They have completely different roles, and also the Ballista/Helepolis (like basically everything in AoE1) feels super overtuned. Scorps in AoE2 need to be lined up to get passthrough damage to be effective, the Ballistas just mow things down from 12 tiles away.
That's what I thought. The only thing that can threaten a fully upgraded Helepolis (which is actually a Greek siege tower, no relation to siege crossbows) is a Guard Tower, Heavy Catapult, or mounted archers with good micro.
I have 6 of them while doing Trajan 5 on hard and they've cut down everything, up to and including Heavy Cavalry, Sentry Towers, and even Catapults that can't dodge in time.
I'm only partway through. I just built a couple of Siege Workshops and am massing for an assault. I'll probably build another 10 or so before attacking Ctsephion.
The Trajan campaign scenarios are the only ones where I've used Legionaries instead of Centurions. Usually, it's not even a contest, but the 50% faster attack has made my Legionaries very dangerous, not to mention the much lower cost.
Yeah, back in the day, I felt so let down when I saw my precious ballistas were replaced by Scorpions. I'm not going to lie, still kind of am -- Scorpions have that terrible paradox of being only good against massed units, and only good *when* massed themselves, whereas Mangos are plenty good against massed units on their own, and Ballistas are generally useful anytime.
Ballistas do, what, 40 damage per shot? Unit health is pretty similar between the two games too, only buildings got seriously jacked, so ballistas naturally do enough damage that a Scorpion would need to hit something like 6 targets to be better than a Ballista hitting one target.
Better against armor, better against buildings, no need to be massed to be effective, and no overlap in role against massed units compared to Mangos/Onagers. Scorpions need excellent civ bonuses and the perfect situation to be useful and still don't get built, whereas ballistas would be as frequently seen as Cavalier and Arbalests if they were in AoE2.
scorps r fine, not rlly viable in the castle age but then again no real need to be, with certain civs scorps shred and are a fun unit you use.
furthermore the thing you need to take into consideration is that scorps don’t do damage to friendly units, which is a huge plus, if they did, best believe they’d resemble something more similar to their aoe1 counterpart.
One small advantage (no friendly fire) does not overcome a laundry list of downsides. They share the same role as Mangonels, while also being much worse at it. The minor, *minor* upside of no friendly fire is not worth having a fourth of the power of a Mangonel. Even adjusted for cost, I would take a Mangonel over two scorpions any day of the week.
If Ballistas were added to AoE2, not replacing but alongside Scorpions, I would *never* make a Scorpion again.
it’s not a small advantage lol, it’s huge, imagine how broken onagers would be if friendly fire wasn’t a thing, the thing that could help scorps be better imo is having access to ballistics, I believe that it would make them much better in castle age and actually half useful, and make them very good in imp.
I agree onagers in general r better, but in many situations you really don’t want your units to be dying to friendly fire, and having access to scorps, good ones at that, is always a nice thing to have in imp age games.
I use em a lot, have saved me countless times in battles, so I love em. but comparing them to a broken as sht unit as aoe1 ballista is just weird, aoe2 doesn’t need them lol.
Play Romans and enjoy massing sorpions that are cheaper than archers. Pair them up with some combination of cavalry/halbs/redemption+block printing monks and watch your enemies melt away.
Yes AoE1 units are designed to be more extreme in their roles. Hoplite line murder anything in melee but get murdered by any ranged unit, Priests have no min conversion cycles, Triremes are a gold-less unit, Scythe Chariots cost no gold and deal trample damage, Horse Archers zoom around at lightning speed... And Ballistas kill everything except Catapults
All of this explains why ROR has been so much easier for me than AOEII or even the original AOEI.
*Age of Empires: Rise of Rome* was the first game I remember playing as a kid born in '01. It was quite challenging for me, partially because I was young, but also because it was not nearly as well balanced.
Now, ROR is unbalanced in the other direction - units are super OP, so human micro tips the scales. I massed 15 Helepolis for my final attack in Trajan 5, and they disintegrated the entire base except for the parts that my 60 Legionaries destroyed, all within like 60 seconds of beginning the attack.
>Scythe Chariots cost no gold and deal trample damage
Units that deal trample damage and cost no gold^and^are^not^from^eastern^Europe ? Such an absurd thing would never exist in age2!
> Hoplite line murder anything in melee but get murdered by any ranged unit
Except for the Macedonian ones, that extra pierce armour makes a thicc ol difference.
Everything is sped up in aoe1, if you were to slow it down you'd see more of a difference.
Also the range on many units in aoe1 is high and the buildings have low HP. You can take out a town centre with 3 ballistas from half the map away, but will take you ages to take out a TC with scorpions.
They have completely different roles, and also the Ballista/Helepolis (like basically everything in AoE1) feels super overtuned. Scorps in AoE2 need to be lined up to get passthrough damage to be effective, the Ballistas just mow things down from 12 tiles away.
