a mistake. They have a history of having powerful Cavalry Archers across the Middle Ages and Antiquity, with the "Parthian Tactics" tech being named after their tactics used against the Romans. Persians are also pretty dull right now, so a way to make their Cavalry Archers more viable would be welcome.

[@voidgods]

@@tyranitararmaldo I agree but this is something they should have thought about 25 years ago. At this point, and they already said it, they won't risk making civ changes just out of historical accuracy, if that would come at the detriment of civ identity/balance.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

@@voidgods I dunno about that. They added Steppe Lancers to Mongols, which is accurate. They gave Chinese Block Printing, something they had. And they dismantled the "Indians" civ for more historically accurate South Asian civs. So there is a precedent for them going back and tweaking things for the sake of accuracy. I wouldn't be shocked if there was an update in the future which did something similar again. Also on the balance point, it's frankly an irrelevant point when it comes to adding a new unit into a civs roster. The civ could be unbalanced for 1 patch, and then they can do something like change the numbers a civ bonus does, or remove an "Elite" upgrade and dial things back. Adding a single new unit does not break a civ permanently, it's a "living" game.

[@L3monsta]

I came back to this video since the dromon has become a new "regional" unit as an alternative to the cannon galleon

[@Zuppigaming]

Man your channel is just straight up fire✅ thanks for always making videos when we need them the most

[@Manouil_III]

9:22 - Imperial age Turks are the Ottomans tho... so no, certainly it doesn't make sense for them to have the Elite Steppe Lancer upgrade, even worse for free. However, the key question in any unit availability case is perhaps the following: *Did they at least employ some?*

[@AgentForest]

As for Malay, one of my favorite civs on island maps, I don't really use their siege workshop anyway. I generally use naval supremacy to land villagers in someone's territory, build a foothold base, and pump out ungodly numbers of Zerglings and Ultralisks. Did I say Zerglings and Ultralisks? I meant Karambit Warriors and Battle Elephants. I love the idea of just giving them unupgraded elephant archers though. Even if the cost discount was applied to them as well as battle elephants.

[@yakitatefreak]

I'm definitely open to the idea of elephants in the SEA civs. I like the idea of boosting the civs with a bottom tier rank and create some avenues for a potentially higher ranking civ. However, if we give steppe lancers to the Huns, we have a reason to have an excluded elite line for the game now (All three currently have the option of upgrading to elite), as well as nerf some of the Hun stats to balance the game a bit better. Overall, it would be a pretty fun idea to work with. Do I advocate steppe lancers as much? Probably not, but it's an interesting idea.

[@brainwasher9876]

Free elite steppe lancers for Turks is an intriguing option. As far as I understand, the elite upgrade is skipped because it's so expensive and because steppe lancers are seen as good early castle harass options, quickly focusing down palisades and poking villagers trying to wall themselves in, but drop off in relevance when all civs start transitioning to unique units, the knight line, and crossbows. Granting elite for free might make Turk steppe lancers viable in early imperial when everyone else is ignoring it.

[@raquetdude]

Either scout line or SL line don’t think both it would work. Turks are a gold heavy Civ aside from Scouts so would make them least pay for one Imperial Cav upgrade that they got bonuses for

[@CrnaStrela]

Just give them steppe lancer but not elite, also give the steppe lancer the same bonus as the scout line. That would give Turks powerful cavalry option in castle without spending too much gold.

[@arcomegis9999]

First off, great for mentioning the unit mod. I really encourage the adding of the Elephant-line and Steppe Lancers. I’d like to point out that with the Lancers added, there should be no point in keeping the knight-line as a second heavy cavalry unit. And also for cultures who don’t implement knighthood system. Not unless there are accounts of knights forced to fight for their captives. Besides that, check out the mods that add Eastern Swordsman, Norse Warriors, Legionary and Centurions too. They deserve a mention despite being abandoned for years.

[@sauravtripathi4128]

Steppe Lancers are light Cavalry units, not heavy. That's why they share bonuses and upgrades with Scout line.

