No matter if it is Japan, India, the USA or México, if a civ only got only 3 infantry units, they will be overpowered because they cannot be ballanced:
OG european roster had a dedicated anti cavalry and anti infantry early game infantry in the forms of pikemen and crossbowmen and one of the incentives to transition from age II to age III was to aquire the superior versions of said units in the form of heldberdiers and skirmishers, which indeed were better at their roles but both att a cost of being more resource intensive and be specialist that fared worst against other thing beside their target; when a Civ had a universally good unit as German Doppelsoldner, then it was when the ballance of the civ required to remove a whole unit cathegory of their roster, musketeers in that case. Now lets compare it with Japan or India or Mexico. Salteadores, Yumi and Gurkha must be cheap enought to be afordable in age II but strong enough to be viable in age III and beyond, functionally swaping drawbacks for advantages, a stronger early unit and a cheaper late one. And since they lack dedicated pikemen and heldberdier, both their unique hand infantry and their musketter must cover both early and late game niches which results in the same situation as above.
From all of this mess, I think the better ballance unit is the Mexican Soldado because it strains the player’s population count, which in early game tends to run on the lower limits.
But, for some unholly reason, this very same civs with a unballanced roster had been granted with bonus upon bonus for a free eco. At least India’s Grazing and holy cows need some time to get going, but Japan’s houses literally trickle resources from minute 1, and the USA is the worst offender of them all because if you manage to get age V you can build your army at zero (0) cost due the minuteman button and the Texas forts.
While I find the theory fascinating, I don’t think it holds water.
While this is fairly true of Skirmishers, Halbs are actually more of a generalist than Pikemen are.
USA is pretty decent in every mode, definitely good in treaty. India is good in 1v1 but suffers late game due to artillery deficiencies. I believe Japan currently considered fairly poor in 1v1 currently but pretty good in team and treaty. Mexico is only good in 1v1 using revolt shenanigans currently, but is pretty good in prolonged team games and is very very good in treaty. Not a real through line there. You also didn’t mention Dutch which is good in team, but not op and isn’t great in 1v1 or treaty.
Actually, there are insurgents, men with sword-gloves. The only problem is with the civilization you didn’t mention: Russia. Speaking of troop balance, I think the availability of musketeers from age 2 has ruined all the other infantry in this game.
In age 2 Musketeers are expensive; You only need wood for houses at that point for the most part. You get 2 Crossbows for the food cost of 1 musketeer and they have range resist. So going musks is a risk especially if you’re up against an opponent with grenadiers.
India doesn’t spend food on villagers so Sepoys are cheaper than Rajput
Food is valuable at that point…It only becomes cheap once you reach Age 3.
You’re right, the Musketeer is expensive, but that doesn’t stop anyone. In the age 2, people build exclusively it, unless they’re using a specific build. The halberdier is even more expensive than the musketeer, but weaker. That’s the problem. They could at least make the gunpowder unit more expensive than the guy with the stick.
Halberdier weaker than a musketeer? You’re joking, right?
Evidently somebody doesn’t use cover mode.
Halberdiers have their role it overlaps a bit with Musketeers but they are better in different tactical circumstances.
It’s an inherent historical flaw in AoE3 that Musketeers are unlocked before Halberdiers.
Halberdiers historically even predated Pikeman. Pikes mostly replaced the usage of all other polearms at the end of the Middle Ages so they should be the ones having more upgrades then Halberdiers not the other way round.
But thats of course something that can’t be changed anymore now that the game has been like that for decades.
You know they used Pikes in the classical times right?
Pikes were phased out and and phased in again several times; Compared to that Halberds and Bills were way newer.
Pikes are a very specific weapon, others are just spears. A Hoplite is not a Pikeman. The AoE2 “Pikeman” is also not actually a Pikeman, they use some type of Glaive instead.
Of course you will find some people in earlier parts of history that came up with the idea of making a very long stick instead of just a long stick but the Pikeman in AoE3 clearly look like the type of infantry that got very common at the end of the Middle Ages and dominated Early Modern armies. Unlike the Halberd that was pushed out of mainline armies in the Renaissance and mostly kept around for ceremonial purposes because they look pretty cool.
so tl;dr
The unit type of Pikeman as it’s depicted in AoE3 is more modern then a Halberdier as depicted in AoE3.
Sarissa are pikes 6 meters long is not a ‘spear’ that’s a pike.
And Halberds and Bills can lock down and chop up pikes…There’s a historical battle where during the reign of Henry VIII (Father of Elizabeth I so in the AOE3 timeline) Bills completely dominated Pikes (Which were more ‘modern’ at the time) .
The Sarissa was certainly the same idea as the Pike, which why modern authors sometimes refer to it as a Pike but it’s not the same thing. The Pikeman in AoE3 are clearly not ancient Macedonian Phalangites, are they?
Yeah the English were slower at adopting the Pike then other places in Europe. They kept using Bills and Longbows when everyone else already used Arquebus and Pikes. They kinda kept the Longbow around for so long that they directly transitioned to Musketeers.
There is a reason why people want to see Billmen become a unique unit for the British/Britons in AoE3/AoE2.
Care to explain what the difference is? They’re literally the exact same weapon used the exact same way.
The difference? 1800 years.
I mean seriously. The Pikemen kind of warfare was not a thing that happened inbetween. Also other things like Pikemen having plate armour instead of a shield so they hold their Pike on both hands.
Even it the idea of a very long spear is not particularly innovative the Pikemen changed the warfare in Europe and they effectively replaced the Halberdiers. The fact that something similar happened 1800 years earlier doesn’t really matter because that is far outside of the AoE3 timeframe
Who cares? A pike is a pike no matter when it was used.
Take another example of caltrops. The Romans used them, and now they’re being used in Ukraine. Just because 1000 years elapsed and different people are using them doesn’t make them not caltrops.
It’s about what actual soldiers where equipped with an how armies actually fought in battles. Not if the concept of a long spear existed or not.
Hoplites are not Pikemen. If you will you could say there was a “Renaissance” of long spears in the Renaissance. But it was a clear difference from what type of weapons and in what type of formations armies fought in the Middle Ages, which is a lot more relevant for AoE3 then what happened in Antiquity.
Renaissance Pikemen are obviously not the exact same thing as a Macedonian Phalanx. But it’s still the exact same weapons with the exact same tactics.
What you’re saying below is a bunch of baloney.
If you really insists you can call the Sarissa a Pike. But that doesn’t make anyone a Pikemen that is not a Late Medieval/Early Modern Soldier with a long spear. AoE2 “Pikemen” are not Pikemen.
There is a reason why historians call it “Pike and shot era”
I use to think that ageII Musketeers where an abstraction for the earlier guns, but then, why they are also good against cavarly?, bayonets where implemented later. My guess is that they focused too much on the colonial america period
From what I understand, halberds were better against armored units.