Infantry are still the worst unit type in the game currently.
And despite Arson and the building HP nerfs, buildings still stand up a bit too well against the slow Infantry units, with heavy cavalry actually doing a better job of reaching and damaging them.
Arson should be +4 vs standard buildings, and at least +3, rather than just +2. You can have it 50% blockable by masonry if you’re concerned it is a big change for Post-Imp.
Because it comes in the Castle Age, Doubling its effect is only going to have positive effects on the metagame, as it will discourage stonewalling in Castle Age especially, and give Infantry in the Castle Age the niche of being another option to consider against a turtling opponent.
Putting them closer to a siege units-kind of viability in Castle Age.
If you want you can increase Arson price too by a little for this, but Infantry should get to damage buildings more easily than they do. Considering just how much time they spend in reaching the building, let alone damaging it.
Also how easy their movements are to predict by their slowness.
Goth anti-building bonus may or may not be increased depending on how dominating they currently are.
You are indeed wrong. Arson doesn’t get blocked by masonry, neither does any of the tech that grants extra attack against buildings.
Thanks, I removed that point, let us discuss the other points related to Infantry
And how we can solve all these issues in one single stroke
Prevalence of Stonewalling/Turtling especially on certain maps, where it is just too easy, making gameplay boring and predictable. Infantry with +4 vs walls in Castle age could make things interesting.
Infantry viability in Castle Age
Infantry too slow to actually reach and damage, let alone destroy, buildings reliably compared to Cavalry. This is not an issue in ~200 pop Post-Imp, but in Castle and Early-Imp, where a stronger Arson could really help out.
Infantry actually weaker in desroying buildings because of limited surround space.
Infantry(swordsmen) has no viable niche till Mid-Imperial. Only after that they are trashkillers(swordsmen). A stronger Arson = an actual niche and a possible reason to go Swordsmen/Infantry UU in Castle age.
Surely you should be able to “burn” buildings much much faster when you’re on foot and not on horseback with heavy armor weighing you down.
Check my balance suggestions in this discussion, that should help infantry a little against buildings
Extra pierce armour for Swordsman+?
Those are great suggestions, and I agree with you on stat buff, though probably best to buff attack
Here, though, I want to give Infantry a viable niche, i.e. a kind of uniqueness that will allow them to be a prime and effective option under certain circumstances
Which can’t happen if you just make them similar to cavalry
with +4 against walls in castle age… Wouldnt the siege be replaced by infantry?
Anymore thoughts about this issue?
I still would not make infantry in castle age, just to take down buildings wtf. You make an actualy strong army and if you want to push add a siege workshop. Being able to take down buildings doesnt help the unit, since at some point you have to fight your enemys army.
Also if someone really tries to go low army boom, he will probably just make a def workshop and get a mango/scorpion out, which again means you need siege. So i dont think this would help infantry at all.
Secondly it would just be bad design in my opinion. Like why should infantry get so good at taking down buildings? Feels very out of the air.