Civ Units Not Unique

[derMensch]

Compared to AOE2, where the longbow, teutonic knight, etc all felt and acted very unique, in AOE4, particularly later in the game, nearly all the units regardless of Civ seem mostly the same. The exception being things like the Elephant but all the other archers, cavalry, infantry, feel like they more of less have the same capabilities with a different skin. Anyone else feel like this? Maybe im just nostalgic about AOE2

[Demon of Razgriz]

Really, the civs in AoE 2 were copy and paste with a couple different numbers and 1 or 2 unique units. This feels a lot more diverse. I do enjoy AoE 2, don't get me wrong, but the diversity was very little between civs.

[Thunder]

Your example specifically mentions the longbow when in AoE4 the longbow is unique from the archer. Not only in movement speed, range and attack stats(damage and speed), they also have 3 active abilities that normal archers do not have (camp fire for healing, arrow volley for attack speed buff, and wooden spikes to stun cav charges), plus they are unique to the English which also gives them the civ unique network of castles attack speed buff and their landmark also produces them twice as fast as a normal archer.

I am confused why you used the longbow as your example of a unit that is not unique in AoE4? Are you sure you know what you are talking about and your opinion really means anything?

[~Kronos~]

Yeah I'm not really sure where you're getting some of this.

With certain civs, it kind of makes sense. The french, for example. They get what is essentially a reskinned knight and crossbow with some extra buffs. The English too.

But you've got elephants, camels, horse archers, moving horse archers, streltsy, fire lancers, Nest of bees, elephants, landskecths

They seem pretty unique to me tbh

[The Forsaken]

引用自 ~Kronos~：

With certain civs, it kind of makes sense. The french, for example. They get what is essentially a reskinned knight and crossbow with some extra buffs. The English too.

To be fair, most unique units in AOE2 are essentially just reskinned cavalries, infantries or archers with some buff too.

[Varivox]

引用自 derMensch：

im just nostalgic about AOE2

I'm not trying to be snarky with the quote, it just felt the best way to say it was to have you say it.

Look at the chinese, a 1:1 comparison of the two civs. AoE2, the chinese have a few passive buffs. They start off with a couple more vils, at the expense of starting resources. They have the Chukunu as a unique unit and... a couple of techs they can't research. That's it for what makes china unique in AoE2. The only thing that makes China different from the Vikings is the chukunu, the lack of the berzerker and a couple of techs they are locked out of.

In AoE4, however, China has the chukunu, a completely unique dynasty system, entirely unique landmarks. They have the tax collector, as well as rice paddies instead of wheat farms. That's a HUGE amount of variation from other civs like France, which is the more "vanilla" faction. All on top of this, we see the passives too.

Now, with AoE2, unique units are largely just reskinned vanilla units with various modifiers. What makes a Berzerker different from a champion different from a Woad Raider? Well, zerker has HP regen, Woad raider moves faster and the champion has nothing. They also might have some bonus damage % changes, but all 3 are largely just reskins with a couple of minor buffs. The Chukonu is really just an archer that shoots 3 more 1 damage missles after its' first shot. It looks different from an archer, but it is still largely just an archer. In AoE4 though, Nest of Bees really doesn't have a counterpart, but yea, most unique units are minor edits rather than completely unique units. The chukunu in AoE4 is... an archer that shoots a couple of extra shots for a modest damage buff. The longbow in both games is... an archer with extra range and a different model skin.

That's not even taking in to account the various extra abilities certain units have. Longbows can set up a campfire, for example and Dehli MaA can run good. That's already more "unique" than AoE2 right there.

[Moringa]

Another of those 'I prefer the old game due to nostalgia and completely make up stuff' posts. Seriously though, the civs in aoe4 are objectively 10 times more diverse and unique compared to the let's change a few numbers approach of aoe2.
Don't get me wrong. I love aoe2, and I admit that aoe4 has its problems but just making up problems is not helping anyone.

[Sir Moisty Capybara]

Nest of Bees is glorified catapult.

Besides some active abilities AoE4 unique units aren't that much unique compared to AoE2, because AoE4 already has pretty complex unit mechanics (charge, brace, multiple attack modes -> melee / ranged / fire).

But saying that uh AoE2 unique units are just glorified attack / speed changes are just not true. There is not only more stats that affects AoE2 units, like accuracy, there are quirks that I don't find in AoE4.