[@thewolfssegen4290]

Burmese getting elephant archer might actually be huge as they really lack in answers to archers. Cavalry and siege are their options, but can feel awful in a lot of scenarios. While expensive, elephant archers filling the void their God awful skirmisher leaves might help the civ a lot, especially with their bonuses.

[@lukasg4807]

Burmese skirms aren't that bad. Yeah they're squishy as hell, but they still have bracer and can kill archers if you have anything in front like your hussar with an anti-archer bonus.

[@ozdemirozkanoz7315]

I loved the idea. When i saw the keshik generating gold i had similar thought experiment. Like this new mechanic should given to some old civs. To be spesific wood raider and tarkan came into my mind.

[@ozdemirozkanoz7315]

Hussite wagons damage reduction and serjants ability of building unique defense can be shared with some old civs aswell.

[@a.nonimus6705]

Wood raiders should generate wood, not gold

[@ozdemirozkanoz7315]

My bad its woad raiders so no wood :D

[@Mangeol]

This would honestly be so cool, Actually agree with basically all of them except maybe Steppe lancer for huns. Of course some stats for the bonuses might have to be tweaked but still nice!

[@talmagejones]

The elephant arguments all look great tbh. Steppe lancers, though, might mess with gam balance by a LOT. That said, I firmly agree with the point that SotL makes about a cool unit not being given to many civs.

[@AgentForest]

Khmer is my favorite civ in the game, and I don't think I've EVER made a cavalry archer with them. Not once. Maybe I wouldn't use the elephant archer, maybe I would, but it wouldn't hurt to give me the option, lol. Generally, I make a massive deathball of ballista elephants guarding my bombard cannons. I press my lead by swarming battle elephants out of my base as the fight continues. Elephant archers might give me an earlier unit to defend with before my castles and siege workshops are online.

[@quasibrodo923]

While I don’t want to see AOE2 swing all the way to asymmetric civ design with completely different unit compositions, I think there is plenty of opportunity to expand some of the lesser utilized regional units.

[@山下弘毅-z3x]

Maybe we should have Regional Units as a concept; each region (Western Europe, East Asia, Eastern Europe) etc should have a regional unit on top of each civ's unique unit. Maybe we can also make Missionary a Regional Unit that can be used for all civs that share the same building style as the Spanish?

[@shykorustotora]

I do think it's a little weird to have civs classified as "Elephant" civs... yet they don't actually have that many elephants. I'm all for these changes. Sounds like fun~

[@asder2036]

It'd be better if they costed wood and gold. Gurjaras are so food intensive with camels, chakram and riders, which counter cavalry, infantry and ranged, that you really have no room for high food cost ranged units.

[@ParamecioLord]

I think that expanding such regional units is a great way of buffing traditionally weak civs and adding flavor to them at the same time. I would love such a thing happening in the official patches.

[@braedenaronson1470]

I'm all for it, I love elefants in aoe2 and would love to see more.

[@kevinz9473]

I’ve always thought that the steppe civs should have steppe lancers INSTEAD of knights. This would make steppe lancers easier to balance (instead of trying to find a niche between heavy and light cav) and makes historical sense.

[@dsong2006]

give them to Chinese and Koreans as well, knights/cavaliers/paladins are not a thing in East Asia except for Japan. Also remove Camels from Chinese, that makes no sense to me. Maybe instead introduce an anti-cavalry cavalry(mounted halberdier) and/or a mounted anti cavalry crossbowmen(mounted genoevese crossbowmen) to cover the Camel role for the Chinese. These are easy changes to make

[@__lim494]

@@dsong2006 Medieval Japan doesn't have any heavy cavalry traditions like Western knights. Early samurai were horse archers and rode small ponies. The samurai of the sengoku era were infantry officers armed with katana. So if you look at it from a purely historical point of view, even their bloodline upgrades should be eliminated.

[@__lim494]

@@dsong2006 Therefore, if we don't consider game balance, they will be the most infantry-centered civilization in the game, along with the Meso civilization.

[@chancevance1641]

How the AOE team has not implemented your ideas already and given you $$$ for it baffles me, amazing video as always.

[@kodys2087]

An elephant centric Spirit of the Law video without Elephant Facts?

