Buffing infantry posts are never gonna stop if their base stats are buffed to make them multi-purpose unit. Because some UU like Samurai, JW, Serjeant, Berserk, or maybe even WR, Obuch, karambit, Urumi will feel less special. Then people will ask to buff those UU. And then this cycle will continue forever.
I forgot who. But someone made an assumption on original Byzantines design. They have discount on spearman, skirmisher and Camel. All 3 are theoritically countered by Militia Line. That’s why they gave Cataphract massive anti-infantry attack. And originally in Age of Kings, Cataphract didn’t have any bonus armor against anti-cavalry attack either. It was added in Age of Conquerors expansion.
Probably Ensemble Studio thought spear+skirm will be too powerful in Castle Age. And they kept infantry as a counter to spear+skirm. My suggestion would be reverting to that. Now we have the “Skirmisher” armor class against which Organ Gun and Bengalis melee cavalry have bonus attack. “Speraman” armor class exists since 2000. I think extending Militia Line’s massive attack bonus against “Eagle” armor class to “Spearman” and “Skirmisher” armor class will be a good direction.
Ensemble changed their policy for AOM still. I dont think we can just simply use old design terminology and call it a day. So many things changed today. Even from AOK to AOC. FE introduced a new Castle Age tech for civs.
Like AOE1 Hoplites are broken with huge pop count but fine for small pop. That’s why AOE1 games in general are Hoplite spam with Ballista to support if you increase their population count.
Only reason we say swordsman opening is because of their damage vs building today. But again its just solved the Feudal opening but not what to do in late Feudal and Castle Age.
I think Swordsman line in general should’ve its special armor class for the sake of buffing UU as well. Cavalry Archer armor works in same fashion already. It also offers dedicated bonus damage against Spears. I think a tech should exist which gives some bonus against Eagle, Cavalry across all Swordsman and UU Swordsman. While techs like Gambeson, Arson should be deleted and given for free. Atleast Arson after age up.
AoE2 was their first game with real counter units.
In AoE1 most units don’t do bonus damage or just do very little of it.
A good solution would be to give the Milita Line a new armour class that is shared with some Unique Units.
I suggest “Heavy Infantry” that is shared by all infantry unit with less then 1 Tile/Seconds speed. (That does not include Samurai and Jaguar Warriors btw.).
Then technologies like Supplies and Gambeson can affect those units too (their stats are adjusted to account for that) so they are no longer the only technologies that affect one unit line. (Parthian Tactics also affects all Cavalry Archer UUs too).
Since units like Spearman, Eagles and some UUs are very different compared to the Milita Line it makes sense to not make those technologies to apply to all Infantry.
This new armour class then also allows civilisations to have bonuses against the Milita Line directly. This way the Milita Line can be buffed while preventing them from getting unstoppable for some civilisations.
In some cases this bonus can simply be added to Unique Units, in other cases it can be a civ bonus for a generic unit or part of a unique technology.
For example the Archer Line, Cavalry Archer Line, Knight Line, Scorpion Line or even Milita Line itself could have a bonus to Heavy Infantry for one civilisation.
The “anti-trash” utility of the militia would make more sense if there wasn’t enough close gold you can take to get enough for your “power units”.
But as maps are designed currently the vast majority of maps have enough of that that you almost never come in the situation that gold really runs out. Especially not against slow melee units like the militia line.
So I don’t see this rn as a way, because even when we see pure trash openers from certain civs (byz, koreans, chinese…" it’s usually way too easy to switch to mostly archers to counter the militia line.
Here is a radical thought. Make is so certain missile units cannot attack militia behind any wall, building or structure. I haven’t really thought this out, but this would maybe allow them to close easier with missile units, and make use of cover against certain missile units.
Well my “solution” idea was to give the line some slowly recharging javelines.
This would mean you need more than a few archers to counter them. And also help against skirms behind walls.
I agree. But I think reverting to anti-trash is still better idea than current approach of making them general multi-purpose unit.
Yeah, I can see that.
I didn’t know that. In fact I have barely any knowledge on other AoE games.
My opinion is their HP Pool also need to be raised from 55/60 in Castle/Imperial to justify the “Heavy” category. Currently their HP is no different from spearman line which is most certainly a “Light” infantry.
You should look into them. They are all good games and many things between them a transferable.
Each other game in the series had a solution for the Infantry problem:
AoM:
Infantry has stronger base stats then Cavalry.
Since AoMR most Infantry have some bonus damage vs. Cavalry or some other unit type (like vs. Archer or other Infantry)
AoE3:
Almost all melee Infantry have bonus damage vs. Cavalry with the exception of Eagle Warrior like units that are practically like cavalry themselves.
AoE4:
Swordsman Line has a lot of armour and is considered heavy.
Spearman Line has little armour and is considered light melee infantry.
Crossbow Line has bonus damage vs. armoured units (Including Knights).
Archer Line has bonus damage vs. light melee infantry.
So you have different units to counter the different Infantry.
I agree. More HP or more armour. I’m personally in favour of more armour though.