Chu Ko Nu has multiple arrows AND bonus against siege.
Mangudai is cavalry archer with bonus against siege.
Kipchak is cavalry archer using multiple arrows and having bonus against the siege.
Leitis passes enemy armor.
Cataphract has trample damage.
Berserk can heal.
Camel archer has bonus against cavalry archer.
Genoese crossbow has bonus against cavalry as sole ranged unit in the game.
Arambai has high attack but low range and accuracy.
Sarjeant can build Donjons that can create Sarjeants.
Obuch attacks affect not only enemy unit health but also armor.
Mameluke deals Melee damage instead of Pierce at range, so as Throwing Axemen and Gbeto.
Shotel Warrior has low health but high attack output.
Karambit Warrior takes 0.5 population.

And I can go on and on and on using just some main point of every unit.

[DiasFox]

Stay at AoE2 with that blind old nostalgic

[Varivox]

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

Nest of Bees is glorified catapult.

Besides some active abilities AoE4 unique units aren't that much unique compared to AoE2, because AoE4 already has pretty complex unit mechanics (charge, brace, multiple attack modes -> melee / ranged / fire).

But saying that uh AoE2 unique units are just glorified attack / speed changes are just not true. There is not only more stats that affects AoE2 units, like accuracy, there are quirks that I don't find in AoE4.

Chu Ko Nu has multiple arrows AND bonus against siege.
Mangudai is cavalry archer with bonus against siege.
Kipchak is cavalry archer using multiple arrows and having bonus against the siege.
Leitis passes enemy armor.
Cataphract has trample damage.
Berserk can heal.
Camel archer has bonus against cavalry archer.
Genoese crossbow has bonus against cavalry as sole ranged unit in the game.
Arambai has high attack but low range and accuracy.
Sarjeant can build Donjons that can create Sarjeants.
Obuch attacks affect not only enemy unit health but also armor.
Mameluke deals Melee damage instead of Pierce at range, so as Throwing Axemen and Gbeto.
Shotel Warrior has low health but high attack output.
Karambit Warrior takes 0.5 population.

And I can go on and on and on using just some main point of every unit.

Pretty much everything you listed there just isn't that unique.

"bonus vs seige" isn't that unique. It's a % modifier. Chukunu isn't a completely unique unit simply because it has a 2x seige. It is still, funamentally, an archer, it's just an archer that got a passive bonus.

A lot of these are also covered in AoE4 too.

Berzerker and French cavalry can heal.

Camel archers have bonus against cavalry in both games.

Sarjeants can build Donjons while Dheli can build walls and all infantry can build rams.

Cataphract and HRE landkersneckt (spelling?) both have the same basic "unique" function.

Nothing you listed really makes those units any more than a reskin of the base unit. It's all just passive % changes, with the most unique thing being the building of special towers which is similar to Dheli's base bonus.

Just look at mamelukes, that's not really "unique", they just changed the damage type to melee. Again, very basic. Frank axeman is effectively a "melee" archer, they just changed the damage type to be affected by melee armour instead of ranged armour. It's not a huge, unique unit type, they just changed a single word of text.

[Moringa]

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

Nest of Bees is glorified catapult.

Besides some active abilities AoE4 unique units aren't that much unique compared to AoE2, because AoE4 already has pretty complex unit mechanics (charge, brace, multiple attack modes -> melee / ranged / fire).

But saying that uh AoE2 unique units are just glorified attack / speed changes are just not true. There is not only more stats that affects AoE2 units, like accuracy, there are quirks that I don't find in AoE4.

Chu Ko Nu has multiple arrows AND bonus against siege.
Mangudai is cavalry archer with bonus against siege.
Kipchak is cavalry archer using multiple arrows and having bonus against the siege.
Leitis passes enemy armor.
Cataphract has trample damage.
Berserk can heal.
Camel archer has bonus against cavalry archer.
Genoese crossbow has bonus against cavalry as sole ranged unit in the game.
Arambai has high attack but low range and accuracy.
Sarjeant can build Donjons that can create Sarjeants.
Obuch attacks affect not only enemy unit health but also armor.
Mameluke deals Melee damage instead of Pierce at range, so as Throwing Axemen and Gbeto.
Shotel Warrior has low health but high attack output.
Karambit Warrior takes 0.5 population.

And I can go on and on and on using just some main point of every unit.

What's the point of this list? You could say the exact same for aoe4 units. Let's look at the camel archer of aoe4 for example:

+ good against light melee infantry + provides a 20% dmg reduction aura against horsemen and knights + very tanky compared to other cav

Seems like the aoe4 cav archer is way more unique than its aoe2 counterpart. Your other examples mostly list bonus dmg against certain unit types which is the exact same in aoe4. And something like shotel warriors' low health high attack is basically the landknecht. So it seems like aoe4 unique units are the same as in aoe2 or even more unique (especially in combination with the unique research of the civs).
The only thing that is true is that there are way more unique units in aoe2 due to there being a lot more civs. But most of those unique units are just slight variations of existing units with a changed dmg type or attack speed / dmg / hp / cost value.

