Should AoE2 SPLIT Docks and CUT Champs?? Reacting to Spirit of the Law

[@S.I.217]

Biggest dream is still having a builder ship to build water towers.

[@biegaliusz4439]

Quick walling on water let’s goo

[@matthewsteele99]

reminds me of that old mod for aoe2 HD that introduced the pirate civ

[@Dr.-Dank]

I'm all in favor of the devs adding a gold source for fishing ships to gather from. Heck, they have whales in AOE3, now they got oysters in BFG. It's about time we got a water-based gold source for water.

[@MrShadowThief]

Honestly a ram ship could be introduced as a "boarding" ship where you just pretend the melee damage it deals is actually the troops boarding and killing the crew.

[@daddysmurf2266]

how about a ram ship that "converts" enemy ships in melee range. maybe a ship that is currently "boarded" can not fight back

[@AdmiralWololo]

Works for me. That's the abstraction I mentioned as well

[@fulguratingbean9489]

Regarding the Dock split, I think the dock we have now is fine in the context of the game's current situation on water. However, water combat is admittedly not all that interesting, and I'd be in favor of adding not only new ships, but also new upgrades, and not just for military ships. For example I like the idea of a Transport Ship upgrade that increases their HP or speed, or perhaps even gives them a Shrivamsha-like projectile shield, which would make bypassing the enemy's large fleet and going for risky landings more tempting, or perhaps an upgrade that lets you build sea towers and sea walls like there are in the scenario editor. But if several units or techs are added to the water balance, then splitting the Dock becomes a necessity.

[@AdmiralWololo]

I agree that more generic ships/upgrades are viable. Sea walls is a tough sell for me, as I don't really want to turn water into land in that way, but there's probably some way that it could be done with minimal annoyance - perhaps limiting it to shallow water.

[@AnkaraAnkaraMessiMessiMessi]

The idea of making Champion being an alternate unit like the Winged Hussar its the best of them all. First, you are not removing a unit that has been part of the game since its release (nostalgia factor, basically). Second, you are reducing the ammount of techs for the militia line (wich is the BIGGEST problem). And third, I'd be easier to balance the unit depending on wich civs get it. Legionaries are perfect example, and thus the best militia line in the game: cuz they need lesss techs to be fully upgraded.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Yeah, I definitely like this idea better than Battle Drills.

[@No_Complaint_9790]

AOE2 community is mostly folks who grew up playing the game in the childhood and picking it up again as a grown-up. We got too used to see the Champion and personally I don’t prefer the choice of replacing it for the sake of saving research time. Same goes for splitting docks; The issue could be solved by a single dock by re-arranging the items or extending it. TBH, do we need trade-hogs in 1-1 conquest besides meme about a pro player accidentally creating one or one in a thousand games where a player was actually trade with enemy and benefit from it. On seeing new ships in AOE2, I’d love to see the canoe in standard games instead of porting an entirely new naval unit. Either make it available on dark age with a low hp/attack as a scouting ship or make it a unique unit for a civ like inca with a lower cost. (Something like Malay unique unit that takes half pop and balance it based on experience in tweaking Vikings longboats). I can imagine the arguments like, It’s a canoe so it can’t go on open sea, but not everything in AOE2 is realistic. Scouting in water maps in Dark age can be solved by having a low hp/attack unit (similar to Scout). Upgrade it to regular galley line by automatically or with a small cost. My thoughts on Admiral’s thoughts of SOTL’s thoughts. 😂

[@ashina2146]

Also in trying to buff the Swordsmen Line the Dev accidentally broke a rule for a Tech in the form of non-unique military techs should affect multiple units. Squires affect Barracks and Castle Infantry units. Parthian Tactic affect Cavalry archers and Unique Cavalry Archers. Bloodlines affect Horses, Camel and Elephant Military units. But now we have Supplies and Gambesons which only affect the Swordsmen line, which another sin will be added if Battle Drills is introduced.