[@lorddervish212quinterosara6]

Persians and Hindustanis also should get that Steppe Lancer considering their use of Turkish slaves/paid-mercenaries and allies, hell, many Persian Empires were actually from the steppe, who after taking the land adopted the local culture

[@TheChrisD]

One way to make the expansion of the civs with access to Steppe Lancer a little more balance, could maybe be making SL to be a Knight replacement for the nomadics.

[@brucedavidson3881]

Then the game is less accessible - different build order for every culture area

[@xMarble]

@@brucedavidson3881 All the Indian civilizations also have the knight line removed, so I don't see a problem with this

[@nguyenmai4806]

This idea, I really like. Considering historically, nomadic empires rarely made use of heavy cavalries.

[@cleanerben9636]

This is a good idea. Fits the nomads a lot better.

[@SvanTowerMan]

I think if the Burmese received Elephant Archers, Howdah should give +1 or +2 range as well, since Elephant Archers literally stand on a howdah. The extra range is logical, since a howdah was basically a short tower on the back of an elephant as we can see on the unit, so having such a high vantage point would naturally result in greater range. On top of that, the Burmese don't really use CAs due to their poor armor, so they wouldn't be missing out on much, and the Burmese bonus and tech, as well as Parthian Tactics, would make up for the missing armor. In short, there's really no reason the Burmese couldn't have Elephant Archers.

[@pokefuranku]

Since the Indian DLC release I have been thinking "why others elephants civs don't have archer and/or siege elephants?". Thanks for the video!! I love it.

[@Taydris0]

I *really* like these ideas.

[@damienverishine5434]

The biggest thing that bothers me is that Lithuanians, and poles both have the winged hussar as a "uniuqe" unit. When really it's just be a regional unit

[@edwardpinder5634]

Great vid, they should definitely do it! Also I think no upgrades for both Siege Elephant and Elephant Archer with massive discount would be sik!

[@Doc_Calamari]

Great Video! I have also been thinking a lot about this recently and changed things around in the editor. For the elephant units I thought this: - Vietnamese should get Elephant Archers, with elite upgrade and team bonus but without Chatras applying to them; also, no Armored Elephant, to differentiate them from the other elephant civs and better synergy with their woodchopping bonus, also kinda redundant because of the already tanky Battle Elephants - Burmese and Khmer should both get the Armored Elephant and upgrade, with their civ bonuses etc. applying, but no Elephant Archers; I think this would give the Burmese a more distinct Cavalry Archer/Elephant identity (Cavalry Archers should also get some sort of bonus); for the Khmer the Cavalry Archer is more useful compared to the Elephant Archer, also this would still differentiate them a bit from the Bengalis, who I think would feel to similar otherwise (also both would have 4 elephant units each which would be nice and balanced ) - Malay should get Armored Elephants and also Elephant Archers with the discount, but no Elite Elephant Archer upgrade to lean more into their whole thing (they would also mirror the Dravidians which would be nice and balanced) As for the Steppe Lancer: - Huns should get Steppe Lancers, with both the stable creation time and cavalry archer discount bonuses, but without the elite upgrade (also Huns should be central Asian building set) - I had never really thought about Steppe Lancers for the Turks before seeing the video but it makes perfect sense, I'd love to see the devs lean even more into their light cavalry identity

[@Hoopsnake]

Given how little usage that Cavalry Archer slot gets, this seems like a really fun idea. I'd even suggest finding a way to improve them for Burmese, just in case you want to at least pretend you have a ranged game with that civ lol.

[@letswaveabook3183]

They have a ranged game: monks.

[@michaelmain3286]

Hi Spirit! Great vid but please can you explain why trebuchets can't convert sheep (not even Celt ones) while rams can? Aren't they both just sentient wood? Might be good to put out a video on the questions you have asked/been asked over the years you don't have an answer for? Keep up the great work!

[@anonnymousperson]

This Brave Man is asking the real questions. Why does the siege workshop use sheep-converting wood, but the castle does not? What other units can't convert sheep? Is the same true of gaia units? We need an answer Spirit!

[@nemou4985]

ram has space for unseen people inside. I ask more about Siege Scorpion and Onager...

