Fun fact: Petards were added to the game in the Conquerors expansion. In the base game, their character model was used for the cheat code unit called "Saboteur." Those cheat units could flatten whole groups of units but did so-so damage to buildings. I think they're still available in the scenario editor.
Petards are probably a reference to a degree to sappers. Medieval castles were often undermined by groups of men digging a tunnel to their foundations, and then collapsing the tunnel. Occasionally, fires and explosives were used as well. This one is actually universal, being used even in ancient times.
@@AlphaSections not that sappers had to commit suicide, but finding people willing to commit suicide for a nation was probably not that difficult. Lots of cultures considered dying for the people to be the best way one could go, and even if there were no volunteers they could probably force someone to do so.
@@annaairahala9462 Admittedly I'm not a historian, but during feudalism, dying for some dubious nation probably wasn't high on people's list. Dying for religion or your lord I can see, but suicide was extremely frowned upon in Christianity. There's a difference between little chance of survival vs. guaranteed death. I don't really even consider petards actually dying even if they do in the game. Would make more sense they'd just leave the explosives and light a fuse from a distance (and hence they don't deal that much damage to units). Ordering people to commit suicide doesn't do great for morale either
@@jussi3378 There's a difference between personal suicide and institutional death or intentional actions that result in death. The catholic church mainly condemned personal suicide, which is completely different from this sort of suicide, other forms of suicide being condemned is a more recent thing than AoE2 timeframe and varies by region. As far as I'm aware, there weren't any roles like kamikaze planes in WW2 where death was ensured, but people would absolutely take up extremely dangerous roles for various reasons. For many, they had nothing to lose with this sort of life gamble, so even the smallest reason would suffice.
To follow the spirit of nit-picking, Woad Raiders would be Picts, the people that the Scots supplanted. Like how the Native Americans got supplanted by European settlers
i think it's more of the sense that a celt/scot looking at their own like this, would be laughed at considerably. being that these raiders, fit more for the new DLC mission Vertigern, then actually any celt mission.
I mean, the issue with the hussite wagon isn't that it's historically inaccurate, it is a legitimate thing and in the right time frame, the issue is only how it is played being used as a hit and run unit more than a stationary unit used for protection. It even has the less damage by units behind it mechanic that has the correct vision behind. What's more surprising to me is that units like the Mameluke and War Wagon have lower ratings than the Woad Raider despite having more questionable aspects to them than the common misconception about Celt warriors. Even Gbeto, which he said is a similar issue to the Woad Raider, only got a 7
I feel it makes sense. Basically everything is wrong about the Woad Raiders - time period, equipment, name, that weird blue tattoo thing, [...]. The Hussite Wagon at least is somewhat correct - it's a wagon that can block/reduce damage to other units while firing ranged projectiles, similar to the real life version. The only thing wrong is the mobility issue :D
Throwing Axemen have to be the most bonkers for how it's one guy who can consistently hurl giant double-bit battleaxes like it's nothing, even after running for some time.
The Throwing Axeman should have made this list. Yes, there were real throwing axes, but they were small, light, single-bit, single-handed weapons from the early Medieval period, not ridiculously oversized, double-bit weapons thrown with two hands. Even the two-handed Dane axe was smaller and lighter than the throwing axes shown in-game, and it wasn't double-bladed.
Throwing axes shown in the game seem to be kind of based on modern sport throwing axes, which are usually double bladed and thrown from behind the back exactly as shown in the game. They spin and are almost guaranteed to hit with on of the blades,. Obviously very anachronistic from what we know, but at least somehow physically feasible, while lobbing sabers is not very viable.
@@xotl2780 During development they scaled all weapons up significantly, just like they had to for AoE4, so that units were easy to recognize at a glance. This has made all weapons comically oversized, although yes a lot of the single handed weapons have been turned into two handed monsters for effect and other goofy things. The Urumi Swordsmen looks like he's whipping a plate of aluminum house siding around its so large.
Paladins are a fun one too, as the name stems from a french poem (The Matter of France) about the twelve heroic knights of the court of Charlemagne. So quite far from the units you'd recruit by the entire companies. If the name wasn't already so popular and so widely spread in AOE2, and if the french were a new civ, it could have made for a cool unique unit/unique knight upgrade
I suppose in that case they were mostly just trying to come up with different and distinct things to call the later two units in the knight line. As really they and the Cavalier are basically just knights from the mid to late medieval period.