[@kylethomas9130]

Water trade has always been a sore spot on maps where i definitely need multiple docks.

[@ArchOfWinter]

Splitting make sense if there is a civilian dock and a hybrid dock instead of civilian dock and military dock. The Civilian dock could be cheaper so players can access fishes earlier in age1, treating them more like resource drop off point like a camp. The more expensive hybrid dock can still build civilian ships along with military ships, so you won't loose out in functionality despite a higher cost. Maybe give the hybrid docks the ability to garrison fishing boat too so players will have more strategic choices in protecting their resource gatherers.

[@adeadfishdied]

This is the change I’m in favor of, as well as introducing a trash scouting ship available at the economic dock (reskin the Lembos). This would shake up the early feudal meta. Do you try to raid with a couple scout ships or do you invest in a port to produce warships? Push all economic ships, the Lembos, and generic upgrades to the Dock / page 2 of the Port. Page 1 of the Port should be the three water warships and their upgrades, with the fourth slot for unique unit ships.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Definitely like this idea

[@unseparator]

Maybe you could have a mechanic to pay like 75w to turn an eco dock into a military dock to help make transitions smoother

[@AdmiralWololo]

Individually upgrading buildings could definitely feature in the implementation of a split dock

[@Steelion69]

Splitting docks was considered for AoE2 originally. Spliting docks was considered for Age of Mythology (Naval Shipyard) originally. Ensemble tried both times, and abandoned it. Why? Because adding more content doesn't always improve it. Water play is flawed for a variety of reasons (demo ships, water has little impact on land-play, overuse of Galleys, transport ship bottleneck, etc); but having one building type is not one of them.

[@marcelo8405]

Having just one dock is kinda terrible for messy trade routes since you can't build new docks in strategic places or the trade cogs will target those to trade instead. Chronicles water campaigns feel a lot smoother to play because you have control over drop and trade points + not having to change pages to create your battle ships (90% of what you'll want to build) is nice

[@natee7683]

@@marcelo8405 Sounds like the solution, which I would support, is to change the behavior of trade units (they don't choose a new dock automatically, but docks have a "redirect water trade to me" button) and more warships to 1 page, techs to another. Not a clunky new 2 dock system.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Yeah, this is why I'm more on the conservative side of this discussion. It's definitely the kind of thing that could work in AoE2, and it has some distinct advantages, but like I said in the video, seems more like a tradeoff/alternate design philosophy vs. a straight-up improvement.

[@AdmiralWololo]

@@natee7683 Yes, that's one thing I mentioned in the video, with a "Designate Trade Endpoint" button as part of my UI mockup

[@sergioramirezbelliard493]

The dock issue could be fixed by giving it a mode switch to become a Port (Ranged attack, does not allow trade). The paragon & Battle drills treatment of infantry could be done to Mesoamerican and East asian civs architecture only do only 8 existing civs get this mechanic shift while only needing 2 new models

[@ashina2146]

Also for the Docks and Shipyard split if you ask me it's possible as in keeping the Docks as an all purpose/unchanged, while the Shipyard is a pure Navy Building in the difference of: -Cannot be a Sea Trade Point -Can only train Combat Ships -is affected by Conscription The Last part is important as it can give Civs without Shipwright some leg up though Civs with Shipwright and conscription will create ships faster with their Shipyard.

[@matthewsteele99]

I really wish that it could also fight but that might render Harbors pointless unless if Harbors stay as replacing ALL navy buildings for the Malays (I think?) and ignore the split

[@newbossbro3180]

Also have you thought of transport ship ferry mechanics? Like if you do some sort of point A to point B drop off point then if you order your units to move one island to another then units will automatically go through ships and then move to position where they initially instructed. It could even shake up current water map meta to some extent as you can simply build production buildings on one island and move units to another island to fight. Just simple transport ships in between rivers.