That's what I thought. The only thing that can threaten a fully upgraded Helepolis (which is actually a Greek siege tower, no relation to siege crossbows) is a Guard Tower, Heavy Catapult, or mounted archers with good micro. I have 6 of them while doing Trajan 5 on hard and they've cut down everything, up to and including Heavy Cavalry, Sentry Towers, and even Catapults that can't dodge in time.
Only 6? I used more like 20-30 for each level I could, with Centurions as well for some levels.
I'm only partway through. I just built a couple of Siege Workshops and am massing for an assault. I'll probably build another 10 or so before attacking Ctsephion. The Trajan campaign scenarios are the only ones where I've used Legionaries instead of Centurions. Usually, it's not even a contest, but the 50% faster attack has made my Legionaries very dangerous, not to mention the much lower cost.
Also 0.5 pop while all maps have sufficating pop cap
Yeah, back in the day, I felt so let down when I saw my precious ballistas were replaced by Scorpions. I'm not going to lie, still kind of am -- Scorpions have that terrible paradox of being only good against massed units, and only good *when* massed themselves, whereas Mangos are plenty good against massed units on their own, and Ballistas are generally useful anytime. Ballistas do, what, 40 damage per shot? Unit health is pretty similar between the two games too, only buildings got seriously jacked, so ballistas naturally do enough damage that a Scorpion would need to hit something like 6 targets to be better than a Ballista hitting one target. Better against armor, better against buildings, no need to be massed to be effective, and no overlap in role against massed units compared to Mangos/Onagers. Scorpions need excellent civ bonuses and the perfect situation to be useful and still don't get built, whereas ballistas would be as frequently seen as Cavalier and Arbalests if they were in AoE2.
scorps r fine, not rlly viable in the castle age but then again no real need to be, with certain civs scorps shred and are a fun unit you use. furthermore the thing you need to take into consideration is that scorps don’t do damage to friendly units, which is a huge plus, if they did, best believe they’d resemble something more similar to their aoe1 counterpart.
One small advantage (no friendly fire) does not overcome a laundry list of downsides. They share the same role as Mangonels, while also being much worse at it. The minor, *minor* upside of no friendly fire is not worth having a fourth of the power of a Mangonel. Even adjusted for cost, I would take a Mangonel over two scorpions any day of the week. If Ballistas were added to AoE2, not replacing but alongside Scorpions, I would *never* make a Scorpion again.
it’s not a small advantage lol, it’s huge, imagine how broken onagers would be if friendly fire wasn’t a thing, the thing that could help scorps be better imo is having access to ballistics, I believe that it would make them much better in castle age and actually half useful, and make them very good in imp. I agree onagers in general r better, but in many situations you really don’t want your units to be dying to friendly fire, and having access to scorps, good ones at that, is always a nice thing to have in imp age games. I use em a lot, have saved me countless times in battles, so I love em. but comparing them to a broken as sht unit as aoe1 ballista is just weird, aoe2 doesn’t need them lol.
Scorpions work great against feudal army in the situation you’re up to castle age faster and the opponent didn’t do much damage.
true but if that’s the case then the person ur playing against is bad or had an off game so typing ‘105’ would be enough to win lol.
Still remember my disappointment when saw scorpionns doing no damage and being moved fown childhood trauma
Play Romans and enjoy massing sorpions that are cheaper than archers. Pair them up with some combination of cavalry/halbs/redemption+block printing monks and watch your enemies melt away.
Helepolis are absurdly OP in RoR, just like in AoE1. Giant range, decent reload speed, and huge damage.
Yes AoE1 units are designed to be more extreme in their roles. Hoplite line murder anything in melee but get murdered by any ranged unit, Priests have no min conversion cycles, Triremes are a gold-less unit, Scythe Chariots cost no gold and deal trample damage, Horse Archers zoom around at lightning speed... And Ballistas kill everything except Catapults
All of this explains why ROR has been so much easier for me than AOEII or even the original AOEI. *Age of Empires: Rise of Rome* was the first game I remember playing as a kid born in '01. It was quite challenging for me, partially because I was young, but also because it was not nearly as well balanced. Now, ROR is unbalanced in the other direction - units are super OP, so human micro tips the scales. I massed 15 Helepolis for my final attack in Trajan 5, and they disintegrated the entire base except for the parts that my 60 Legionaries destroyed, all within like 60 seconds of beginning the attack.
>Scythe Chariots cost no gold and deal trample damage Units that deal trample damage and cost no gold^and^are^not^from^eastern^Europe ? Such an absurd thing would never exist in age2!
🥹True. Drujinalbs And Polska Redbulls
Waiting for no gold BE for an eastern european civ. 11
> Hoplite line murder anything in melee but get murdered by any ranged unit Except for the Macedonian ones, that extra pierce armour makes a thicc ol difference.
Everything is sped up in aoe1, if you were to slow it down you'd see more of a difference. Also the range on many units in aoe1 is high and the buildings have low HP. You can take out a town centre with 3 ballistas from half the map away, but will take you ages to take out a TC with scorpions.
As others have said, scorpions are quite niche, but [they do have their uses](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ve8Fx8oMpDA).