There is an UU that is called "Franconian Paladin"...or "Frankish Paladin"...same word in German so might be either And i belive it was supposed to be the Franks UU until they decided they dont need more Cav and gave them the Axeman instead. But i agree considering the Persians have their own "Paladins", its time for the OG Paladins to get their own model too.
@@ithadtobeaname7327 it's time for a franks rework. It was just an umbrella term back then, but now with normans (sicilians) and burgundians in the picture, a lot gets mixed easily. Celts and britons could be modified a little too. The same with byzantines, now that italians and romans are in the game
@@jomolhari Same for Teutons, I suppose that will never happen so same with "Slavs" because AoE2 would need 20+ factions and at that point the bonusus are going to get really ridicilous. I wish we could split the Franks, Teutons and Britions into ~3 Factions each but....highly doubt it. And the Celts need a reworkd overall. Like do they want to be Scottland? Why call them Celts and pretend they are some savages. If they are Celts....why make them a siege Civ? Why give them Paladin? Especially since Celt Paladin is sort of an meme. Also Celts would fit in the time frame of Romans but...Celts alongside Franks, Teutons and Bohemians?? AoE2 covers too much at this point i am afraid.
Man-at-Arms applies to both mounted and dismounted units. English man-at-arms were famous for being armoured and fighting on foot. Also knight can be mounted and dismounted, as a knight is a social status closely intertwined with a military status, military nobility. Knight and man-at-arms can have absolutely the same equipment and the thing differentiating them is their social status, lords, barons, and even a king could all be knights as well and usually were. So it's a bit more complicated than it seems.
Exactly. It just means someone well armed but not a knight. Probably given the equipment rather than using their own funds. As a kid, I always liked the look of the unit (classy teardrop shield) and hated having to upgrade to the longsword , looking very late medieval-ish. Similar dilemma with the two handed swordsman having cooler animations than the champion x]
Men-at-arms were primarily mounted fighters, when the English men-at-arms fought on foot, they used their cavalry lances to fight, clearly they were not designed with fighting on foot in mind, and the sources at the time talk about "dismounted men-at-arms", you don't talk about "dismounted longbowmen" if they were not on horses XD Plus, English men-at-arms were still able to fight as a cavalry unit, the White Company for example won some battles with cavalry charges, and of course when the enemy fed, it was time to mount on a horse and pursue him ˆˆ If anything, the men at arms should be a mixed unit, able to fight or move on a horse, but who would dismount an gain defensive bonus or somethin like that XD But it's true that during the early modern period, with cavalry losing its efficiency, more and more compagnies of men-at-arms were formed as infantry. But they should probably be a late unit, the men-at-arms are a late medieval, early modern unit, not a high medieval like they look like with their kite shield ˆˆ As for their equipment, I don't think it was given to them, they were either mercenaries, or feudal levies, the main difference with the other units o the armies being that they were aways mustered, and so were paid all year. So they could afford a better equipment (like a horse, a french gendarme would have to invest six months of salary to get a good horse), but apart from some measures taken to refund horses fallen into battle (because it was the most expensive ad most fragile part of their equipment XD), there don't seem to have been anything that the King did to give them equipment ˆˆ
@@krankarvolund7771 Thank you for continuing this conversation. There are a few things I disagree with, based on books, and info I have. - English archers were mounted and they would dismount before a fight. To allow greater mobility of the English army. Not always though as we are talking about a very long time period. - English man-at-arms didn't use lances dismounted, as lance is a very ineffective in the hands of someone on foot as lance needs to be couched. They would use halberds, maces, war hammers, and other types of weapons for opening armour. - I agree with you that men-at-arms were able to mount and dismount proving my points above. - Man-at-arms is a term encompassing any infantry/cavalry that are not nobility, so it is not necessarily only a late medieval, early Renaissance term - The English had a preference for cavalry after the Norman invasion, then they switch to infantry/archer tactics after losing at Loudon Hill and Bannockburn, but in the late 15th century they started preferring cavalry again. - You have 'order forms' surviving where English kings and nobility are ordering equipment, so-called munition grade armour from Germany and Italy to equip and give to their soldiers. - Why I am talking mainly about English? As man-at-arms is their term, and naming conventions are different in other countries and their standing/levied armies would be different in organisation and tactics.