[@gherlwinfireson8582]

Create a special flag (indestructible, maybe visible only to allies). With a transport ship you set a boarding/landing point on a beach, and another on other beach to establish a route. If you task a unit to go to one of those flags, it will be transported to the other by this transport ship. You can add more transport ships to the same route. Clicking the flag you can configure the ships to wait for a few seconds or to only leave when they’re individually full. You can also configure for them to split between flags when empty, or to wait only on one flag.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Cool idea, would definitely make them more user-friendly

[@nekhumonta]

As imperfect as water combat is, adding more ship types might just add more imperfections.

[@coffeepixel7650]

Honestly, I already struggled with one dock type as I'm still learning the game, I can't imagine how it'd be to have to make a second water building, as cool as more water complexity would be.

[@pandaprewmaster325]

Here is my thoughts on your thoughts on SOTL thoughts: Reduce cost and research time for swordsman line upgrades. Increase their speed slightly. Honestly best water combat I seen in a RTS is AOM maybe have them take a look at that game.

[@sabbywins]

Krakens and giant crabs it is!

[@AdmiralWololo]

Generally agree with the swordsman change. I played AoM back in the day, although like AoE2, I don't remember water being much of a focus. Would be good to look into with AoM:R however

[@pandaprewmaster325]

@@AdmiralWololo water does play a more significant role as fish is infinite in AOM and once fishing ships gets upgrades their collection rate goes through the roof it is possible to live entirely off fish in AOM but its not that practical.

[@predwin1998]

I think the counterargument about dock split making it possible to build the "wrong" dock doesn't really hold water beyond an initial adjustment period. If hypothetically the change were implemented people would make the mistake at first just because of old habits, but after that I don't see how the option to build the wrong dock is any worse than the option of building an archery range when you wanted a stable. And I think the alternate single-dock UI looks like it'd get quite messy in terms of keybinds using the grid system. A separate military dock would also put the military ships on the same keybinds as their landlocked counterparts. I also think the fact that you need two separate docks to contest water on hybrid maps has the possibility of enabling more tactical choice as to how much you're willing to invest and if you'd rather focus on getting your own fishing ships out or driving of the opponent's, but I don't know enough about current water/hybrid balance to know if further adjustments such as lower building cost would need to be made.

[@AdmiralWololo]

I included the bit about "wrong" docks mainly due to T90's video a couple years ago about new players having problems with the existing dock, including some not knowing there was a second page. Seems like a similar issue could appear with an eco/military dock split, and even them having the same hotkey on their respective tabs doesn't help. Definitely a skill issue though, and I agree that the majority of players could adjust to a split dock system. Just seemed like something that was important to note as part of the history of the dock discussion, but ultimately it's one of the weaker arguments against a dock split.

[@Zeoinx69]

Another interesting gold source for the water, could be "ship wrecks", that could act very similar to the oysters or fish. Could even go further with them and allow ship wrecks to harvest a wide variety of resources from, not just gold, but wood, stone, food as well since lore wise, trade ships would be in theory carrying a wide variety of products to trade or bring back to said civilization. Hell, might as well go further and have water relics too!

[@AdmiralWololo]

I know that "salvage" was an originally planned mechanic, which may have included gathering res from sunken ships.

[@andresperedo1275]

I like that idea of the champion being like the winged hussar for some civs. In any case, I wonder about the idea of giving 0.1 range to the spear line... but instead giving it to all melee units, just to see if that fix some of the pathfinding issues

[@AdmiralWololo]

It's worth looking into. My hunch is that smaller collision size is more impactful with regard to pathfinding, but I might test it out.