[@drmajalis1583]

What about Persians? I think Persians with Ele Archers could be very interesting and a good complement to War Eles against Pikes and Halbs

[@lloydreed4721]

The have Trashbows.

[@Edelweiss1102]

Mahout Elephant Archers go brrrr

[@tkzsfen]

Nothing could be off-balancing, when you consider the PTSD-inducing first weeks of the DE release in 2019. The hordes of Cuman and Tatar step lancers were the pinnacle of overpowering :D :D :D

[@quasibrodo923]

During the Viper/Vinchester set of TCI, Hera and Margougou were casting and they suggested giving Huns SL w the Hun CA discount. #giveHunsSL

[@Vi_XXiV]

Then, I suppose the Meso civs should have their own versions of the Militia line. I think it would give more uniqueness to these civs.

[@jn1mrgn]

Then they can take away all their unrealistic techs.

[@DrunkedOwly]

I would love some visual flair to some civs tbh

[@OytheGreat]

I've always been a fervent supporter of 'sandbox' environments for online games. I hope the AoE2 devs would also see the benefits of such an experimental environment where you could play (unranked only?) games on. All crazy experiments can happen there and I for one would love that. I don't care about ranked games, I just want to have fun and would welcome such changes with open arms and play much more often too. The results of what's being tried out in the sandbox can become permanent features!

[@junkyardemperor7030]

Imo the Battle Elephant remains a southeast Asia exclusive, because Bengalis and Dravidians are the only south asian civs that get them and they are very close to SE Asia in terms of bonuses and how they play (to the point they even share the same ship sails, whereas Hindustanis and Gurjaras use the Middle East sails)

[@robbylava]

I am pretty much always a proponent expanding tech trees and civilization rosters, so these additions sound brilliant to me! If any proved overpowered in practice, I doubt it would be particularly hard to tone things down to the point where they were properly balanced. But that's very much my bias talking!

[@maxvarjagen9810]

Thematically, turks and bulgars shouldn't get steppe lancers, as the civilizations' in-game identities are based off of their their IRL late medieval/ renaissance era. Huns and Magyars I think thematically should get steppe lancers, but the question is how to include them in a way that is both useful and balanced.

[@JoDi-k5s]

Man, SOTL i just love you for these kind of videos. Thanks

[@joelining]

I love playing Magyars. Discounted steppe lancer would give them a good transition from scouts in castle age since their CA aren't particularly amazing until recurve bow. Might be a little OP but I would love to try it. As far as elephant archers I just find them too expensive to be useful. They only really seem viable in team games when you're already winning and have extra res to spend. Malay discount would make them worth trying

[@hawkticus_history_corner]

From an exclusively game balance perspective the Elephant additions you put forward seem.... Fine. Mostly it's buffs for bad or middling Civs, so I'm for it

[@joaopedromoura4640]

Pleaseee, i love your work! Could you do a video talking about combos in 10x civ bonuses? Would be incredibly nice… or the most dmg civ, or the one who get more benefits!!

[@Davtwan]

Honestly, most of these changes sound really good. For the Malay though, I think giving a 15% discount in Castle and 20% in Imperial for the Siege Elephant would work much better.

[@DrRobGilles]

I’m all for the steppe lancer to more nomadic civs. I personally think the free lancer upgrade would be too much value plus hussar but I wouldn’t mind testing it out for a while. I personally think Bulgarian Steppe lancers with stirrups would erase villages in no time. Very deadly. Or if in good numbers would have god micro potential Also think Magyar lancers would be such a fun transition from a scout rush to lancers. Especially if it had the discount

[@dimahidden1166]

Was added Romans in RoR update, so will be good give legionaries to Byzantine too

[@erwinwendler4621]

great analysis SOTL, thx! I keep hoping for more civs to have steppies, they are really a fun unit to use

[@alt5494]

Would agree these would be nice changes. Changing herbal medicine to 15hp/min health recovery to all units within ten tiles of a monk (except ships) would improve the technology.

[@Temudhun]

Isn't the rattan archer already in an awkward position, considering the imperial skirm fills the same role, doesn't cost gold and doesn't need a castle to be trained?