@@tisucitisin1 "English archers were mounted" Yeah, and? That was the chevauchée tactic, a small but mobile army that devasted french countryside with raids, because their mobility meant they were able to avoid french armies for a long time ^^ But archers were not trained to fight mounted, the men at arms were. When the archers are mounted, it's specified (one source talks about Equibus sagitarii, horse archers, being sent to the flank), when the men at arms are dismounted, it's specified, clearly the norm is archers fighting dismounted, men-at-arms fighting mounted ^^ "English man-at-arms didn't use lances dismounted, as lance is a very ineffective in the hands of someone on foot as lance needs to be couched" The White Company, an english mercenary company composed mostly of Years Wars veterans was described by sources of the time as fighting in close ranks, two men holding the same cavalry lance, advancing slowly while shouting to protect the longbowmen firing behind them. At Agincourt, the men at arms are described as cutting the shaft of their lance to be able to use it on foot. A lance, is just a very long spear, it's more efficient to use on horse, as you can benefit from the speed and strength of the horse. But if you're on foot, and thrust your spear in the gut of a french, the spear will still pierce that gut and kill the french, it's still a weapon ^^ "They would use halberds, maces, war hammers, and other types of weapons for opening armour." That developped later when they became primarily infantry and that the plate armour became more prevalent. I was talking specifically about the transformation of mounted men at arms into dismounted men at arms in the end of the Hundred Years War ^^ "Why I am talking mainly about English? As man-at-arms is their term" French used "Hommes d'armes" or "Gens d'Armes" literally "Men of Arms" or "Gentry of Arms", it's not really taht dissimilar. But french and english were basically the same nobility between 1066 to the XVth century so it's not a surprise ^^ Spain and Italy didn't used the same terminology exactly, but it was still pretty close, Man-at-Arms designate a military function, the fully armoured cavalryman. In the early middle-ages, that function was called a knight. But as Knight became a social status, and some fully armoured cavalry were not knights, the french invented the term of "Hommes d'Armes", which the English used too. Other countries did not took the french word, but used a generic term for all fully armoured cavalry, nobles or not ^^
Another potential honorable mention is the Warrior Priest. It's actually highly accurate to the warriors of Khevsur in Georgia, with the right attire and weaponry, and the unit's tankiness is also accurate, since Khevsurs were basically Vikings of the Caucasus, eating, drinking, and being merry when off-duty, but fighting hardily when their villages were in danger. This is outside the timeline of AoE2, but in 1837, 50 Khevsurs were able to successfully defend the village of Shatili against 5000 Chechen and Dagestani soldiers, so that shows just how tough they were. They even showed up to battle in the mid-1900s wielding broadswords. So yeah, they would be a perfect 10/10 in the historical accuracy scale, aside from the name...if they were a Georgian unit. Unfortunately, the Armenians have absolutely no connection to any of this, so them receiving the unit instead of the Georgians is hugely ahistorical. The only potential justification I can think of for the unit being available to the Armenians, aside from gameplay considerations of course, is that there's this misconception that Khevsurs are descended from Crusaders. Since the Armenians have a connection to Crusaders, maybe the devs thought this would be appropriate, but unfortunately for them, Khevsurs are thoroughly Georgian.
For me, polish Obuch is super bonkers. It's model (executioner) is based on allegorical representation of justice from famous painting (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem by Jan Matejko), not any type of historical infantrymen, and he wields popular sidearm among nobility in early modern age (obuch, it is a type of warhammer/horseman's pick) but enlarged into this huge maul, when obuch was relatively light weapon, sometimes even used as a walking cane.
i always found that a bit annoying. medieval 2 is probably my favorite title in the franchise, but in terms of visuals every kingdom looks the same cept for colors. A spanish peasant looks the same as a viking raider etc. but meanwhile scotland has an entire roster of william wallace wannabes.
9:25 As far as petards go, supposedly during the siege of Rochester in 1215, attackers dug a tunnel leading under the walls, planted great fire there, and then thrown 40 very fat pigs into the tunnel. The fat burned so violently, that apparently the stones themselves cracked due to sudden blast of heat. So kind of a petard even before the gunpowder came about. :D
That's called sapping. Which was done as long as there have been stone walls to get through. It's not usually an explosive endeavour, and it most certainly isn't fast.
Not only that. I was recommend than along with the unpack mechanical a garrison effect. What I saying is the Hussite Wagon should be empty when created and packed. When unpacked still is empty, but you can put ranged units and infantry inside that will attack/defend. For example is You put an ranged units with arrows the Wagon will shot like the Viking Dragon boat and if you put gunpowder units they will attack like the portuguese Organ gun. Also if you put melee infantry inside, the melee enemies will take damage when attacking them. Like the WC3 Orcs buildings. That could be great.
4:41 Apparently, if we talk about names, it makes a big difference to have the version of the game in each language, such as in Spanish, than if it is called Escaramuzador Zenete and not Genitour.