[@beaky8138]

Turning champion into an alternative upgrade, rather than an additional upgrade to the two-handed swordsman is quite interesting. A thought on the blacksmith: what if archers and infantry shared an armour upgrade, as infantry and cavalry share a weapon upgrade? I figure it might make a decent buff to men at arms play, as men at arms want skirmisher support against archers or spear support against scouts and all three units really appreciate armour. It might even smooth out a few lumps in the mid-game. Established players may find the missing technology confusing and Korean and Malay civilization bonuses may require looking at, so it's not the cleanest addition, but it may have some merit. Another strong counterpoint is that it may be too beneficial to archer civilizations, giving them much easier pivots to the spear line. One counterpoint I would disagree with is visual variety. As an upgrade with no visual impact on units, infantry armour is much more expendable than units in my opinion.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Yeah, champ as alternate upgrade is a cool idea. I'm not sold on the idea of consolidating armor techs as that removes a lot of design flexibility and diversity in terms of defining a civ as an infantry or archer civ if those techs are linked together.

[@JonathanTrevatt]

The problem with the dock split is that it is a nerf for the docks, which makes bothering with water on a hybrid map even less viable. Maybe if there was a defensive boost to the military dock, like if it generates a water wall slightly in front of it on first build, or maybe it can have some defense arrows when garrisoned.

[@konradpyszniak976]

Look what devs did in dlc. They kept a fire ship in a docks so the hybryd play is the same. The One who spams more fire ships wins (or have better bonuses). So when you go to neutral pond you still can go normal docks and build fire ships to kill enemy fishes. You can also beat the enemy easily by adding shipyards and ram ship but that would require to get normal docks to gain a profit from Fishes. Again make sense, its easiler to beat enemy on a water but its more expensive to gain resources that way. Honestly I like the options plus more civs could get bonuses to water so we will get diversity

[@newbossbro3180]

I also talked about buffing infantry line in several ways in forums. Maybe you can run some tests and show results. I proposed several things: 1. Remove Supplies entirely. 2. Arson is free for all. (Goths may need slight rework in this) 3. Actually adding a proper utility. Infantry problem feels like solving classic road problem where more roads or lane increases traffic jam instead of actually solving it. My new proposal is to make it a soft counter to all Cavalry in Castle Age. Either a resistance to Cavalry attack or give Chieftains replaced by a new tech. 4. Giving +10/+20 HP stat upgrade to Swordsman like units. (Armenian Warrior Priest proves it they arent broken). Eagle and Spearman are excluded from this. Also a slight speed boost. I vote for free upgrade instead of tech. Perhaps making a subclass of infantry. The way cavalry and cavalry archer works. 5. Bring Squires in Feudal Age. 6. M@A will be researched instantly in Castle Age if not researched in Feudal Age. In order to make transition to Long Swordsman faster and smoother. 7. About 2HS talk, its a good solution. But I think one more thing should be talked about. That is, whether to give both some form of different utility the way some unique upgrade exist in the game. Perhaps 2HS are faster to move but lower stats compared to Champs. This way civs that have 2HS will feel unique and civs that doesn't will simply research Champs instead. 8. Battle Drills really shouldn't exist tbh. It feels more of a chore than a legit solution to the problem since it just applies to 1 unit line in Chronicles. Just give the upgrade for real. Making upgrades dedicated to one unit line has been a bad idea. Arson, Gambeson and Supplies proves it. Archer/Cav techs are atleast a bit universal. As I mentioned classic traffic lane/road problem during citybuilding. 9. As to point 3 and 4. It probably needs some testing. As in like whether to give it free or a tech. Maybe Cavalry thing can be universal with bonus and counter bonus taking in place.

[@marcelo8405]

Agree with supplies but disagree with Arson. I feel like it has its place in being a thing you pick up to raise a town faster.

[@newbossbro3180]

@@marcelo8405 Honestly just give out for free than adding a cost and time to it. Timing in the game is important. Champ-line is the worst victim of tech timing and also 0 utility. Virtually most civs got it and makes very small difference. Trying to make long investment short instead of adding unnecessary extra time. However I do vote for if OP then nerf it down time to time. Swordsman unit never had the time to be OP to begin with. It was always some sort of adding a new tech and then back to step 1 of buffing once again.