I think the Long Swordsman should have 2/2 armour (without Blacksmith upgrades) like the Knight does. Either as base stat or from a none Blacksmith technology like Gambesons.
Give Long Swordsman 2/1 base armour and change Gambesons into:
Heavy Infantry +10 HP and +1 Pierce Armour.
(All Heavy Infantry UU are adjusted depending on the availability of this technology for the civ).
Very good reply. At least with my suggestion, they will have a clear role. If you have limited gold access, you can try them. And late game Champion play will be a bit more frequent.
Is this not possible without a radical way?
What am I exaggerating?
Oh yeah. Thanks.
How are they related? There was still pikeman and camel. What am I missing?
I did. Not my cup of tea.
Well, they already have more armor. But extra armor is almost useless against siege. That’s why I want more HP just like Stable units have a 2 clear HP pool - LC and SL line at 60/75 HP in Castle/Imperial vs Knight and Camel line at 100/120/140 HP in Castle/Imperial/Late Imperial. Paladin is very special unit with a very high HP.
Or make long swordsman only weak to xbow and knight, but strong vs camels, siege and trash. With support from xbow or scorpions, long swordsman can also fight cavalry archers.
Make Long swordsman to have reversed mechanics of shrivamsha rider. Few xbow/CA is still effective against long swordsman but massed xbow/cavalry become less effective against long swordsman. After taking ~25 damage within 1.5s, long swordsman doesn’t take dmg for 1.5s to make it harder to die under focus fire and mass siege.
Except Woad raiders, all the other units in the list need a buff too because none of them are special even today. Either cost, movement speed or something else depending on that unit.
Lot of those decisions were made based on the keyboard input delay and latency issues that existed back then. Monks were worse, was harder to micro ranged units, towers were stronger, no deer pushing in most of the maps. You’d have to massively change the game, commonly played maps to bring that back. And some of it can never be reverted back.
Its a decent idea making maa fetch a little more value than now. This could be an additional change but the main changes need to be more drastic to make militia line more mainstream.
At last look at how they solved some issues that AoE2 has.
I think AoE games should learn more from each other because they are all good in my opinion but they also all have flaws.
They had 0 armour and 55HP in AoK which is pretty crazy.
Logically a Long Swordsman should have the same armour as a Knight (2/2), then having half the HP (60 vs. 100+20) is relatively balance at half the cost.
But I think a fully upgraded Long Swordsman should have 2/2 armour and 70 HP (without Blacksmith Upgrades).
A champion should have 3/2 armour and 80 HP (again without Blacksmith Upgrades).
Yes and that is a good thing. I think siege is a good way to keep Infantry (and Archers) in check.
Well I’m kinda unsure. I think there are multiple different roles that the Milita Line could fulfil that would be better then now.
One of those roles would be anti siege. But then it shouldn’t get the other buffs.
Maybe Milita Line receive -50% damage from siege units would be an interesting mechanic (maybe locked behind technology) that would give them a unique role, but then they shouldn’t get additional buffs against other unit types.
That would make them a direct counter to the popular Spearman+Siege combination.
And it’s OK that it doesn’t include the Samurai and Jaguar Warrior. Since they should be units with 1 less PA than now, and rather with slightly more attack and faster
medium infantry [1.0 - 1.05] by the way, these units should have all the same speed instead of a difference of 0.05
→ Throwing Axeman
→ Samurai
→ Jaguar Warrior
→ Kamayuk
→ Huskarl
→ Berserk
→ Urumi Swordsman
Knight have 66% more HP. And 2 more MA. However they are also 45%~ more expensive. LS have 1/1 more armor which you can essentially say 1/4 more armor as Pikeman takes 3 bonus damage from almost all archer. And LS is also only 18%~ more expensive over Pikeman. (All costs are calculated in Villager work time in Castle Age). I think 70 HP with 2/2 armor is " Heavy" enough. Though I’d prefer a supply-less LS which is 45%~ more expensive over Pikeman and have 85 HP with 2/2 armor. But that will be too OP in some cases.
If you would like to copy some of the traits of serjeant, it is necessary to auto upgrade m@a to long swordsman upon reaching Castle Age. I think the auto stat improvements of serjeant at Castle age is also important for Serjeant being good. This is Castle age fast opener for most civs. Then introduce tech to replace arson for infantry civs to make long swordsman slightly more prominent.
Absolutely. But I don’t anymore as I said in the OP. I wish they were a better trash killer.
15% more speed. Even +10% is also good enough.
I mean yes but no. Extra speed means they are also better against archers and raiding. Can be problematic for some civs. That’s why I’m always against Supplies. Strong but expensive unit is easier to balance than cheap, spammable but weak units (Goths late game flood).
People said the same thing about all the previous infantry buffs but here we are, still discussing why infantry are not viable in 2025. They don’t need a huge speed buff. Celts already have a speed buff and their infantry don’t dominate archers, do they? Squires should come free with the man-at-arms upgrade.
Late game cheap infantry spam is already in the game and it’s not overpowered. So by increasing the cost and stats, you’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Infantry is supposed to be cheap and spammable, because it’s designed to counter trash units and steam roll buildings if opponent is unprepared.