Addressing the Thumb Nail: Teutonic Knights historically preferred fighting on horseback. They were also not walking talks - at least, not more so than your average dismounted knight in plate armor was, anyway.
I must generally doubt the concept of spear/javelin throwing in combat, despite of historical records claiming it to be a thing. they are well suited for primitive hunting but on combat you are just dispersing heavy weapons for your enemies. entering the combat both poorly armored and heavy with short and inaccurate range and low ammunition should stand out a stupid idea for anyone ever planning to join a battle. my rule of thumb would be never to throw a bladed weapon at your enemy because he can dodge it and use it back against you.
@@Eye_Existyea bro, formation warfare is well known for it's abylity to dodge projectiles, next, spears and javelin were thrown against charges, where you can't keep your shield up AND have speed, charge with shields down? You get a spear to the chest, charge with shields up? You get an ineffective charge.
@@calebbarnhouse496 but why wouldn't you choose bow and arrow for that? more range and better accuracy with more versatile weapon. why use throwing spears instead?
@@Eye_Exist many reasons, most importantly, skill, a throwing spear is a lot easier to use, it's also usable in melee, beyond that, a bow is much more expensive, while the ammo is only a little bit more expensive for a javelin, simple because most the cost is in the metal used, the javelin is also way more mobile of a weapon, you can throw it in a charge, nevermind the fact that javelins have a much larger Mass so when they impact they hit way harder then an arrow, and finally as for the enemy using them against you, they are an enemy army, they are all armed, no one is going to stop a formation to pick up some javelin while a second volley is being prepared to be thrown at them, so the only way you'd ever gain a weapon out of the javelin being thrown is if you get disarmed and retreat, in which case you just chase that enemy formation, or then attack a flank, the downside is laughably irrelevant, and the upsides are really good
9:05 Generally the fact that you had to wait till 2013 and the Magyar Hussars to actually see some cavalry using damn spears is funny enough as far as historical bonkery goes.
Well... there was that one hero unit wielding an oddly short jousting lance, with the bulky horse rearing up for every hit. Looked very beta and stifly animated, similar to jeanne d'arcs mounted model.
funny how Genitours in Spanish are called "escaramuzador zenete", and back in the 2000, the knight was called jinete to avoid confusion with the cavallier, because both translate as "caballero". Now in DE they are both caballero
so are not gonna talk about the frenchman yeeting TWO HANDED FUCKING AXES on a regular basis? To be frank, i wasn’t expecting the master yeeters to be historically accurate. The more you know.
The Franks *were* known for hurling axes, called "Franciskas" or "Franziskas" (From which their name the Franks was derived), of varying length - from sidearm hatchets to main battle axes before another weapon was drawn for the actual close-quarters.
Other way around. The Franziska or Franciska (or many other spell variations) was named because it was used by the Franks. The name Frank comes from the germanic tribe which lucked its way into regional dominance of parts of northern modern-day France called the Francii. They were known for their brutal honesty, hence the concept of "being frank". However, yes, they were amusingly known for their throwing axes.
The Franks became the French. The French are very violent against the French historically, in fact they basically get a racial bonus against themselves. It's a common joke to say "the French can't beat anyone, except the French". I could see them throwing such large axes against eachother.
Worth an honorable mention for inaccurate design, but at least throwing axes exist, unlike throwing scimitars, and the Franks were wellknown for using (small one-handed) throwing axes in the early middle ages and even had a type of throwing axe (the 'francisca') named after them.
i like the idea of the others being able to use Genitours and condottieros, one being "the use of own tactics against them" and the other; being simple mercenaries for hire.
@@GBlockbreakerby the games standards HRE is Teutons, just as France is Franks, England is Britons, Scotland is Celts, Arabs are Saracens. Its all very silly and weirdly out of time, like if China was Qin, Japan was Yamato, Mongols was Xiongnu, Berbers were Numidians etc etc (most factions in the original game use ancient Roman era tribal names even though early Dark Ages scenarios didnt come in until the expansions)
A fun list of some fun discrepancies. Just a minor counter-nitpick on the Hussite wagon point. Although it was indisputably a product of the dire straits the Hussites were facing, it was quite a bit more purpose built than prior or later uses of war wagons, both with the protective walls, plus the use of horses as the draft animal, which allowed them to reposition quicker than traditionally ox-drawn wagons. They also did use them as a sort of mobile proto-tank at a few engagements such as at Kutna Hora, even if the wagon fort was the much more prominent and common usage.