[@konradpyszniak976]

You have a unit triangle: cav ->archer->pike. If you want kill cav then you shouldnt go swordmen but pike instead. Cav is expensive but with outdoor good stats even without upgrades. Crossbows you can mass from feudal so you have many but expensive to upgrades. Pikes are just cheap, costeffective. Swordmen doesnt fit here right now. I think it should be easier to mass, move faster or be better or equal to cav as full upgraded. So its weak as basic but strong after upgrades but it require time and res. Right now if you want to transition to champ or even swordmen you need to invest a loooot to have effective unit (squire, supply, arson, all blacksmith and infantry line upgrades) but you dont really get the efficiency, still archer or knights wipes them. Not to meantion that counter to infantry doesnt require upgrades like handcannon or Scorpions so the windows to suprise enemy is very small

[@newbossbro3180]

@@konradpyszniak976 I dont think making it more massable or near Karambit Warrior equivalent will solve anything. Because there is a huge time investment factor you need to consider. You dont wanna make something only for it to die quickly. Karambit Warrior is used for occasional raids compared to actually using as army composition. More of an occasional thing than actual utility but still better than using Champs. I still think we need to understand time taken to produce. Because you dont wanna produce something which'll die quickly. Cavalry have mobility and HP. Archer have the ability to move away from distance? But Swordsman nothing? Even slower than crossbowman to survive. Cavs kill all infantries while they run back to base. I still want Archer as a counter. But making it almost equivalent to Knight being a soft counter will make it atleast have better utility to use. While you can just make skirms instead. Besides we already have Swordsman as soft counter in AOM. In AOM they solved it by giving small bonus damage compared to pikeman and HP gap between infantries and cavalry is very low compared to AOE2 counterpart. I think devs should atleast try this instead of Supplies experiment. Supplies, which supposed to be a massable solution for them already proven just how bad and unused this tech is and the worst part just for 1 unit-line only. Even Cavalry/Archer doesnt suffer from the same problem. Soft counter wont magically kill the cavs but cavs taking time to kill them will outweigh the benefits of Swordsman as it is cheap to produce. It should like utility of cavalry except it'll have less gold to pay as you dont want Cav's mobility. Good reason why I'm advocating removing some techs as free while introducing better solution which'll have more long lasting effect and can be rebalanced in better way. Infantries being building killers is something FE introduced(a good one actually) and thats why M@A opening meta was born. Otherwise they were just a Drush-FC thing in past.

[@konradpyszniak976]

​@@newbossbro3180 i do agree in most part. Like they kinda should be in between of everything. But not as a bonus damage but rather more damage and hp overall. 5 knights should beat 5 swordmen but if you equel resources and add full upgrades they should win noticably. When there is a micro 10 crossbows vs similar Group of swordmen the archers should win but when you have numbers advantage you should get close and win (but with longer animation and slow speed the archers jumps easily from them). If you have so many upgrades to 1 unit, the invest of time and resources must pay up.

[@VeniVidiCreavi]

Ah the water. I think the dock being a lackluster part of AOE2 is a bit of a consensus now and perhaps the devs are planning a change in the future, fingers crossed. I personally did enjoy the Chronicles dock system, there is much to like about it. But that broadside turtle ship makes me drool! I personally had an idea for a scenario only carrack unit with broadside guns. Mainly to be used in the Almeida campaign, because the caravels just don’t give the sense of the OP Portuguese navy of the time. Or just adding something like that, an organ gun style ship, good against groups or ships, but particularly weak to fire ships.

[@AdmiralWololo]

I definitely think the momentum is in favor of a Dock Split with BfG and Spirit's advocacy, which I don't really mind, but I think the counterarguments need air time. More ships and/or a caravel rework are definitely on the table though

[@newbossbro3180]

I think split of dock is better choice still. Because economy docks can actually garrison ships where in current AOE2 its a civ bonus for 1 civ even though it should've been universal at first place. Even has a toggle between water/gold res balance. I still vote for fishing ships building economic docks as well and if possible a fishing ship dropsites at shallow water. Regardless unique UI system for Docks alone is a good choice but that has a problem of hotkey binding which has QWERTY layout. Have you ever did navy having its own population space instead of blocking main pop space?

