Longsword’s play is very rare in castle age and if Burgundians get castle age Cavalier why not castle age two-handed swordsmen’s. but they should also only get the free men at arms upgrades
What would be the point of that?
Bulgarians have good knights, I don’t see why they would waste resources on infantry, even worse, infantry with expensive upgrades.
Honestly seems a terrible idea.
You forgot Bulgarians have Militia-line Upgrades for free.
I had thought in this bonus for dravidians, in case they need this drastic buff.
The reason is that dravidians have 50% barrack tech discount, as burgundias have for their stable, and also burgundians can resesrch cavalier in castle age.
But i prefer to wait before claiming for a buff
I know they have it, but OP wrote that.
So it’s really terrible and pointless.
This is probably a nerf for Bulgarians. Having longswords for free is better than potentially being able to get 2HS in castle age if you need to use longswords there, and if you need them in imp the current bonus is better 100%. Also earlier cavalier/chemistry let you unlock other stuff faster once in imp, but Bulgarians don’t have champions so they won’t have this advantage either.
It’s not an elegant thing to do, skipping the Longsword whatsoever, and then going Imperial with no Champion to tech into, you’re creating an ugly forced situation.
With that being said, we can let a different civ to have a similar bonus, not free, just access to 2HS in Castle Age, while still having Champion in Imperial. Though it’ll have to be elegantly implemented.
Dravidians is a good candidate because they have barrack discount. They would resemble burgundians with their 50%cheaper and earlier cavalier upgrade
I just want to see the militia line be viable in castle age and i don’t really care how it happens
I don’t think this is what you need to make it happen, that’s all.
I don’t think that will make them viable though. Right now if you want true castle age militia viability youd need to fundamentally rebalance the game.
The question here is why do you want that? Balance? No need. For the sake of variety? That could be argued, but then we should consoder how balance can be affected
i don’t really care how it happens
The Militia line will never be as viable as the Archer / Knight line, as long as this game is based on heavy micro it simply a hopeless attempt, why bothering, accept the current state of diversity, which different units belong to different phases of the game.
And that is the problem. In order to actually see them see use in castle age youd basically have to redesign them
This is basically what the Burmese get. Their longswords have 11 attack rather than the 12 from 2hs and a few differences vs eagles and buildings but it’s pretty much the same.
And how many times do Burmese use longswords in castle age?
I think we all know.
THS should be a castle age upgrade.
Well, how many times do people choose to play Burmese? That may have something to do with it, they have built a severe negative reputation, and even with buffs, it may take a while for people to willingly pick them as a civ.
It sure plays a part, but the most deciding factor is that heavy (= not spears) infantry is mostly useless in castle age, outside some dedicated niche tasks.
Nothing is stopping you from using the Militia line in castle age, so why don’t you?