It honestly would have worked fine with an aura effect buffing nearby infantry while shooting a mix of shot and arrows. Add a mode to set up for more armor and maybe firepower (like adding those cannon shots) and you're done. Closer to the historical ones, less annoying. Oh and add some damn horses drawing the things... leave the lazy self propelled animations to siege and Aoe 4 :P They instead overengineered it into a medieval drive-by tank joke unit with an unpredictable defense mechanic.
@@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234 Adding horses to a model that uses its flank to fire is inane and makes it end up looking like the War Wagon. An unpack/pack would be cool, but remember back when these things were slow, slow-firing tanks that were meant to defend archers behind them, they were awful. Changing them in a big way to make them pack/unpack weapon platforms is historically accurate and cool, but in gameplay, have fun losing all of them the moment you get routed and have to reposition. Or get outranged by bombards, trebs and onagers and be sitting ducks. It wouldnt be fun.
they used similar wagon/tactics in area further east(think the russian steppes) past the early 1500s which the wagenforts in central and further west in Europe had been obsoleted by the advent of field artillery.
I have another honorable mention in the siege tower. Yes, it existed, but it was _rarely_ used to hop onto or over walls like - most famously - Lord of the Rings depicted them, that's what ladders were for. Siege towers were, as the name implies, _towers,_ perches for archers to lay down fire from a higher elevation, in their case higher than the walltops of the structure under siege. Plus, like rams, they had to be pushed or pulled, so they were *_slooooow_* to move, and being so much bigger than rams means they were far heavier and slower and garrisoning troops (to help push) wouldn't help much. For the sake of accuracy they should have let you garrison archers and give them a range bonus, like a bunker in Command & Conquer, and given them even slower movement than a mangonel as well as vulnerability to Heated Shot since most siege towers were taken out by being set aflame. If anything, the Egyptians in Age of Mythology depicted siege towers a little bit more accurately in function (they have a ram at the base but fire arrows at units), if not in civilization applicability. Although that game is fantasy, so it gets more of a pass.
That is how the current meta is using them lol, at least not from within the tower oddly enough but rather hopping in and out of it which is odd to say the least
aye. as a kid i always wondered how bonkers someone had to be to climb a siegeladder without support. turns out, they had a ton of support from allied towers.
Havent played AoE2 since my childhood (15years ago). Somehow i ended up in this channel, somehow I always end up watching SotL and love every data-driven second of it.
What made me scratch my head were hussars and wings they had. Hussars were a light cavalry, but AFAIK they weren't exactly all that common in middle ages. As for the wings - they were supposedly typical only for the famous Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars, but this type of cavalry was introduced at the end of XVI century, and it was heavy cavalry, not light one.
To pick up a bit on the genitour, while medieval Spanish kingdoms took inspiration from Zenatas to set up their jinetes, mounted skirmishing wasn’t brought to Hispanics by the Berbers. It had been part of the warfare in the Iberian peninsula since at least 1000 years ago. The Celtic tribes at the Atlantic coast were particularly adept at it, being one of the first users of the Cantabrian circle in Roman times for example. Another argument against their historicity is that jinetes in particular were specialised in countering heavier cavalry instead of general army formations, so an anti-cav bonus would have been more relevant than anti-archer.
Wasn't their purpose more so as a police force than military anyhow? As they were the king's women and anyone laying a hand on one of the king's women would be executed, meaning that resisting any arrest by them was a legal death sentence? I can't remember for sure.
With regard to the Zenata to Jinetete to Genitour. You have to remember that the letters J and X in Spanish were pronounced as an SH sound in medieval Spanish. It's why Don Quixote is pronounced as "key-shote" in both French and Turkish to this day. They've maintained the old pronunciation of the letter.
Generic hussar for anyone but the Poles, Lith and Magyar is pretty inaccurate too. Pretty sure Khmer didn't have thousands of winged horsemen riding around the jungles of cambodia
And the hussar being a mix of the 17th century Polish heavy cavalry "winged hussar" and generic Napoleonic era light cavalry "hussar". And hussar just being the generic Germanic word for horseman.
@@midosch7639 yes what when wrong with Portuguese in Aoe3, also their dragoons are named "Jinete dragoons" and a card is named "Genitours" even thougj these are Spanish names for Berber cavaliers :S
I'll have you know that my job was to find at least sketchy justifications for every single unit in AoK and AoE III, and I sort of succeeded. So there.
