I’ve always thought they could just rename eagle armor to scout or light armor if they added it to scouts. either works. would give some added utility to the infantry line.
???
We literally have already one infantry line that is supposed to counter cavalry.
As if giving the militia line some bonus damage would change anything about the general interaction of these classes.
Light cav already is far inferior to heavy cav in basically every aspect but speed. (exception monks)
There is absolutely no need to make a specific armor class for light cav.
And even worse to confuse them with eagles which are basically a heavy cav / light cav combination on foot and need that bonus damage so there is at least one “counter”.
And all over that most melee units already perform way better vs light cav already because heavy cav has this 2 melee armor on top of the geneally higher stats…
Why is there such a ressentimental mood against everything that could affect the knight powerspike in the midgame and instead trying to circulary nerf or buff other units against each other?
Instead of just naming the elephant in the room which is the Knight in castle age.
The Knight dominance just prevents the other units to shine. Except for camels as they counter knights if you get a decent timing and comparable eco.
Lets stop beating around the bush.
the light cav line getting eagle armor does nothing to promote knight play, it’s literally a good solid nerf to hussar spam so many complain about, while also giving militia and infantry uu a small but solid buff.
the hussar spam wouldn’t be stopped by the militia line if it can’t be stopped by the spear line…
it doesn’t need to be STOPPED though, it’s a solid enough nerf while also giving us the option to have more in the late game then just trash spam, as suddenly Infantry is a solid all around answer.
still don’t get why you’re QQing about Knights though when my comment and those discussing it had NOTHING to do with it.
1 Like
because if looks like your traing desperately to avoid speaking about the knights here but instead trying to make other interactions responsible for the issues knights cause.
oh yes, except gasp, what did we see at redbull wololo, clearly not knight dominance. heck i don’t even remember seeing much knight play at all.
knights are going to dominate the ladder no matter what just because how easy to use they are and how resilient they are, short of nerfing them into the ground
you want to nerf them for the ladder? find a way to do it without impacting pro play.
I you look into the stats you will see that infantry civs already have the highest winrates in very long games and cav civs the lowest (in general).
I saw knight play. But both the game mode (as it leads to an extended feudal) and the maps (often semi-closed and/or a lot of free food) don’t really favor knights.
What about more expensive walls that have more HP? Then pros wouldn’t wall in open maps anymore and we would see a lot of knight play there, even if knights would get nerfed (or the spear line buffed).
kind of hard to look into stats right now for the obvious reason. but this doesn’t surprise me.
often semi closed? did we watch the same series?
more expensive walls with more HP would just lead to more archer play at the highest level, so good job there. Again - Find a way to nerf them without impacting high level play.
just like the archer line nerf but in reverse. affects high level play but doesn’t really impact low level play much.
???
no?
Archers can pressure even with walls up?
Archers can kill repair/backwalling vills so you can destroy the walls and get into the base?
Man, that’s basic knowledge that cav is stoppped by walls way more efficient than archers. Vs archers you need TCs / Towers or your own military…
Which would be achieved with the wall change. Cause at lower level the absolute investment into the walls has less influence as the ressource efficiency isn’t that important. Also as higher rated players react faster they don’t even need much more HP on the walls to react in time.
So yes this change would actually nerf knights in mid elo cause the walls would be more effective vs knights ther, but nerf walls in pro play as they would be more expensive but don’t provide much more protection for the faster reacting players.
It’s exactly what you demand for that change.
EXACTLY. which is why if you make walls harder to get through, archers are the better option.
which is LITERALLY what i just said.
if you make walling harder to break through, archer civs are going to benefit from it.
how much are you talking about increasing the cost? because literally SMALL walls alone basically is all you need. not hard to get those up. So short of drastically increasing the cost, you’re not changing much.
No, you said:
Which I denied, cause more expensive walls would lead to less walling and therefore less obstacles for the knights. At least
So don’t try to change the perspective of your arguments retrospecively. If you make these kind of argument you have to stay in the selected context framework of your initial statement.
At low/mid elo where ressource efficiency isn’t that big of a constrain, yes.
But we both now that at this level knight civs totally dominate the ladder, so I don’t see any problem with buffing archers there a bit.
At higher elo… How can not built walls stop knights?
And the current palisades are sufficient enough at high elo to hold back knights as long as you have all your eco walled in.
