Buffing some of the underused royal guards

Royal guard hussars are not bad in any shape or form. They are very tanky, excel at flanking artillery because of their tankiness and slaughter light infantry, second only to artillery. I use both life guards and bostanci in every game with British/ottomans.

2 Likes

grenadiers need a rework, with lower hp, higher cost, damage and range, and grenade launchers folded into their veteran upgrade. their counter intuitive heavy infantry tags and slower siege rof needs to go as well. Ottomans and Russians also deserve a different rg unit.

I’m against giving rg upgrades a larger stat buff, its better to lower the cost to be the same as a normal upgrade. cards in general should also give smaller stat boosts, and should be given a balance pass as a whole. no more than 30% combined of both hp or damage should be given from cards for standard units. less stat bloat, not more is the best way forward.

1 Like

musketeers are meant to beat melee infantry.

i would rather have speed so that the church card wasn’t such a huge nerf

would objectively make them stronger than british musks

honestly a lot of your ideas seem straight up broken, as example this:

will always be stronger than this:

yes german skirms aren’t good but this would make them the strongest skirmisher in the game, which isn’t a good idea.

1 Like

Yes, they are examples and I would surely be wrong in all of them but my point is that it would be interesting if benefits of that style were added to the rg.

but I strongly disagree that musketeers are designed to kill infantry with melee.

the bayonet was intended to slightly defend against the cavalry and to charge against other units with jackets, it is absurd for a musketeer to beat an armored unit, shielded and with sword, halberds or pikes.

They would not have to have multipliers against shock troops and it is something that in my opinion they should eliminate, even a reduction of damage against them

why do you think those sort of units went out of use? because line infantry was able to decimate them from range.

sure the way AOE portrays this isn’t 100% accurate but it does hold the principal idea of musketeers beating melee infantry, which was correct.

1 Like

obviously they fell into disuse in history due to the power of fire that made armored and sword-armed units useless, but it was due to shots.

If a unit armed with swords or maces and especially armored ones managed to reach the musketeer troops, the musketeers would be decimated by the shock troops. If you are going to use logic to deny my argument then don’t use a double standard of measurement and use it with everything.

in aoe 3 if they intend to have mele units and shock infantry, logically if they hit the firing units they should decimate them, the musketeers would only have to be effective against cavalry as they originally were.

Besides, he has never liked that the musketeers are the unit that does everything, other incongruities such as why the rods or other units focused on fighting infantry have more multipliers against cavalry than against other infantry? It is neither historical nor logical and not even balanced, it is strange and I think they have the opportunity to turn things around now and make melee units more viable.

asking only that the musketeers lose multipliers against the shock troops.

by the way it was not so rare in the wars of the 19th century and 20 units armed with maces or sabers charging and decimating the gunpowder units, even in ww2 there were quite a few cases, let alone in ww1 and these had much better rifles than in the 17th or 18th century.

here they should be much better than they currently are

not a good idea, rodeleros aren’t shock troops btw.

you’re talking about trench raid tactics which above all else relied on speed and stealth to succeed and to get into the enemy trenches. however these troops also where equipped with shotgun’s, pistols and esp grenades.

I am not saying that the rods are shock troops, I include melee units, both heavy and shock, all melee units in general.

That your only argument against removing the Musketeers shock trooper multiplier is just “not a good idea” doesn’t say much about you.

Regarding the second, no, I did not refer at any time to the assault troops, that are very different things, there were no troops totally encompassed in flanking and melee since it was unconventional tactics but very used by regular troops both in the 16th century , 17, 18, 19 and 20.

musketeers are meant to fight melee troops, it is their entire role.