10 Historically Bonkers AoE2 Units 

In the same vein, their depiction of the siege tower is straight out of LOTR Return Of The King.

Who ?

So basically i have dwayne johnson in my age of mythology gameplay?

I KNEW IT! As a kid I always thought that the similarities were too big for it to be a coincidence.

​@@Doodmeister0scorpion man

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

I like the woad raider he doesn't LOOK historically accurate but he does play historically accurate

"That's not a pike. It's a battleaxe."

All right, all right. You win. I see you've played pikey-axey before.

not wrong, being a mounted skirmisher, I figured to just call them mounted skirmishers then anything.

Yeah they are historically accurate in that case

I'm Spanish, play the game in English settings, and my brain has been blown twice by now. So fun to learn about this things :D

In French, they're called Jinete. So a bit better than the english, but not quite there yet ^^

@@navynahibel873 Jinete is terrible... is the equivalent of calling them Rider.

Where do they find people willing to commit suicide? What hiring/conscripting process is this?

@@AlphaSections If things go well they don't collapse the tunnels while being inside.

@@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.

hell yeah, those were the days! you got them in the last Genghis Khan mission as well

Saboteurs were absolutely bonkers against buildings - only 6 needed to make contact with a castle to bring it down.

They're also available by using the same cheat code that has worked since Conquerors.

I think in the editor they were in the hero tab.

They are still called saboteurs in the German Version If I remember correctly

I like the image of a dude dragging a bag full of battle axes behind him as he charges into battle

This isnt even battleaxe, they too heavy even for melee. Battleaxes are much smaller and lighter, this dude throws one woodcutter axe after another

couldn't help but shamelessly snort out my nose lmfao

It landed after 3 seconds for me But great one

Warrior priest's helmets and weapons are stupid.

@@7dayspking They're historically accurate.

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.

If at least they had healing spells and could smite evil (like the French, which would make it actually ironic, as I am typing this lame joke)

I've read that woad would be mixed with animal fat and used on skin. Not sure the accuracy of that though

@@grumpywizard323im pretty sure woad is caustic to skin

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.

Rome was even worse. Egyptians straight out of old testament, roman ninja warriors, brits that throw decapitated heads,...

That's English bias for you. CA is from West Sussex after all.

Camel Fact popups when?

I'm surprised it didn't. It's usually mentioned in the same line as the Saracen Mameluke as an inaccurate unit

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.

They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂

The obuch hammer is grossly oversized also.

@@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.

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 ^^

I also think Spirit should know that man-at-arms can be foot soldiers too

Yeah, "or even more effective than their male counterparts" is just wrong

@@danielsales442 definally a 10 of 10

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.

​@@bewawolf19damn no wonder brothers are so scared of the police

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.

"Top 10 most historically accurate AoE2 units."

@@CptManboobs Unbonkers sounds funnier then Accurate

Well, guess what. Nice prediction of the future.

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.

Flaming Pig unit when?

Brb, gonna look for a mod that changes the petard's powderkeg to a fat little piggy that wobbles around while walking.

They did not throw LIVE pigs into the fire. Live animals are very difficult to set on fire.

@@rat_thrower5604and they might run in the wrong direction setting your own camp ablaze instead of the tunnel you just dug ;D

yeah; because Genitour is an english referred name.

In french, the konnik is the "bulgarian horseman"

@@gaspardpiet4275 Is the dismounted konnik called "bulgarian man" then?

@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti bulgarian dude

@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti Bulgarian Unhorseman?

ah no; the Saladin mission's in my head again.

@@CallofDutyBlackOps28 Be vewy vewy qwuiet. I'm hunting sawacens!

Well that's something I can't unhear now

​@@CallofDutyBlackOps28*"Reynald is attacking our caravan!"*

woad waider

And having same range and as fast a projectile as arbalests and guns. :D

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

which makes it a bit of a missed opportunity to not have the HRE there were a LOT of germanic mercenaries during that time

@@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)

But any cav use lance/spear once.

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.

Even funnier when you remember the Scout, ealiest cavalry unit in AoE1, only used spears.

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.

They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂

and they used to throw only one axe (called francisca) right before engaging hand-to-hand combat

It costs 400.000 bezants to throw these weapons for 12 seconds...!

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.