Not against knights that love to raid especially exposed ressource spots. If you want to protect these you need the big walls.
no, it would just lead to more small walling. and since walls have more HP, they can hold out cavalry longer.
but gasp. why would i go cavalry when my archers can just shoot over the walls.
except i am right.
all this is going to do is further move pros from doing full walls (except on closed maps), to having small walls. more HP means that melee unit raids would be even more ineffective, and encourage more archer play.
except you know, where you were supposed to make it so high level play is UNAFFECTED. and you failed horribly.
small walls. I build 3-4 tiles around my woodlines to keep stuff out instead of full walls. scouts and infantry will be largely useless against it. if I want any sort of early pressure i’m better off going archers.
small walls stop early raids, and with more HP it’s going to take knights longer to break through them then they do now. congrats you just encouraged more archer play then anything.
so unless you got some massive increase into the cost of walls per tile, i doubt your change has the effect you want it to have.
ah this you mean 1111
well I never saw these effectively used in castle age… maybe for a reason only players who actually play understand?
With this statement you basically disqualified yourself from this discussion, cause you show you just talk bluntly about things you don’t understand.
Question for you - If you give walls More HP, wouldn’t that make them more effective in castle age?
Question for you - if you give walls more HP, wouldn’t that push me away from scout openers and encourage more Archer Play?
Question for you - Doesn’t that mean archers are encouraged more and cavalry is discouraged more?
Question for you - Isn’t that exactly what i said back in the beginning?
OH wait.
yes, just ignore that you gave them more HP, which makes them more effective in castle age…
not to mention the feudal age impact of encouraging more archer play and less cavalry play.
Again,. that just doesn’t work out in Castle Age.
It’s that simple, it’s basucally a gifted V to the opponent if you try this.
And using this - which everybody who plays know is just a terrible idea in castle age - as an argument here just disqualifies you. It’s that easy.
If you want to participate in this kind of discussion you have to show that you have a minimum of in-game knowledge and experience.
And making absurd suggestions of a hypothetical gameplay that just doesn’t work as an counterargument is even worse cause it showcases that you only want to forward your own agenda here… Which is seemingly to nerf Archers again for highest elo… which is absurd after the recent xbow nerf.
You even ignore constantly that all stats show that at basically all elos (even 1600 +) most archer civs have a hard time competing wiht knights.
You just ignore these facts and instead try to make arguments to nerf archers even further…
This is just hypcrite.
Yeah. Ive not made one argument to nerf archers further so show me that fact that i called for nerfing them. I asked you to nerf knights for low level without impacting high level. You havent provided that.
Put up or shut up.
I said to nerf knights for low level play without impacting high level play.
Wall changes do impact high level play. Whether you like it or not. It will encourage more archer play. Whether you like it or not.
Funny though that you use facts that dont take into account your proposed change to back up your argument.
Again, show me where i asked for archer nerfs, liar.
Go back to the topic of infantry bonus damage to Scout-line.
Light cavalry/Hussar have only one cost-effective counter and that itself has a problem. Other trash unit such as Pike countered by every ranged unit and Skirms are dies like flies against everything except archers (They should counter CA more in lategame I think).
Nerfing Light cav isn’t relate to knight play in castle age. We are talking about after mid-imp. Light cav are much cost effective than heavy cav and you also have to consider which civ. FU Paladin is only available for less than 10 civ but FU Hussar is more spread to like nearly 20 civs. Light cav/Hussar trained every game if game goes long even for civ with terrible light cav.
What about civs don’t access to halb but decent champion? Civ lacking halb upgrade such as Italians, Saracens, Malians their only option vs Hussar is just their own Hussar and it makes trash war extremely 1 dimensional, who just spaming hussar better to opponent’s base and raid to death opponent. I think Champion should be decent option against Hussar that makes trash war more interesting. Also halb can’t do anything just prevent Hussar raid and chasing them but champion actually can take down enemy’s building. Just giving more option vs Hussar can be meaningful.
pikes do well vs hussar.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is that the hussars are just way faster.
One idea I can support would also to just slightly decrease the HP of the hussars. This wouldn’t change this interaction as much (even if it would reduce the amount of hits the hussars can ##### . ### it would make hussar in general a bit easier to be killed by castles, TCs and even arbs or cavaliers.
Again: I see no reason to buff the militia line in this interaction. If you want to counter light cav you make the spear line. It’s their only purpose to kill the cavalry. There is absolutely no reason to buff the militia lina for that, cause spears are just so much better for that.
And I don’t understand if we want the infantry to counter cav better… Why we don’t just change the spear v cav interaction? Cause that’s literally that infantry unit that is designed and ONLY designed to counter cav.
This is my approach about it
1 Like