[@anghainguyen9951]

Well the big diffrent that IS it skirm and they suck fight other thing than arrcher, when Rattan are must better that them sinc ethey only 0.1 slower than plum Archer which might be good buff for them loll

[@CienCarasWC3]

What we need is more American civs so they can have Eagle Warriors!

[@MadnessTW]

I find this idea intriguing and would certainly try things out first and worry about balance later. If what others have stated is correct, then perhaps it should only be Steppe Lancers that are given to more civs, but I agree with the principle of the thing. Design goes before balance. Flavor goes before balance. Numbers can always be adjusted, non-essential techs given or taken, bonuses added or removed for the sake of balance once the civ's identity and aesthetic are fleshed out. If a civ is bad or op, use that opportunity to do just that.

[@willworkforfood7028]

2:05 I didn't know Viet health bonus applied to Cav Archers. I need to try this sometime. It is a like a cheaper but quicker version of Turkish Sipahi.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

Honestly it is. Kinda hilarious that their Cavalry Archers are that good, despite being located in dense jungles.

[@nemou4985]

@@tyranitararmaldo which is why they should use elephant archer...

[@GunsAndRoses871]

I mean almost everyone top player was using them in empire wars when playing with Vietnamese. They are pretty good if you get a solid mass going.

[@nemou4985]

@@GunsAndRoses871 but its not very immersive given horse archers are optimal in steppes and other flatlands, not dense rainforests

[@alexandrebouliane6224]

Hi! I love your videos! Please make new version of the Top 10 Ally Civilizations in AoE2 video soon! It would be so cool!

[@reidkelley4846]

I think you make good arguments for all the elephant changes. The only changes I’d say are: (a) for the Vietnamese, make the unique tech not affect Elephant Archers (similar in concept to changing the civ bonus, but slightly more impactful); and (b) for the Malay, just kill the elite Elephant Archer - let them keep the Siege Elephant. As for the Steppe Lancer, I’d support expanding that in general. I think though that there’s some call, for both thematic and possibly balance reasons, to curtail the knight line among those civs that get it.

[@rovsea-3761]

I do think that you're underestimating the usefulness of Elephant Archers for Burmese here. Despite being somewhat slow and expensive, elephant archers do represent a solid counter to the archer line, something Burmese otherwise lack due to their missing armor upgrades. With a free +1/+1 compensating for second archer armor in castle age, and Howdah and Parthian tactics able to be picked up by Imp, they'd maintain respectable pierce armor vs Archer units despite missing 2 blacksmith upgrades. Similarly, if anything you're underestimating how strong Malay castle age power spike would be with their discount applied to Armored Elephants and Elephant archers, even if they don't get the imp upgrades.

[@quasibrodo923]

I think if there was a third tier of steppe lancer then it’d be easier to give more civs steppe lancers. If you give Huns steppe lancers you’re just buffing them by giving them an additional option. If you take paladins away then they’re just nerfed. How if instead there was a third tier, then you could give civs like Huns and cumans, the steppe lancer line w/o affecting their balance too much. Not every civ would need the third tier of steppe lancer, just as relatively few civs have paladin. I think Huns and cumans should have access to third tier steppe lancers. I think Turks also make sense to have steppe lancer, though probably only the second tier. Magyars and Bulgarians might be able to get away with only the first tier, implying their earlier nomadic roots.

[@nevermindmeijustinjectedaw9988]

love it balancewise cant possibly be worse than everytime they introduce a new op civ should defo be added asap

[@DanielGalllego]

would honestly love to see slingers being spreded to at minimum all 3 mesoamerican civs, not only incas

[@ernestogallici6041]

X2

[@nemou4985]

Slingers should still have the bonus Vs. siege (which was there originally) since other than very gold heavy Eagle Warriors there is no way for american civs to tackle siege That or slingers doing Melee damage at a distance, its a rock after all

[@trinhphuong6349]

Cav archer and Elephent Archer both use the same slot for hotkey, If they want to add both to 1 civ, they either have to move 1 of them to the far right selection, 1 cell below waypoint icon or redesign the whole UI. I dont see either of those would happen.