[Sir Moisty Capybara]

引用自 Varivox：

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

Nest of Bees is glorified catapult.

Besides some active abilities AoE4 unique units aren't that much unique compared to AoE2, because AoE4 already has pretty complex unit mechanics (charge, brace, multiple attack modes -> melee / ranged / fire).

But saying that uh AoE2 unique units are just glorified attack / speed changes are just not true. There is not only more stats that affects AoE2 units, like accuracy, there are quirks that I don't find in AoE4.

Chu Ko Nu has multiple arrows AND bonus against siege.
Mangudai is cavalry archer with bonus against siege.
Kipchak is cavalry archer using multiple arrows and having bonus against the siege.
Leitis passes enemy armor.
Cataphract has trample damage.
Berserk can heal.
Camel archer has bonus against cavalry archer.
Genoese crossbow has bonus against cavalry as sole ranged unit in the game.
Arambai has high attack but low range and accuracy.
Sarjeant can build Donjons that can create Sarjeants.
Obuch attacks affect not only enemy unit health but also armor.
Mameluke deals Melee damage instead of Pierce at range, so as Throwing Axemen and Gbeto.
Shotel Warrior has low health but high attack output.
Karambit Warrior takes 0.5 population.

And I can go on and on and on using just some main point of every unit.

Pretty much everything you listed there just isn't that unique.

"bonus vs seige" isn't that unique. It's a % modifier. Chukunu isn't a completely unique unit simply because it has a 2x seige. It is still, funamentally, an archer, it's just an archer that got a passive bonus.

A lot of these are also covered in AoE4 too.

Berzerker and French cavalry can heal.

Camel archers have bonus against cavalry in both games.

Sarjeants can build Donjons while Dheli can build walls and all infantry can build rams.

Cataphract and HRE landkersneckt (spelling?) both have the same basic "unique" function.

Nothing you listed really makes those units any more than a reskin of the base unit. It's all just passive % changes, with the most unique thing being the building of special towers which is similar to Dheli's base bonus.

Just look at mamelukes, that's not really "unique", they just changed the damage type to melee. Again, very basic. Frank axeman is effectively a "melee" archer, they just changed the damage type to be affected by melee armour instead of ranged armour. It's not a huge, unique unit type, they just changed a single word of text.

Really depends what unique means to you. For me neither of those games are in level of CoH2 units uniqueness. I will say more, I'm pretty sure recent UU from DLCs made for AoE2 are inspired from AoE4. Burgundian UU charged attack? I presume it mimics cavalry fighting in AoE4. You can even make case for gold generation in example of Keshik.

Also I didn't see any unit that deals melee damage at range, And I struggle to find any unit in AoE2 that throwing axe is reskin of. And I even explained why I don't particulary feel that AoE4 needs more unique units, when their mechanics is more complex than AoE2. But if you are going with "but damage type change is not unique" then now it begs the question, wth will be for you?

[Sir Moisty Capybara]

引用自 Moringa：

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

Nest of Bees is glorified catapult.

Besides some active abilities AoE4 unique units aren't that much unique compared to AoE2, because AoE4 already has pretty complex unit mechanics (charge, brace, multiple attack modes -> melee / ranged / fire).

But saying that uh AoE2 unique units are just glorified attack / speed changes are just not true. There is not only more stats that affects AoE2 units, like accuracy, there are quirks that I don't find in AoE4.

Chu Ko Nu has multiple arrows AND bonus against siege.
Mangudai is cavalry archer with bonus against siege.
Kipchak is cavalry archer using multiple arrows and having bonus against the siege.
Leitis passes enemy armor.
Cataphract has trample damage.
Berserk can heal.
Camel archer has bonus against cavalry archer.
Genoese crossbow has bonus against cavalry as sole ranged unit in the game.
Arambai has high attack but low range and accuracy.
Sarjeant can build Donjons that can create Sarjeants.
Obuch attacks affect not only enemy unit health but also armor.
Mameluke deals Melee damage instead of Pierce at range, so as Throwing Axemen and Gbeto.
Shotel Warrior has low health but high attack output.
Karambit Warrior takes 0.5 population.

And I can go on and on and on using just some main point of every unit.

