I've noticed that without access to either copper or iron, it is impossible to build either axemen or spearmen, despite the face that the first axes and spears WERE made of stone and not bronze.

Would it make sense to add in different versions of these two units - stone versions, which are somewhat cheap and lower-strength, but don't require resources, bronze which are very expensive but also very effective, iron units, which are much less expensive and slightly less effective than bronze, and finally steel, which would cost the same number of shields as iron but be stronger than bronze ones. The same thing could potentially be done with swordsmen and macemen, simply by eliminating the stone versions of those weapons. Bronze units would require copper, iron would require iron, and steel would require iron plus the steel tech.

Doing this would allow for people unlucky enough not to start with copper or iron to still produce somewhat effective units so that they are not incapable of waging war until gunpowder - if they don't have copper or iron, then they can at least build stone units and try to take a copper or iron source from their foes by force in the early game. Without stone units, it would be pretty hard to even do that.

That would make a lot of sense. And needless to say they would follow an upgrade path, so when you finally did discover copper, you could upgrade all your axemen/spearmen for a nominal cost.

I think any military unit with stone or wooden weapons would be considered a "warrior".

I think any military unit with stone or wooden weapons would be considered a "warrior".

Jaguar Warriors use obsidian edged, wooden blades - yet they're swordsmen replacements. The armor worn by Samurai isn't made of metal, yet they're macemen replacements.

Jaguar Warriors use obsidian edged, wooden blades - yet they're swordsmen replacements. The armor worn by Samurai isn't made of metal, yet they're macemen replacements.

Yes but that is just for game balance. In real life you can't say stone weapons are equally or more powerful than steel ones or that wooden and leather armor is as good or better than steel armor.

Yes but that is just for game balance. In real life you can't say stone weapons are equally or more powerful than steel ones or that wooden and leather armor is as good or better than steel armor.

I don't think anybody's suggesting that any new stone or bronze weapons would be as powerful or more powerful than their iron equivalents; but they would probably be better than other weapons of the same era. For example a stone axe would probably be better than a warrior's club for damage, and a stone spear would still be useful against mounted or animal units, or more so than a warrior's club at any rate.

The warrior's club is probably just an abstraction. I'd assume that the warriors use all kinds of simple weapons, like slings, rocks, clubs and crude stone axes.

Why not to add weaponsmith building to the game. It produces certain weapons - stoneaxe, copperaxe, bronzeaxe, iron axe, sword etc. if you have ressorces like copper or iron. Unit needs only that ressource some(bronze)axe.
So that makes new dimension to the game. You need tech for buildings not for units. When less developed player buys that ressource (axe), the he is able to build axeman even he don't have developed bronze working yet. Better example is gunpowder units - you can sell arquebuises or riffles to your ally by not giving him tech... It works similar as hit musicals

What about this idea?

My plan is first to complete my "Real nuclear arsenal mod" but weapon selling is my new idea in "Industrial mod"

Yes but that is just for game balance. In real life you can't say stone weapons are equally or more powerful than steel ones or that wooden and leather armor is as good or better than steel armor.

Actually, the lacquer armor that Samurai wore was every bit as good as plate mail, and obsidian, while not as good as steel, is at least as good as plain iron.