I forge crappy knives and fire tools in my garage, and I own a 'legit' kriss sword that was forged in Indonesia from hand-smelted iron. I have dozens of guns, a few pieces of plate armor and modern ballistic armor, and a couple of short bows. And I'm pretty sure it's all your fault, as AoE II sparked my interest in warfare through the ages, and later the broader history that gave context to it all. In short... I LOVE YOU, SANDY! Some day, my nearly 25 year-old AoE II tech-tree will be framed, and the frame is going to sit on a shelf next to the rubber-band-powered tabletop torsion trebuchet my brother and I built decades ago.
A big shoutout to Armchair Saurus who covered a similar topic with unique techs that don't make sense. I remember his joke: Unique Technology / Civilization / Unit affected Santa Klauss, Vietnamese, Camel Rider xDDD
To nitpick the nitpicker: people didn't wear leather underneath armor. They wore gambason or other kind of fabric underneath armor. Leather armor is fantasy, cool fantasy, but still.
Heck, if anything _bone_ armor is more plausible than pure leather armor. No, not the bones as they were, but plates of them sewn together like in a brigandine.
Hardened leather lamellar was quite common in Asia, and rawhide scale was definitely in use in the Ancient world, though that's not what people usually show when they talk about "leather armor."
@@micahbush5397 Well, it makes sense in a _roundabout_ kinda way. People figured _some_ people needed armor to protect them while wading waist-deep into the fight, but others who relied on _avoiding_ the fight and skirmishing near the periphery protected themselves more by stealth than anything else. So armor made of leather *should* be _perfectly_ suited to a more agile, stealthy combatant... ... given that leather is made out of _hide._
Trivia: In Aoe2 in spanish language, the unit "knight" is called "Jinete" which literally means "horseman". So, if u were a spanish speaker person, the Genitour trivia fact, was mindblowing. Maybe in the next patch of language, u can call the knigths, genitours, and it mean the same!
Also, petards were notably unstable and could easily take the sapper along with the structure when they went off. Ever heard of "hoist by his own petard"?
Definitely interested in what you found basis for in the follow-up. Meanwhile I know they're kinda just "this would be fine with a better name", but the names for Paladin/Champion are kinda funny because by definition those are a group of 12 guys/1 guy rather than something you can compose a whole army out of.
The kamayuk is another fictional unit, it did not exist under than name although the soldier, clothes (similar to priests) and weapon is quite accurate. It makes sense since Inka's campaign is full of name inaccuracies.
"Jinete" is spanish for "horse rider". So anyone, from a knight in heavy cavalry, to a mounted archer, to a random farmboy riding his horse on his land, would be a "jinete". I had no clue about the historical connection with "jinete".
What do you mean? Mayans obviously had to resort to petards to siege the Great Wall of China because even they realized that obsidian colored arrows won't do Jack against buildings let alone walls. Totally accurate, even the fact that the Mayans were sieging the Chinese in the first place, duh.
Besides the joke, there were fights (such as in 1582) between Spanish, their (mostly Tlaxcalan) native american allies and natives from the Phillipines, against Japanese pirates (presumably Ronin) in south-eastern Asia.
7:52 To be fair, there are at least two records of Ziska ordering the Hussite wagons to ride out while the occupants kept shooting out of them. They also added the damage reduction mechanics which really cements their status as mobile fortresses. RTS combat abbreviates a lot and depending on who you ask that lone soldier may represent a whole unit of warriors and movement across terrain may be a mix of tactical, strategic and even operational mobility. Hussite wagons may feel weird but I think they are an example where they did fairly well to represent their historical role.
I do wish they'd just reskin the Woad Raider as Gallowglass. Keep all the mechanics, just update the unit name and model. But then, I'd also like my unicorn to be blue. :p
I think this is a case of people's perception so extremely skewed that people would complain if the devs didn't keep that historical inaccuracy. Just like the Vikings horns. I think Sandy Peterson mentioned that they had to go with that even though they knew the Vikings horns were wrong just because they were expected to
Man, having Hussite wagons be essentially movable, deployable walls that have a low volume of fire would make things SO much more interesting on the open battlefield.
The crazy thing is that the War Wagon madness continued into AoE3. Like, while you could argue Hussite Wagons were good against cavalry, equating them to Dragoons is a bit dodgy.
If I'm not wrong, the Koreans did indeed have a wagon but it wasn't a fighting unit, it was just a mobile war chest hauled by donkeys not horses. It carried weapons and weapon supplies mainly bows and millions of arrows. Sometimes these wagons carried the injured as well!! But by no means did they have special armor nor were they a fighting unit!!