What's the point of this list? You could say the exact same for aoe4 units. Let's look at the camel archer of aoe4 for example:

+ good against light melee infantry + provides a 20% dmg reduction aura against horsemen and knights + very tanky compared to other cav

Seems like the aoe4 cav archer is way more unique than its aoe2 counterpart. Your other examples mostly list bonus dmg against certain unit types which is the exact same in aoe4. And something like shotel warriors' low health high attack is basically the landknecht. So it seems like aoe4 unique units are the same as in aoe2 or even more unique (especially in combination with the unique research of the civs).
The only thing that is true is that there are way more unique units in aoe2 due to there being a lot more civs. But most of those unique units are just slight variations of existing units with a changed dmg type or attack speed / dmg / hp / cost value.

Context. That's all. AoE2 UU feel less inherited compared to AoE4 UU because AoE 4 UU has less variables (accuracy is non existant) to be modified and on top of that, has more quirks to use than AoE4 (because base units are using it - Burgundian UU having charge in AoE2 is unique but it is not unique in AoE4).

[Moringa]

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

引用自 Moringa：

What's the point of this list? You could say the exact same for aoe4 units. Let's look at the camel archer of aoe4 for example:

+ good against light melee infantry + provides a 20% dmg reduction aura against horsemen and knights + very tanky compared to other cav

Seems like the aoe4 cav archer is way more unique than its aoe2 counterpart. Your other examples mostly list bonus dmg against certain unit types which is the exact same in aoe4. And something like shotel warriors' low health high attack is basically the landknecht. So it seems like aoe4 unique units are the same as in aoe2 or even more unique (especially in combination with the unique research of the civs).
The only thing that is true is that there are way more unique units in aoe2 due to there being a lot more civs. But most of those unique units are just slight variations of existing units with a changed dmg type or attack speed / dmg / hp / cost value.

Context. That's all. AoE2 UU feel less inherited compared to AoE4 UU because AoE 4 UU has less variables (accuracy is non existant) to be modified and on top of that, has more quirks to use than AoE4 (because base units are using it - Burgundian UU having charge in AoE2 is unique but it is not unique in AoE4).

Accuracy is removed in aoe4, that's correct but I can't see any other variable this applies to. Charge is now available to all knights but something like longbowmen campfires or delhi forced march are completely unique mechanics that are not available to other civs and go way beyond a "let's change the dmg type of this unit or add +5 dmg". So I really can't see how anyone could think that aoe4 units are less unique. It's objectively not true.

[Sir Moisty Capybara]

引用自 Moringa：

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

Context. That's all. AoE2 UU feel less inherited compared to AoE4 UU because AoE 4 UU has less variables (accuracy is non existant) to be modified and on top of that, has more quirks to use than AoE4 (because base units are using it - Burgundian UU having charge in AoE2 is unique but it is not unique in AoE4).

Accuracy is removed in aoe4, that's correct but I can't see any other variable this applies to. Charge is now available to all knights but something like longbowmen campfires or delhi forced march are completely unique mechanics that are not available to other civs and go way beyond a "let's change the dmg type of this unit or add +5 dmg". So I really can't see how anyone could think that aoe4 units are less unique. It's objectively not true.

Longbow is maybe one unit that has more than 2 active / passive abilities really. Within those games, AoE4 uu are less unique from their base counterparts besides maybe longbows. Anyway don't really matter for me, but pretending that streltsy being able to run is so unique because oh ther run so unique, but pass me on that. And yes eles, grenadiers, zhuge nu and longbows are the most unique here, rest is almost cookie cutter units.

But is UU from AoE2 are more complex than AoE4? Not really, at least not for most part.

[Moringa]

引用自 Sir Rage A Lot：

引用自 Moringa：

Accuracy is removed in aoe4, that's correct but I can't see any other variable this applies to. Charge is now available to all knights but something like longbowmen campfires or delhi forced march are completely unique mechanics that are not available to other civs and go way beyond a "let's change the dmg type of this unit or add +5 dmg". So I really can't see how anyone could think that aoe4 units are less unique. It's objectively not true.

Longbow is maybe one unit that has more than 2 active / passive abilities really. Within those games, AoE4 uu are less unique from their base counterparts besides maybe longbows. Anyway don't really matter for me, but pretending that streltsy being able to run is so unique because oh ther run so unique, but pass me on that. And yes eles, grenadiers, zhuge nu and longbows are the most unique here, rest is almost cookie cutter units.

But is UU from AoE2 are more complex than AoE4? Not really, at least not for most part.

I'm also not saying that age of empires units are especially unique. If you want unique units, look at games such as starcraft or wc3 where almost every unit is extremely different in design, numerical values, and active or passive skills. All I'm saying is that the statement 'aoe2 units are more unique compared to aoe4' is just not true.