[@vitorpimentel2145]

The steppe lancer is a cool idea, but the elephants, not so much. Perhaps just adding elephant archer without tweaking anything else would make it fun and not super unbalanced

[@samarthnagar2939]

yes and i think they should give camel scout to turks and hindustanis also i love how hindustanis have caverly archers as they were decendents from middle asia riders lol

[@AxenfonKlatismrek]

You know what, i think Camel scout should be a standard regional unit, especially for camel civs like Berbers or Saracens. Im no historian, but arent camels the most important animal in desert cultures of middle east, North africa and Asia? I mean thats how Arabs conquered desert, by relying more on camels than horses(Not literally but you get the point)

[@tyranitararmaldo]

Agree. Any civ with specific camel bonuses should have them. So Saracens, Hindustanis & Berbers.

[@humanbass]

33% faster atk lancers would be insanely OP. I've thought about this for months.

[@dragonboytsubasa]

Wasn't this one of the reasons they were nerfed in the first place?

[@Djmorton-go5mt]

I would dearly love for more civs to have steppe lancer. Definitely one of my favorite units that no civ I like has.

[@Tsskyx]

Unrelated but I sometimes wonder if resetting all of the civs to gaia default, giving a few broad topical bonuses to each, and then slowly tweaking them until they're all balanced, would result in a completely different balance than the one we have today. In other words, whether this current balance is the only possible one, and if not, whether it's the best one.

[@aralornwolf3140]

I've had similar thoughts. For instance, you can't make any siege weapons in feudal age, but you can make stone walls and towers... which implies there were reason the wood palisades were replaced... even more so when you consider how long stone walls and siege weapons were around for... I was thinking of giving all civilizations a siege workshop and the ability to make rams and towers in feudal age. Downside is the wood needed to get to the siege workshop is spent on almost anything else... so cheap siege weapons and cheaper siege workshop and this could increase the amount of feudal aggression, especially against those silly people who attempt to fast castle without an army... those siege towers and rams could plow their way to the TC...

[@DanielBlue]

I like that mod, and the fact that the Elephant Archer and Steppe Lancer will be granted to more civilizations is a pretty interesting idea, and as for the mod, does anyone know where I can find it?

[@tpjpower]

Given you are delving into this thoughtful and insightful speculative content, Spirit, it would be great to hear your thoughts on which civs could be included in a future expansion. I’d love to see more diversity among the Southeast Asian civs - the Javanese (historically very district from the “Malay”) and the Siamese should be included - and additions from elsewhere could include the Bantu, Yoruba, Hausa, Avars, Tibetans, Jurchen, Armenians and Georgians. The Polynesians could make for a really unique civ, along the lines of the meso civs added back in the Conquerors. Would thoroughly enjoy your thoughts.

[@TombstoneThe]

Vietnamese Elephant Archers would be fucking awesome and maybe bring the civ up from it's "good in team game tournaments where we're reaching for more archer civs" status

[@TombstoneThe]

also just don't let Chatras buff Elephant Archers and leave the HP bonus alone, please.

[@F1fan4eva]

Wait a second. Is the parthian tactics icon show the archer mounted backwards in the saddle.?

[@alexmanzer5756]

I for one like the idea giving steppe lancers and elephant archers to more civs that make sense historically. It also seems that way the bonuses are laid out it would be easy to balance. Huns getting steppe lancer wouldn’t be as big a deal as spirit made out in this video. Generic steppe lancers are only good in early castle age.

[@DuizhangLu]

Considering the recent meta developments with steppe lancers, I wonder how viable they’d be for the civs presented here. Magyars sound potentially oppressive

[@jomolhari]

Archers mounted in elephants (and elephants being used in siege) seem to have been specific from the Indian subcontinent. In Vietnam, Siam and Burma, the mounted warriors used long sword-like weapons, and the Khmer used balistas. So it actually is accurate as it is, which is one of the fundaments of the game.

[@zeroomega3781]

Yeah, historical accuracy in AoE 2 at present is already abysmal to begin with, best not to add more random things to civ because it's 'fitting' from westerner's perspective

[@VuLinhAssassin]

As a Vietnamese, I'd like to see Elephant with flame thrower or hand cannon on top... 😂

[@charlesnguyen9852]

@@VuLinhAssassin Historically we did use projectile weapons on top of elephants. From old crossbows to light cannons during Quang Trung's time.