As far as units that are more historically accurate than people might think, I would have to say the Ballista Elephant has to be a contender. It is possibly the most meme'd unit and people suggest all kinds of unique elephant units with the rationale that the Ballista Elephant exists, so anything goes. However even a little bit of research shows that yes, the Ballista Elephant and Double Crossbow definitely existed during the time of the Khmer Empire, with evidence in statues and bas reliefs at Angkor Wat. The contentious bit is whether those were ceremonial or actually used in warfare, and if used in warfare if the elephants were merely used to move the ballistae around or if they were actually mobile artillery units.
i'm sure we will eventually, being how with DE and so on we got the Cumans, so they can represented in the mongol campaign, the bohemians, and even poles as well.
They done it before by splitting up the Indian factions, if the game continues to be allowed to develop, I can see them doing the same for the more generic names groups like the Slavs, Celts, Chinese and so on.
for the Urumi swordsman i like to think that the upgrade teaches them to look for the areas that are not armored, as most soldiers did not have full plate, especially in the subcontinent, and to aim for those areas with the flexible sword, thus avoiding the enemy armor. As for the Petard, i see it as a stand in for the practice of undermining and tunnel warfare in general. You basically dig under the walls, using wooden supports to hold the tunnel open, then add more wood and ignite it burning the supports and causing the area to collapse into a sinkhole.
Funny thing, Genitours are actually called "Escaramuzador Zenete" in the Spanish version of the game. Wich, more or less, would translate as "Zenata Skirmisher".
0:26 Also the swordsmen line is wrong in other ways too. "longswordmen" actually wield arming swords and "two-handed swordsmen" actually wield long swords. The champions wield great swords. This is fairly historically accurate cause as metalurgy and smithing techniques improved larger and larger swords became possible. Though a weird ommission is the rapier which appeared alongside the greatsword due to spring steel. The rapier was a single handed sword with the reach of traditional two handed ones. The great sword was a two handed sword that was so long that it blurred the lines between swords and pole arms.
Apologies if I am wrong but I don't believe the rapier was a primary battlefield weapon. I certainly imagine it being a secondary to individuals, but the period rapiers were first made is when pike and shot formations begin forming, so hardly really makes sense to include it as a weapon in AOE II. Similarly the reach I think you are over embellishing. Comparing it to it's contemporary two handed longswords, rapiers only on the large end of length match the shorter and some average length longswords, which does mean the average rapier is going to be shorter than the average longsword, which is hardly in itself the largest two handed sword of the period (obviously also ignoring great swords).
@@bewawolf19 They include great swords and they appeared alongside the rapier. Full plate also is from the same period. Pike and shot was mainly developed as a counter to fully plated heavy cavalry.
@@MrMarinus18 My point however was that the rapier isn't a battlefield weapon but a dueling/personal weapon, so it doesn't really fit if we are caring about only historical accuracy..
Small nitpick, "men at arms" could be on foot, the nomenclature just refers to a professional soldier and vassal who may or more likely, may not have been knighted. They usually fought in field battles on horseback but not exclusively especially depending on the geographic area and time period. For example, the English men at arms from the mid 14th to mid 15th centuries usually preferred to fight on foot in order to protect the longbowmen in the army better, most notably at Crecy and Poitiers. In 1415 at Agincourt the majority of both the English and French men at arms in their armies fought dismounted in the center of the field. On the other hand, Italian men at arms from the same period almost exclusively fought on horseback if they were able to.
Clearly the biggest Bonkers for the newest units are the Monaspa as nothing in the history books stated that they had the power of friendship nor does the game gives half of them their proper titles when selecting them.
11:40 On the subject of our kings, and James II specifically, he loved his cannons SO much he would stand next to them when they fired. Given in those days, a gunpowder weapons was as likely to blow up in your face as it was to hit your target, it should come as no surprise this was how he was killed in a battle where he was laying siege to a castle.
The interesting thing about the fire ships being a potential stand-in for ramming ships is that in Age of Mythology, they actually have hammer ships as a naval unit, which are essentially a siege ram on water, with a damage bonus against other ships instead of buildings. The ingame description: "While many galleys had stationary rams on their bows, the Greeks also developed a moveable weapon known as a dolphin. This heavy lead or bronze weight was swung from a boom on the ship's mast and was used like a flail to puncture holes in enemy hulls. The Romans would later improve on this design and develop the corvus, a spiked weapon that doubled as a boarding ramp." Not sure how it scores in terms of historical accuracy vs gameplay reasons, but they do mention real-world naval rams, so they did their research.
