New Unit: Axeman including Axe Upgrade.

[TheOrder971]

Screaming with bold letters wont help implementing it, there is only one person in charge @Endru1241 he will read the stats and determine if its balanced or not b4 deciding to implement it

Oh... Sorry Bout that. but implement will be there soon ok. well sorry.

[DreJaDe]

Tried to also make my version but my style is a little bit different...

If my version doesnt pass but the unit idea does then I want my version as part of my matatag army skin

Made two version of the last axeman since I cant choose.

[Sombrar +1]

Tried to also make my version but my style is a little bit different...

If my version doesnt pass but the unit idea does then I want my version as part of my matatag army skin

Made two version of the last axeman since I cant choose.

I think the level 3 B version of the Axeman is better, making the armor more complete in my opinion.

[Sombrar +1]

Ok my final question, will it b considered irregular infantry? Light infantry? Or medium infantry? It will b shield bearer and medium armored tho

Therefore, I think he will be a medium infantry and shield carrier, a good alternative to destroy the opponent on small maps and eliminate defenders who carry shields, it will only be good susceptible to arrows. Should he be considered lightly armored perhaps since he doesn't wear much armor?

[TheOrder971]

Hello guys. we're not accept unit yet.
Request to be accepted the unit!?

[TheOrder971]

@Endru1241 I need request accept unit for "axeman" including there 2 upgrades.

Please reply.

[godOfKings]

Bro b patient there is no reason to hurry, the game never updates on implementing single unit it always goes for bulk, just wait

[TheOrder971]

Bro b patient there is no reason to hurry, the game never updates on implementing single unit it always goes for bulk, just wait

Okay.

[Endru1241]

Screaming with bold letters wont help implementing it, there is only one person in charge Endru1241 he will read the stats and determine if its balanced or not b4 deciding to implement it

Bold letters don't really bother.
Multi-post does.

Or mentions.

Axeman (Including Upgrade units)

A medieval axeman was a formidable warrior of the Middle Ages, armed with a deadly battle axe. These skilled fighters, often clad in armor, wielded their axes with both strength and precision on the battlefield. Their weapons were versatile, capable of cleaving through armor and striking down adversaries with a single powerful blow. Medieval axemen played a crucial role in medieval warfare, contributing to the tactics and strategies of their time with their imposing presence and lethal weaponry.

Effective as a Swordsman unit, Heavy Cavalry, and Archers.

First order of business - unit flavour. Starting with some explanation.
Swordsmen are NOT simply soldiers equipped with swords as main battle weapons.
Simply because sword was never a main battle weapon.
Swords were most superior among side weapons and quite pricy, so most often inherited, but known, recognised as pure weapons and thus - men of swords - swordsmen would be name meaning those who own a sword , so simply - warriors.
It's just a name used to indicate a group of professional, veteran soldiers - people who can go into the melee battle and fight.
Seasonal soldiers brought for sieges or just to fill unit count against enemy were normal people working in some field otherwise.
Maybe trained by fathers to make them have some ability to defend or doing some mercenary work in the past.
As such groups were most often hired/drafted specifically for sieges - such unit had to have some siege equipment - maybe pickaxes, maybe shovels, maybe ropes, ladders or a multitude of other things, that could be useful for sieges.
Unit specifically created to have numerous people capable of melee fights would have enough man count to carry some of those.
Those people could have no main weapons, being prepared for siege battles, where long weapons have limited advantage.
Or maybe they had spears or some other cheap main battle weapons.
They could have axes or maces as side weapons (or only weapons, along with some tools).

Just to fill in the rest of explanation - practically no other melee, no matter the name - is characterised by weapon specifically.
It must always be in addition to actual usage of unit - their main battle tactics, average unit count etc.
Spearmen are just barely trained very numerous people - less armored, much worse in fighting, than average swordsman unit member, but there would be more of them.

So in the light of that - what would axeman unit be characterised by?

Now on in-game balance.
I honestly see no reason for having both anti-building and some other significant damage bonus on cheap 2 turn unit.
Just compare flailmen (anti- heavy, anti-shield), macemen (anti-heavy infantry, anti-building) and swordsmen(anti-building).

That is like trying to get the best of both worlds.
It's not like balance works.
To get an extra - something must be sacrificed or more costly.
And if something gets more specialised - like focus on attack here - it has to come at a cost too.

[godOfKings]

The cost is mainly lower hp, and bonus against siege and buildings could b nerfed more, main role is basically anti medium infantry like swordsman and anti shield bearers, kinda like maceman but 2 turn, building bonus can b nerfed more to balance it out

My stat suggestion
Upgrade techs cost: 6 turns
Builder: tc, barracks

Axeman

Cost: 2
Hp: 16
Atk: 10
Armor: 1/0

Heavy Axeman
Hp: 19
Atk: 13
Armor: 2/0

Warrior
Hp: 22
Atk: 15
Armor: 2/1

Bonus:

My bonus suggestion:
25% medium infantry, shield bearers
40% machine, big shield bearers
80% structures, ships, siege machine
150% fortified structure, armored siege machine
600% mega structure

[TheOrder971]

@Endru1241 Can Accept the unit... please. I will Praised for next update.