[@AdmiralWololo]

Split docks are definitely interesting enough that I won't mind if they do it, despite by slight contrary opinion in the video. Split pop between land/water is kind of interesting, but I think can have some unintended negatives

[@Yumao420]

I'd like a split on the militia line. 2HS now becomes a separate line starting in Castle Age, upgrading to Champions in Imperial age. Focus against cavalry and massed enemies. The Longswordsmen then upgrade to Heavy Infantrymen or Legionarie for Romans, with a focus against trash and archers. Maybe allow them to build palisades (and maybe bring Reinforced Palisades finally around) The Docks could do well with a somewhat conservative split, allowing some force with the dock. Civilian docks could be built since the Dark Age as usual and get to make fishing ships (now able to also build towers, walls and gates, but they compare to palisades only), transport ships, trading ships and scout rafts (mini-galleys that only costs food+wood, some other civs might get something like the Lembos instead as a throwback and then Meso civs might get an upgrade in Feudal/Castle Age as the Canoe) and then Demolition Ships starting in Feudal (they upgrade automatically with age, to compensate that all ship lines are now separate). One scout raft/lembos is spanned for free after the first Dock that is built. Then the Shipyard produces Galleys, Demolition Ships, Fire Ships, Ramming Ships (they might upgrade to Hammer Ships for Romans, Bizantines and Chinese and maybe another few on Castle Age), Boarding Ships (melee range water monks that fix the target in place, vulnerable to melee but with a shield like the Shrivansha Riders), Bombard Ships + all the uniques like Dromon, Caravels and so. Maybe the Longboat might remain available at both places as an additional historical throwback bonus.

[@GnarfSlein]

I think boarding ships would be very cool. Perhaps as an upgrade to ramming ships. I think they missed out with the Caravel. I think it shiuld have been akin to a water Hussite wagon firing one cannon-like shot and several hand cannon shots. And/Or be able to transport a few military units and fire more gunshots per unit on board. But that opens up for them to introduce such a ship! Also: give us better sinking animations! Those we have now are not worthy of DE!

[@AdmiralWololo]

Yeah, caravel should have been a multi-shot, but there's still room for a new unit

[@konradpyszniak976]

And thats why in Chronicles you have fire ship in a Economic dock as in hybryd everything stays the same. You build fishing ships in dark age and when you hit feudal you build fire ships for supremacy. If you want to counter your enemy you can invest into shipyard and get counter units - ram ship when fits small ponds of water. There is no need to get shipyard to eliminate enemy on 4lakes. On full water maps though there is finally something else than galley play.

[@konradpyszniak976]

Gonna add that if we compare current water to land units would be: Knights as fire ship, crossbows as galley but rather than have a pikemen we have a Fleming camel. Its a support unit only so it cannot work as triangle. The rework is needed.

[@newbossbro3180]

Fire ship in Chronicles are weaker compared to AOE2. Also mainly Feudal opening thing and direct counter to siege ships like the new Treb ship with aura + Catapult ship.

[@konradpyszniak976]

​@@newbossbro3180 sure but they do what you want in early water - they kill fishing ships to gain control of water economicly. The water on most hybryd maps is all about food economy and gaining advantage that way.

[@newbossbro3180]

@@konradpyszniak976 Altho kinda vote for transforming existing units to how Chronicles works. Fireship becoming Lembo/Trash ship and functions the same way, War Galley and Demo stays as it is, Catapult Ship and a new Boarding/Ramming ship has to be added. Vikings Longboat can become water Ratha by replacing Ramming ship and Galley.