Thing is, at the time I don't think they could do such an animation... Then again, I would certainly love to see most Fire Ships replaced with hammers or rams :D
Perhaps it would be interesting to have a mod that renames the units to a more historically-accurate name. I take the Mameluke goes on a camel to make it more obvious that it's anti-cavalry. Just as a reference, in "Jinete", you stress out the second syllable. "Ji-NE-te". I think the Hussite Wagon could make more sense if it got a damage, firerate and armor boost if it remains stationary for a period of time. Let it hit and run for gameplay, but keep the "it's a gunman wall" identity. And I think the Petard is passable. The problem is that units are generic rather than regional. Like, you could give the Chinese Petards and it would be fine, but other civs would need a different kind of wall-breaker. Perhaps something that digs underneath the walls to make them crumble (perhaps turn the Sappers technology into a generic unit?).
Speaking of Genitours and aoE 3, they got it *really* mixed in that game until they changed in the summer of 2023: before the revamp of all royal guard units, the *Portuguese* (not Spanish) Dragoon line adapted the name 'Jinete' with their age 4 upgrade, and had a range-increasing upgrade card called 'Genitours' (they are now renamed to 'Legionaros' and 'Order of Aviz' respectively) The game also features a Zenata Rider mercenary, which is a Berber light cavalry unit armed with a shield and javelins
Hi Spirit! I actually have a similar idea to a video, mostly about the wonders. For me one of the largest bonkers is that the Teuton wonder is a church from the Rhineland, and not something like the fortified churches of Tartlau, or at least a church having resemblance to like the Reszel castle+Church. (Also, I would argue that Teutons getting the fortified churches from the Armenian/Georgian expension would be a must) There are other "bonker" wonders, but this one is the bonkest :)
One of the biggest inaccuracies is the Mongols having great siege. The mongols were TERRIBLE at sieges. They took a very long time to take their first sieges in China and then wizened up and hired some Chinese siegecraft mercenaries who were experts at it and impressing Chinese POW's and mercenaries into their ranks so they'd have better soldiers and not just pony trick riders. So, the Chinese did something the mongoloids got credit for. The mongols were actually really bad at everything, they just happened to walk into China at the right time when everyone was already collapsing from a civil war, use those chinese to conquer the other chinese, and then take a massive army out to fight other people. Their armor and weapons? Made by the Chinese. Most of their soldiers? Chinese. They then beat up on smaller kingdoms or groups undergoing civil wars and as soon as they hit a competent, well-organized enemy they were stopped dead. Then they took over a vast expanse of empty land and everyone fawns over how "it was the biggest continuous land empire" because it covered the entire asian steppe with all 45 people who live there, and lasted like 15 minutes because of alcoholism and inbreeding making the mongolian "elite" as effective at ruling as they were at writing- which they couldnt do, its another thing they never developed and had to make someone Chinese do for them. Their tech tree should just be blank unless allied with a Chinese teammate. TL;DR- The Chinese accomplished a bunch of stuff and the mongols took the credit for it.
That would be interesting actually if you have a Civ with only generic units and maybe the first two techs of each thing... and a severe lack of advanced units, etc. But then in Castle Age they can train their unique unit the Infiltrator who can steal everyone else's tech without having to research it? So if you send one into a Town Centre, you can get Wheelbarrow for free, then another gives you Hand Cart...
I think the implication with the Urumi is that it ignores armour because the flexible blade can be used to easily find gaps to make armour ineffective, not necessarily that it tears through it.
On Greek fire - it's a common misconception that the formula itself was a secret - while we don't have an exact recipe, there are several proposed formulations that would have worked well and wouldn't have been too difficult to develop. The main difficulty with effective use on water was the delivery mechanism - getting the pumps and piping to be powerful and reliable enough to work without setting its own ship on fire!
You can actually use Husite wagons as intended by gathering a bunch of them in a square formation, and then ordering stand ground. If you put some infantry in a centre of that square, you’ll get a pretty sturdy mobile fortification.
Jinete in spanish means horse rider, and is also the name that we gave to the Kinght on the original release of the game. The literal translation of knight in spanish would be caballero, but that's what we called the chavelier so they translated knight as jinete to avoid confusion
I think camel riders are bonkers too, since camels were rarely used in combat and definitely not as a melee unit. The animal is better suited to travel and goods transportation and is completely unreliable as a charging unit since it tends to get down on its knees and refuse to move when afraid. It was mostly used by medieval arabs in combat as a mount for mobile infantry and rarely as a platform for shooting arrows or rifles.