[@zeroomega3781]

@@charlesnguyen9852 honestly I don't have high hope for that. For some reason these AoE2 dev are highly disrespectful toward the Vietnamese; it took them 1-2 years just to fix Vietnam's wrong architecture design! And their research into Vietnam is also very sloppy and a total disrespect. _Chatras_ isn't even a Vietnamese word!

[@micahbush5397]

Still, the Southeast Asian civilizations could really use a boost, considering how poorly they tend to perform.

[@MrLorddarktoothx]

for vietnamese, you could ... you know ... just leave the Civ bonus alone. Leave it so only Vietnam's battle elephants get +100 hp. Vietnam can have just regular elite elephant archers with no added bonus. this would eliminate the issues about replacing rattan archers, being too tanky, possibly being overpowered. and in general would be a buff for vietnam because elite ele archers are better than vanilla cav archers

[@SweetestFoil-s5z]

Yo, SOTL, my man, could make a video on the importance of APM/ how to train APM/ how to use your APM more effectively. Figured that’d be a hard one to make, but I’ve really been thinking about it and I’m kinda stumped.

[@harooooo1]

10:54 would cost 30 instead of 40, not 20 instead of 30

[@dazenith4517]

I'm all for giving some more civs access to these units. One thing I would say is you always took the idea of completely replacing CavArcher -> ElephantArcher, Ram -> SiegeElephant. I'd like to see a civ perhaps get access to one pair of these units simultaneously. Now for the case of Cav+Elpehant Archers they at least would have different purposes, elephant archers as main force with their higher hp and cav archers with higher speed being better raiders. Though in the case of rams + siege elephants, it would be a bit more difficult I guess to make them not overlap as much. But it could be more of a case of choosing the unit based on what the enemy has. Do they have halbs, go with rams otherwise go with the elephants I guess. Would add to the tactical options I think. Now which civs would be most deserving of getting one of these pairs I'm not sure. And yeah Steppe Lancers could use some more love.

[@LotsOfS]

This is always my issue with these expansion packs. Some really cool things are introduced, but then they are limited to 2 or 3 civs. The caravansarai building is the same. Though really first thing I'd want in updating 'fallen behind' civs is unique castle designs for all the non-DLC civs.

[@sanethoughtspreader]

That would be awesome. Especially the Asian ones that all have Japanese castles

[@quasibrodo923]

As cool as the unique castles are I’m actually ok with not having unique castles. I don’t think it adds much honestly

[@LotsOfS]

@@quasibrodo923 it adds enough

[@quasibrodo923]

@@LotsOfS IDK. While it does add “cool” and “unique” it also increases the visual complexity of the game. Instead of having to remember like 8 castle designs, now you have to remember 40+. In the limit you could imagine every building being unique for every civ. I think that’d be detrimental. I don’t think the lack of unique castles is holding back the game, whereas expanding access to regional units could help with balance, diversifying gameplay, increasing depth, AND be cool and unique.

[@ryannathaniel9296]

​@@quasibrodo923You don't have to remember each of the individual designs though Castles in AoE2 have a function that's unique enough in the game that could easily be identified by its general features What other buildings in the game that's big, tall, and fires multiple arrows?

[@brokendoll3368]

Okay, lets start: 1. Why not analyse Persians as well??? Battle Elephants sound very redundant with War Elephants, but the other two are totally fair for them. Elephant Archers would lack range and attack, but would actually be quite fast (1.287 tiles/sec after Husbandry and Mahouts), making good at hunting down foot Archers. Siege Elephants would be only a bit slower than Mongols Siege Rams. 2. Your Math with the Vietnamese is in theory correct, but we can already see that their 20% bonus only works with base HP, not Bloodlines. They would "only" get up to 396 HP in CA, 456 in Imp. 3. Indentity wise, Vietnamese should stay with CA instead of getting yet another anti-archer-archer at their disposal imo. They are already the most redundant civ in their own design. 4. Burmese Elephant Archer would have +1/+1 in CA, but would be behind by 1 pierce armor in Imp. Indeed, sounds very unexciting. 5. Malay would have Elephant Archers costing less gold than Arbalest. Even without Elite, they have the same attack as Arbs, slightly more speed and almost 6 times the HP. So, even without Elite, that would be a massive improvement. The Siege Elephant is actually the less concerning one imo. They would actually still take extra damage from melee attacks (just 1 though, which does not make them melt against Chu Ko Nu).

