this system makes it that grenadiers are effectively useless because they are countered by almost anything while not even countering cavalry like musketeers.
also it makes culverins absolutely mandatory in every game and civs that don’t have them are hugely disadvantaged after fortress age
this would be a complete change to the flavour of these units.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel and scrape together an inconsistent new kind of infantry just because grens exist. I’d like grens to be relevant in the counter system too, but a single unit isn’t worth reinventing the entire military system over.
A dude with a gun on a horse not being used like in the way the vast majority of other dudes with guns on horses is a problem in and of itself that will need to be addressed eventually, like the evolution of the hakkapelit has already shown us.
In a game with such visual variety as AoE3, not being able to recognise a unit’s role at a glance based on general equipment is a real gameplay issue. Not to mention the confusion it generates for newcomers.
There is a reason why standardisation is where all efficient systems end up. Standardisation is good.
All natives can get Captured Mortars after researching the expensive Gun Running tech to start making those Captured Mortars and they are slow and not so great against Infantry and require you to be in Age IV to start making them.
Even with Lakota as my favorite civilization in the game I would hate to see them get Light Cannons even if they can only get them starting in Age IV just like Haudenosaunee do.
Grenadier type units require Age II to start making them and Ottoman unique Grenadier type unit the Humbaraci are good at taking out Artillery so Lakota would still be in trouble.
A extremely strong NO! to your proposed changes to the game.
Like other people have said the overall counter system is more of a “cav, anti-cav, anti-anti-cav” logic. That’s why dragoons are oddly countered by skirmishers.
We could fix some outliers, but we should not add more counter arrows between tags/unit types beyond the current grouping,
You are correct, Lakota lacks a good heavy_inf option as well. They should have access to Tomahawks, in addition to LightCannons since tomahawk use was widespread in the great plains region anyway.
Yes, I acknowledge that it is this way currently. But that logic is clunky as Hell. That’s why we should change it.
you’ll need to explain why a 3 point system is clunky as hell, not just state it as if it were self evident.
I’d personally prefer to start with a less radical effort of adjusting weaponry and visuals into the existing roles before altering the roles themselves:
So many people hate playing against Lakota because they are considered overpowered and now you want to add Tomahawks and Light Cannons to their roster which will make them even stronger while also making Haudenosaunee a little less unique of a civilization man so many people would hate this including me especially me with Lakota being my favorite civilization and Haudenosaunee being my least favorite civilization.
Skirmishers countering Dragoons is quite realistic. Massed infantry with ranged weapons like arquebuses are what finally made horse archers obsolete.
Then line infantry should also have a ranged counter to ranged cav…or archers should not.
Also fitting dragoons and cavalry archers into the same category is quite forced too, if we’re talking about reality. Dragoon is more of a general-purpose cavalry with carbine as a side-arm, not cavalry archer.
This is why I think Grenadiers should just be seen as elite heavy infantry (with muskets) who happen to be great at siege rather than the weird unit we currently have.
Line infantry have just generally high damage so they end up in a stalemate with ranged cav which seems fine to me. Gotta have some allowance for a counter system that works for a game.
Both Dragoons and Cavalry Archers are ranged cavalry. That’s pretty much the most obvious grouping there could be. Cavalry could be more realistically grouped, but I don’t think splitting Dragoons and Cavalry Archers would be the way to do it. I’d keep the ranged ones together and further define the melee ones.
Light Cavalry (Hussars, Cossacks, etc) - Fast raiders kinda like Asian cav. Maybe with the ability to attack while moving.
Medium Cavalry (Dragoons, Cavalry Archers, etc) - General purpose ranged cav that counters other cav.
Heavy Cavalry (Cuirassier, Lancers, etc) - Tanky cav with trampling or charged attacks.
Only thing I changed about Halberdiers is their trade with dragoons. When you think about it, a guy on horse with a gun should beat a slow moving guy walking with an axe in a fight. I was tempted to let Halberdiers counter culverins but I though this could be broken so came to the conclusion they should trade equally.
Well what other proper counter do Dragoons have in the game at the moment apart from Skirmishers and musketeers? (pikemen maybe coz they move faster than halberdiers???)
Honestly, so do I.
I made my little chart in a rush but wanted to show some of the other counters not explored in the official chart. Such as what Grenadiers and Halberdiers should counter.
I also just wanted to show how confusing the current counter system is at the moment. What a mess!!!
Which is basically soldado and giant grenadier…“experimental” units because they don’t want to alter the existing balance too much.
I actually think the original design of “cavalry archer being a cheaper but weaker dragoon” (found in the old compendium) makes more sense to me. Cavalry archers being more tanky and less viable at hit and run (compared to dragoons) seems odd.
musketeers already soft counters dragoons because of stat difference.
That depends on what kind of Cavalry Archer your are trying to depict. They could also operate in much the same way as Dragoons, with a bow to fight from range and a lance and heavy armour as primary weapons.
The original (and even more so now) Cavalry Archers were partially based on the Russian Landed Army which is heavier cavalry armed with bows.
Ottoman Cavalry Archers are more based on Akıncı which operate like you describe, but they also had heaver cavalry like Sipahi that used bows (even if that’s not how they’re shown in game).
The problem with this setup to me is that assuming they are the siege units, you would probably need to remove the ability to siege away from heavy infantry or you will probably get an otto style musk-gren death ball that would eat buildings faster than civs are able to rebuild.
even if you remove the siege from heavy infantry, having a hard infantry counter to light infantry in age 2 probably makes it game over.
games would not get past age 2 at that point, light infantry in age 2 only trade cost effective against heavy in age 2 atm and not hard counters and with assault infantry as well the only 2 civ that may past muster is otto and brit. Cav would also be pretty bad in battle in age 2 as well. which means they could only be used for raids.
In addition breaking counters has been kinda the point somewhat in the AOE franchise, cataphract in aoe 2 murdering infantry and huskcarls murdering archers and knights murdering just about everything if its equal numbers. its the breaking the rules that makes it interesting.