[DreJaDe]

So in the light of that - what would axeman unit be characterised by?

I see axeman as fierce warriors who can broke through ranks of shields. And axe and a man is a good characterization of that for me at least.

In terms of culture though, I am not sure whether they should be neutral or maybe suggest them for the slavic culture.

Always see some depictions of them having axe, using axes which might have been influenced by vikings? Idk.

I honestly see no reason for having both anti-building and some other significant damage bonus on cheap 2 turn unit.

In this case, maybe it fits more for Slavic culture since they dont have something that I would consider a normal standard infantry.

I see the unit also as a thing that would equal a swordsman... Not necessarily a pure counter unit like skirm to archers. More like a new swordsman line like shielders and vikings.

It comes at a cost of a bit lower HP but I think having more bonus against buildings isn't much of a problem here. It also has no bonus against irregular...

Ngl, I didnt want them to have 10+ normal attack at first cause I dont even want them to 1 hit skirms. But yeah, they seem to want that.

[Endru1241]

Somewhat reasonable.
Mentioning slavic - in Poland during uprisings peasants formed axemen units (along others), where they did use axe (often makeshift) on long 1.2-1.5m wooden shaft as main battle weapon.
But such units would be rather disadvantaged against heavy or medium infantry.
Classic 10th century slavic army had a bulk made from shielders - translating literally, but those would be medium infantry with medium armors, shield bearers. They had regular sized round 1m shield or later oval or migdal shaped along with spear, axe and often bow.

[Sombrar +1]

Since the idea of an ax unit itself doesn't make sense and is not necessary in the game since we have the swordsman to represent that, perhaps making this type of unit for the Slavs mainly fit in as ax infantries are well related to Slavs such as Norse,because in my opinion the Slavs really need their own unit suitable for the front line because using the flail warrior is not is good for a battle of attrition, so the axman could be recruited in the city center instead of the hussar perhaps to balance the amount of units the Slavs can produce from their civilization in the city center?

If we are to consider the Slavic buffs perhaps the axman could have the following statistics:

Hp -> 16~19~21
Attack -> 9~11~13
Actions -> 1
Armor/Piercing Armor -> 1/0~2/0~2/1
Speed -> 3
Vision -> 4

With the bonuses being what the god of kings quoted.

[godOfKings]

Being slavic also means he benefits from double action, poison dmg, 30 % higher hp (so base 16 hp can b 20 hp, 3rd upgrade 21 hp will become 27 hp)

So final end game stat will become
Cost: 2
Hp: 27
Atk: 13
Action: 2 (so can still deal 26 base dmg without armor reduction)
Armor:2/1

If including blacksmith and morale then final stat
Hp: 27
Atk: 16 (+2/+4 poison dmg)
Armor: 5/4
Action: 2

Compared to maxed man at arms with battlefield blacksmith

Hp: 24
Atk: 20
Armor: 6/5
Speed: 4

And maxed viking

Hp: 26
Atk: 18
Action: 2
Armor: 5/4
Speed: 4

[DreJaDe]

Somewhat reasonable.
Mentioning slavic - in Poland during uprisings peasants formed axemen units (along others), where they did use axe (often makeshift) on long 1.2-1.5m wooden shaft as main battle weapon.

I think those type of axes were the main weapon version. The 2 handed axes where you can't even use shields like the dane axe.

Im not fighter but like the Dacians falxmen against romans and the successful byzantine mercs and the vikings. They seem to work in some ways against shield users. (Either way, these units I will assume to lose against knight type units.)

Though in this case. It's more like a half meter long axe types that is used in tandem with shields. Either way, swordsman v axeman will 2 hit each other normally.

Saw some references.
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthr ... ic-Warfare

In this one. They said it's characteristics of them to not have much armor.

Also, we can also have shielder type version... Or a heavier version if you will. Like 3 turn version warrior.

[TheOrder971]

Like 3 turn version warrior.

Okay I want to cost axeman with Upgrade to 3 turns like a Maceman

But I need to Accept them right now.

[SirPat]

Hello Guys I want to be accepted for this unit. then I wish to be implemented

Learn to have patience, this isnt some company runned game. This game is litterally run by one guy with a game idea with fans who selflessly help to add new stuff in the game. Screaming wont help with anything. Grow up, act civil. This is a forum. Not some lousy subreddit

[TheOrder971]

Hey guys I want this to wish accept the unit. Because they added in the game.

Everyone. any suggestions for decision.

Regards,
TheOrder971

[TheOrder971]

Hello anyone suggest to be accept.