[@ChrissieBear]

Funnily enough on the forums they're debating on whether or not Persians should get elephant archers.

[@johanneskaelber]

I leave it to the pros this video just shows how pro u are ! 11

[@The_Room_2_Doggys_Revenge]

On the steppe lancer, it comes back to an idea I had for a while now : taking away the knight line for those nomadic civs and boosting the lancer stats a bit more, because it doesn't make an historical sense for those civs to have heavy cavalry so relying on lancers, light cav and cavalry archer would make more sense

[@voswouter87]

Maybe if they had 3 or 4 archers per elephant. But to have only a single archer on a massive beast like that is a waste. The benefit of cavalry archers is their speed, elephants are slow.

[@gamingpc5459]

I'd like Turks to have Steppe Lancers with Sipahi. Historically Sipahi have used different types of weapons, and it's not 100% clear if they served as a light cavalry unit or heavy cavalry (plus they resemble Sipahi's from AoE4)

[@UmTalDeMariochi]

One way to balance the step lancers for the civilizations is removing the knight line for them. This way is a power shift instead a buff properly.

[@olivertate4983]

I like this idea for the turks, I think giving them steppe's too would be too strong

[@Salnax]

Alternatively, leave them with Knights but take away Cavaliers/Paladins.

[@Unormalism]

I'm all for the elephant changes, though more for a balance, diversity and flavour direction than historical accuracy. Likewise I sometimes have a hard time divorcing steppe lancers from other cavalry units, and spreading them around doesn't necessarily feel like it would make most of those civs more diverse (turks aside). Like, you still build roughly the same units to counter them so what about the matchups have changed other than potentially giving them a more powerful cavalry unit?

[@saccaron]

These ideas have been debated quite a lot on the forums, and it is nice to have this debate in one of your videos. Elephants: I don't necessarily think it would be a problem in some cases, but probably a nightmare to balance. Cavalry archers for civs like Malay don't make a lot of sense either, so I am quite open to the idea, but also don't like the idea of the possible overlap, especially for Vietnamese Rattan archers and Khmer Ballista elephants. Steppe Lancers: Again, balance would be an issue. Turks and Huns are already quite powerful, and for Bulgarians and Magyars, Konniks are already a bit difficult to justify, especially in Castle Age, and there would be too much overlap with Magyar Huszars and Konniks. Also, they are cool, but sometimes scarcity makes it cool. Best example with the Eagle Warrior! Other ideas which could be interesting are Steppe Lancers and/or Battle Elephants for the Persians. Everyone complains they are a bit boring, so that would be a change! And Battle Elephants (or even other elephants) could also be considered for the Ethiopians?

[@PazCristo]

I hope someone would make an 'almost historically actual mod' for AOE. Then, the Chinese will finally get gunpowders.

[@LordDamo]

If they do this we would need more regional units for more regions

[@AvelierPlays]

Agreed, African civs should get some kind of regional unit.

[@fulguratingbean9489]

I made a mod where most of these changes are included (not the mod mentioned in this video, though), and for having tested Armored Elephants with Tusk Swords, I noticed that it has the interesting effect of allowing Armored and Siege Elephants to handle being attacked much better than without it. However, it does not make them combat units that can be used on their own, it's more like Supremacy, where villagers can fare much better during a raid but will still die to a Paladin steamroll. Elephant Archers and Siege Elephants certainly add to the flavour of Southeastern Asian civs, and either raise the power of the weak ones, or don't do much of a change, but it's really doesn't do much harm to add them, even in the case of Vietnamese Elephant Archers that would benefit from both the HP bonus and the unique tech. When it comes to Steppe Lancers, I have only given them to the Huns, but took out Paladins from them in return. As it turns out, Huns are still very strong, so again it's not much of a change.