[@JimothyB]

The battle drills thing makes no sense to me. Just give champion or not. It's the exact same thing

[@quaintserpent]

Personally I think 2handed swordsman and long swordsman should be seperated units. I think longswordsman should be a bit more resistant to arrows thanks to it’s shield and 2handed swordsman should be a bit worse teutonic knight. 2handed swordsman could be available in castle age. And about spearman line with 0.30 range… I think that is a change that aoe needs. These animation while fighting just don’t look good. Units are too close to eachother and it looks like they are punching one another instead of clashing with weapons. A bit more range for units with spear and pikes could help visually. When it comes to water units I think galley should be a trash water unit and non upgradable (except for range and attack of course). I mean war galley and other naval ship should be available but in shipyard. Galleon should fire with Hussite wagon’s projectiles because cannon balls look cooler. If devs ever add monoreme I wish it would be a ship that would convert ships. I hope one day devs will block monk’s ability to convert ships because it looks stupid when converted ship with heresy just sinks. Ships should position themselves parallel to each other before attacking, rather than attacking while facing forward just like in aoe3.

[@newbossbro3180]

Water can simply copy the treatment from Chronicles. But I still think Ramming ships needs to be bit more stronger than what they are now.

[@AdmiralWololo]

I like the idea of a swordsman split if I were designing the game from scratch, I'm just divided on doing something like that 25 years in. Definitely an intriguing possibility though.

[@Ashadowtotheworld]

The dock dilemma is simple to fix. Just have one dock building that you can build that you can then freely switch between being a naval dock or an eco doc by just pressing a button.

[@Olifantenstaart]

Great channel!

[@Fitzibutzi]

I think there should be an eco dock as dropoffpoint for fishing ships. I always found it stupid, that you have to build a "whole dock" and 175 wood, just for your fishing ships to fish somewhere else

[@ChrisNihilus]

"Why have barracks and stables? Having only Town Centers to produce everything is an upgrade in the game flexibility and also is the best solution for claustrofobic maps like Black Forest" --- this is how people that oppose the dock split sounds.

[@adeadfishdied]

Why not have one unit per building, then?

[@ChrisNihilus]

@@adeadfishdied Because, as always, a middleground that balance depth and semplicity is the best solution. Don't False-Dichotomy me.

[@arcomegis9999]

I'm more of a campaign player so I'll vote for axing both the 2 handed swordsmen and the champion. Those 2 units either should be remade as horsecutters, another alternative to cavalry counter that might last longer than spears in melee. That or transfer them into a unique commander that boosts units ( like Artaphernes, Brasidas or Themistokles ), preferably to counter infantry or cavalry ( or both ). The infantry line should again be sword&shield, mace&shield, hammer&shield, flail&shield, axe&shield... If the Paragon/Champion name is annoying, just rename the unit into heavy infantry or elite infantry along those lines. I find that most of the irrational units could be fixed starting with the naming. As for the split docks, it could go either way. AOE2 dock UI can always benefit learning from the OG AOM UI. The only reason that I may like a dock split is because back in AOM, the campaign enemies always have a naval shipyard ( dock variant , looks cool but performs the same ). If going for split docks, there should still be a choice to train economic ships and military ships. The economic docks should allow for faster training of eco-ships with slower naval training and vice-versa. Choices and trade-offs, docks can still train the navy but as a last resort or emergency. That's my thought on the docks. Then there's the naming issue with the port, harbor, shipyards that also needs addressing.

[@jarg_64]

I don’t see the 2 docks happening as all the campaign missions will have to be “fixed” to account for the change OR every dock pre placed will have to be a special dock that cannot be built which would probably come with its own problems. As for the hammer ships. I feel like a proper counter to fire ships (other than mass galleons or fire ships) that’s not a one time use demo would make things more interesting. Galley beat rams, rams beat fire, fire beat galley

[@pedrolavin2892]

Spirit of the Wololo

[@cloud_and_proud]

I kinda disagree with adding more ships to make water combat more interesting, actually. Ship combat is the less important aspect of the game. Even on full water maps, you still need to destroy the enemy base with ground units. Players should not need to invest more effort into water than they already do, they should focus on land, and to add a rock-paper-scissors dynamic to water would make that side of the game WAY more complex