@@xXTheKingEmothXx Maybe just a longer delay to their attack might suffice if one goes that route

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.

our early depicitions of hussars first appear in the beginning of the 16th century for what thats worth.

true

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

​@@annaairahala9462 Between using the towers as a wall bypass and deploying them as a freakin' APC, I don't know which is more creative 🤣

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.

Aloha Snackbar intensifies...

Natives did utilize captured horses tho.

Mapuche would like a word with you

Check his new upload and marvel at it!

And even AoE3 does the same mistake

@@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

@@pikilic4481 Yeah you are right, it totally makes no sense :D

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.

At least there's one real Pikeman in the game.

the rule of cool. Petards look cool. Especially their introduction in the battle of the conquerers in the Nobunaga mission. Memorable indeed. Sappers wouldn't achieve the same result

@@kartiksaraf4676 I just meant the name change. Calling them sappers instead of petards. Maybe upgrade to petards in Imp Age for some civs, with greater armor and siege damage, something like that, you know?

Not even cool

ice cold@@walleras

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._

I remember reading about that episode a few years ago. The history of Texas around 2000 B.C.E is indeed incredible.

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.

My thoughts exactly 😂

A self-driving hit and run tank is a solid 4/20 I mean 10

And he completely bought in to the devs' lies and nonsense about the Thirisadai, a completely made up thing from a fabricated wiki.

i think it's just for the sake of them dropping the payload and peacing out, so you don't have to see a random useless unit taking up pop space.

I think that it just represents some people planting mines and then the mine/petard is spent, not them actually dying in the blast.

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"?

The word "Petard" means "breaking wind," so it would be funny if someone made a mod that replaced all explosion sounds with fart noises.

Niga enough with this comment

Hey hey spirit, law here

Noga ​@@sheiruto1058

Law hey, people of law the here.

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

Nah, it's fun

No? It was historically used in battle. However, nowadays it's obviously just used for tradition or for fun

Backporting the thing from AOE3 The Asian Dynasties must have taken some work.

@@annaairahala9462 it was used in single combat. Whips and flails are not weapons of war.

That is insightful, thanks for sharing

He also did some units in his History behind every AoE2 Unique Unit, a must watch series!

I like that hussite wagon idea. Make it even tankier, but either make it immobile/pack and unpack or make it slower and buff it as it remains still

"... if you pair it with poison or some shit" I feel compelled to point out here that this was, in all likelihood, _not_ meant as a figure of speech. By "Or some shit" I'm 99.9999% sure you're *literally* referring to the strategy of smearing feces on the business end of the arrow to inflict sepsis on struck opponents.

@@omargoodman2999 Few materials easily available in wartime are easier sources of sepsis (essentially biological poisoning) than excrement. Heck, even Vietnam put that on display.

I'm a little confused by this tbh, we have physical handheld repeating crossbows from before AoE2 timeframe that resemble the ones in game, not just written record. And while it was mainly used for self-defense as you mentioned there are records of it being used in battle as well. It having weak firing is true, which is why it was dipped in fast acting poison and aimed for unarmed portions of enemies at close range. It didn't have the power of a usual crossbow to pierce armor, but it could still kill vs unarmored targets. So what exactly is inaccurate in game? Is it it's prominence as a primary weapon? Because that's inaccurate, but that could be said for nearly every unit in the game. Or maybe units it's used against? Since it's ironically more effective against armored units due to the 1 damage minimum aspect of aoe2, but it could be changed if the secondary bolts did full damage and it did lower damage each bolt making it much more effective against unarmored enemies

@@omargoodman2999 Of course, everyone used some shit, its the medival times you know

​@@annaairahala9462 "but that could be said for nearly every unit in the game" We are nit-picking here on this historical bonker video's comment section bruh, chill. AOE2 isn't a game to go serious on historical accuracy. (But if some one actually nit picks every unit in the game, hell, Sprit of the law is already in the process of doing so. I would be very happy.) What I want to add is: if it wasn't to be historical bonker, the accurate repersentation of Chu ko nu would be it's heavier version being a tech for castle and ships or something with its historical siege status. Which would be a lot lamer to be honest. But accurate notheless.

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.

That would surely be an awfully expensive expansion if people can play as Wales.

And it wishes to kill something.

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...