[DreJaDe]

I think there is no agreed upon final stats... Else maybe people are just waiting for Endru's response since he usually make the final changes either way.

[TheOrder971]

I think there is no agreed upon final stats... Else maybe people are just waiting for Endru's response since he usually make the final changes either way.

Okay... I want to waiting response to Dev.

[Endru1241]

It's not about stats.
Those are almost always up to some changes anyway.

Those proposed by Sombrar should be good, maybe with some slight changes.

Main problem is that as Slavic - image is not fitting, name is not fitting to unit function.
2 turn Slavic unit could either "Topornik" or plural "Topornicy", so literally Axeman.
But that requires image with big axe, being main weapon.
And for the sake of a bit more historical fitting - it should not have anti-buidling bonuses.
I would make them unarmored, heavy clothed, light infantry with shields (Slavs were all about shields, even with two-handed weapons).

2 turn Slavic unit could also be just some general medium anti-buiding infantry with those additional bonuses added, but then I'd use more general naming, like "Voi" or "Voy". Still - some changes to the images to make them look more Slavic should be used.

[DreJaDe]

It's not about stats.
Those are almost always up to some changes anyway.

Those proposed by Sombrar should be good, maybe with some slight changes.

Main problem is that as Slavic - image is not fitting, name is not fitting to unit function.
2 turn Slavic unit could either "Topornik" or plural "Topornicy", so literally Axeman.
But that requires image with big axe, being main weapon.
And for the sake of a bit more historical fitting - it should not have anti-buidling bonuses.
I would make them unarmored, heavy clothed, light infantry with shields (Slavs were all about shields, even with two-handed weapons).

2 turn Slavic unit could also be just some general medium anti-buiding infantry with those additional bonuses added, but then I'd use more general naming, like "Voi" or "Voy". Still - some changes to the images to make them look more Slavic should be used.

Do you know any reference to using 2 handed axe while holding a shield?

Ive seen them hold it for a "pose" but not in a "battle stance.

[Endru1241]

According to descriptions - those axes were more of a bastard ones.
1.5 handed.

1.2-1.5m shaft is exactly the same length as that of a bastard sword

Axes, maces or swords designed to be only 1-handed in use normally had a total length of 60-80 centimetres. Up to 1m in some cases.
Weapons designed to be 2-haned usage (apart of typical pole weapons) had total length of at least 100cm. Normally up to 160cm. Some cases of even 2m length.

Most common bastard weapons - designed to be used in both ways - are e.g. longswords with 100-140cm total length.
In case of axes - there is big discussion, but example view on that is 80-110 cm should be seen as possible to be used by two hands and still one-handed in some situations.
Not sure about that, but it may be possible with longer shafts too.
Slavic axes shafts were commonly made from whole young tree, so it may have been capable to have enough endurance with smaller weight.
So then the usage of one handed would only require getting a grip closer to the head.
Slavs used 2 stripes on the shield, so it may have allowed free hand for the grip, but perhaps only with smaller shields, so that it doesn't prevent some attacks.

So I'm thinking of something like that or maybe slightly longer shaft:




The first (guy with a spear) armor seems perfect fit and 2nd guy uses the axe close to the description:

[TheOrder971]

According to descriptions - those axes were more of a bastard ones.
1.5 handed.

1.2-1.5m shaft is exactly the same length as that of a bastard sword

Axes, maces or swords designed to be only 1-handed in use normally had a total length of 60-80 centimetres. Up to 1m in some cases.
Weapons designed to be 2-haned usage (apart of typical pole weapons) had total length of at least 100cm. Normally up to 160cm. Some cases of even 2m length.

Most common bastard weapons - designed to be used in both ways - are e.g. longswords with 100-140cm total length.
In case of axes - there is big discussion, but example view on that is 80-110 cm should be seen as possible to be used by two hands and still one-handed in some situations.
Not sure about that, but it may be possible with longer shafts too.
Slavic axes shafts were commonly made from whole young tree, so it may have been capable to have enough endurance with smaller weight.
So then the usage of one handed would only require getting a grip closer to the head.
Slavs used 2 stripes on the shield, so it may have allowed free hand for the grip, but perhaps only with smaller shields, so that it doesn't prevent some attacks.

So I'm thinking of something like that or maybe slightly longer shaft:




The first (guy with a spear) armor seems perfect fit and 2nd guy uses the axe close to the description:

So this shows images of a Slavic culture... a Medieval style.

[Endru1241]

Yes - I made post show images from internet, so that if anyone wishes to continue with slavic axeman or voi - some image reference would exists.

[TheOrder971]

Yes - I made post shoe inages from internet, so that if anyone wishes to continue with slavic axeman or voi - some inage reference would exists.

Okay Can You accept that unit.

[TheOrder971]

Hey Guys. I Decide to Accept the unit and Implemented suggest needed.

[TheOrder971]

Hello we must be Accept Unit Yet. Reply now.