[@ashina2146]

Splitting Docks, Yes Mainly because even with most players are old ones who played the original version they rarely would play naval maps, even today the Navy is quite one sided. Firing Champion, probably not The Main problem of the Champion is that they're a Gold unit in Late game where even 20 Gold can be valuable even if they would crush other unit in straight up melee, firing them/replacing the Champion with 2H Swordsmen + Battle Drills only reduces their research time and open up the window of opportunity a bit, however it's still a window that is quickly getting smaller as 1-2 Onagers is more effective than 7-14 Champions. AoM and AoE3 does give some option in obtaining Gold Late game albeit at a slower rate(Trading with allies gives 50%[EE]/10%[Retold] More Gold in AoM, While in AoE3 Estates gather around 15% slower and requires 600 Wood investment for 10 Gatherers), without those especially in AoE 3 Some units would get the Champion Treatment like the Musketeers for example having 75 Food and 25 Gold Cost.

[@amilkaracosta7778]

change champion!!! buff champion!!

[@OCinneide]

4:45 this whole semantic thing is really nitpicky, you get what he is saying. Comes across as just picking anything to disagree with. Even your definition shows it as being a medieval term from french for a single combatant.

[@AdmiralWololo]

Perhaps I was too contrarian, but given that the silly name was offered as a reason to get rid of the unit(?), I thought a counter was in order

[@OCinneide]

@@AdmiralWololo I've been playing AOE2 since as far back as I can remember. I'm Irish and love the Celts and I'm waiting for the day they are reworked. Part of me is sad that I might lose Woad Raiders but the more I think on that name the more ridiculous it sounds to me. Woad Raiders were the type of warriors that Julius Caesar met when he invaded Briton. There are a lot of hold overs from early AOE2 that just don't make sense. The Celts are clearly just Scotland (judging from the campaigns) but their units are basically Ancient Britons. Champions included in this. With all these new civs added and old civs changed I think that if/when Celts finally get reworked they will change the infantry line and champions as well. My mini rant was just to say, AOE2 is evolving and part of that is letting go of these things which are nostalgic but don't make sense. Such as Champions and Woad Raiders. (I'd love to see a Gaelic faction with Gallowglass (heavy merc infantry), Ceithearn (light skirmish infantry), Ridire (Irish mounted knights), Hobelars (Irish scout cavalry). There is so much there for a full civ outside of this mythical "celt" civ we currently have)

[@AdmiralWololo]

@@OCinneide Great comment! I do think it is an open question exactly to what degree AoE2 should change in the interests of history, novelty, etc, as opposed to starting fresh with a new game that incorporates the most popular AoE2 features while not having to worry about legacy issues. (For example, if I were designing from scratch, I would design American civs quite differently, but that doesn't mean I want total overhauls for them now). I don't think there's an easy answer, and while I err on the side of change, there are some things that I'm more conservative about, even while acknowledging they're kind of silly. The most common objection I get on my "what-if" videos is along the lines of "this doesn't feel like AoE2, play AoE3/4 if you want this," etc, which I often disagree with, by I recognize that it's a valid and somewhat common opinion, so I do try to acknowledge that. That said, Celts rework does sound awesome, and I think that's one of the more likely civ redesigns. Woad Raider could be kept as an Editor unit, or even given to a Chronicles-Era "Celts" civ.

[@darokdeed]

Couple of your counter arguments are kinda weak since many boil down to "is new/different, me no like""always had it, no change now" Especially the 2 docks could confuse players and make it hard to justify expense argument is funny. you know i always confuse stables and barracks too, wooopsie, and those darn goah lumber and mining camps, i always build the wrong one, so confusing. Making going full water or water domination on hybrid mapa more expensive would add another tactical layer, would your opponent go all in or ignore it since they fear you go all in and do not want to risk it.

[@Xardas131]

Don't do everything SotL suggest please