Collection of issues of the current Militia Line implementation, conceptional ideas and evaluation

[Zelley00]

@UpmostRook9474

If the swordsman is really supposed to be a tool specifically designed to fight all type of trash, it should cost no gold too but more expensive than other trash due to its stats, then keep weak against the two mainstream gold-costing meta units, archers and knights. Otherwise, spending gold on fighting trash is still a waste.

It is not necessarily a waste. It depends who gets gold access.

Imagine for instance light cav receiving anti-eagle damage and all milicia line upgrades being twice as fast and champions being half its price (currently 2HS at #### 100g, champions at 700f 350g) . If you manage to control neutral gold with early to mid game aggression, then tech switch to FU champions, your opponent cannot do much, as all trash as useless and no gold unit counters champions hard enough that a handful of them beat a big number of champions.

Currently many player use the golden rule “1 power unit, 1 trash, 1 anti building” because we cannot afford full gold composition. With a better state of champions, this would be countered with champions + trash counter unit of the power unit.

Trash champions costing more food than hussars as you suggest is another possible design choice, but should be carefully thought about. It makes the trash composition skirns + halb + champs beat or outlast everything.

A nice buff for champions would be to decrease post supply cost from 45f 20g to 50f 15 gold. Then everyone will read the cost as 150f with market usage in trash wars.

[UpmostRook9474]

My version of suggestions

In the Feudal Age:
To make the rush more threatening, they must achieve sufficient quality in time and be able to choose to actively engage or escape when fighting Archers.

• (optional) Rename Man-at-arm to Swordsman.

This is a change for historical accuracy. Obviously not necessary for balance work, but I will refer to it as Swordsman in the following.

• Increase the base speed of Swordsman to better 1 or at least 0.96 as fast as Archer.

At least they can no longer be vulnerable to the kiting of Archers. If the Archers are to pause their movement to fire at the Swordsmen, they can have a chance to escape or catch up.
This should be a direct buff to the stats. If it requires cost and time to research, the best timing of rush is easily to be missed.

• New tech: Military Drums, to give infantry +10% speed.

This would bring easier control and obviously better combat effectiveness to Swordsman, Spearman and Eagle Scout. They can be more effective at catch up Archers, Skirmishers, and the infantry that have not been upgraded with the same tech.
Combined with the Swordsman speed buff mentioned above, this should encourage the use of more feudal infantry. Some civs that currently do not have Squires should not have this technology so they can keep their weak infantry identity.

• (optional) Make the Swordsman just replace the Militia, being trainable in the Dark Age. Or, make the Swordsman upgrade free.

The Swordsman in the Dark Age will have the same stats as the current Militia, and will be upgraded back via shadow upgrades when hitting the Feudal Age. Whether in this way, or simply making the Swordsman upgrade free, the essence is exactly the same, and the goal is to start their power spike earlier.
But this may be too powerful if combined with the above changes, so it is probably not necessary.

• (optional) Make the training time increase and change the effect of Supplies to reduce the training time instead, if the base cost is going to be set to 45 food from the beginning.

If lower cost is more beneficial than faster training to earlier the power spike, it may be good to apply this change. If faster training is more beneficial than lower cost to earlier the power spike, it is not necessary.

In the Castle Age:
Aside from the purpose of fighting the Eagles, it’s only worth continuing to use Longswordsmen when there’s a chance of gathering enough Swordsmen in the Feudal Age.

• Change the effect of Squires to give the Swordsman line +10% speed after having Military Drums.

This gives the Longswordsman a truly competitive speed, helping it keep up with most infantry.
It makes sense for the term Squires to remain in the same Age as the Knights.

In the Imperial Age:
Lower the barriers to using them and provide more incentives. Even if the Swordsman line has not been used before, you can switch to it and spawn heavily with a well-developed economy.

• New tech: Fencing School or Swordsmanship, to give the Swordman line +1 attack and research all the upgrades of the Swordsman line instantly.

It costs 200 food + 110% of the sum of the costs of the upgrades not yet researched. This means you can get the rest upgrade immediately at 10% more price so you don’t need to wait long if you need them urgently. Even if you already own the Champion, you can still get +1 attack for 200 food.

• New tech: Sack or Loot, to allow the Swordman line to slightly generate gold when attacking buildings after having Arson.

It is intended to encourage players to use them to siege, especially in late games when there are a lot of siege weapons and easy lack of gold.

We can achieve delicate balance work through a variety of technologies. For example, civs with strong Champions such as the Romans and Armenians should not have Fencing School, while civs such as the Malays who are good at trash war probably should not have Sack.

[FourCloud176402]

I present two potential solutions, an rational one and a radical one.

1. Rational Solution

• Militia-line cost 50 F 20 G by default.: Since Drush and MAA are becoming non-meta, decreasing their cost is probably not going to break anything.
• Supplies now grants +20 HP to Militia and +10 HP to Spearman instead. (Maybe +10 to other UU Infantry as well?): This addresses the low HP of infantry, which is the biggest issue. Note that the cost of Supplies can be adjusted, but it must be available in Feudal.
• Longsword/THS/Champion gain +1 Pierce Armour; Gambeson is removed.: This increases their resilience against archer.
• Militia-line speed increased to 0.95.: This is to prevent archers from kiting them to death.

In general, Militia-lines becomes significantly more resilient against enemy units. Archers have to fight smarter, as it is harder to hit and run (but a critical mass of them should still deal with Militia just fine). Knights need to focus more on avoiding longswords group. as outfighting them becomes more challenging. Note that Militia attack remains unchanged.

2. Radical Solution

• Remove the militia unit and have the Swordsman line start with M@A; Swordsman line unit stats and costs are redone.: A big issue with swordsman balancing is that people worry about making Militia-to-M@A transition overpowered. Removing the Militia unit solves this problem.
• Make Spearman and Skirmisher (and Range) available in Age 1; Skirmisher bonus attack vs Spearman reduced to 1 (from 3); Pikeman attack vs Villager increased by 1.: Note that the change to bonuses only applies to the base Skirm and Spears, not Eskirms and Pikes/Halbs.

The idea here is to rework Swordsman line into a more powerful unit type (more HP and Armour). Removing the Militia unit simplifies this process (i.e. M@A with 60 HP 1/1 armor is probably not OP if they have to be created from scratch in Feudal). Instead, Spears and Skirms are made available for Drushing. This makes for more dynamic, but not outright decisive, Drush strategies. Specifically:

• Skirms are technically better at harrassing due to range, but are weaker (as they cannot build up a critical mass against Spears in the Dark Age)
• Spears are the more powerful unit (beating the Scout and Skirmishers), but are worse at raiding due to having melee attack.

[Prega]

A few suggestions :

• Change the food cost of upgrading the militia line to something else (wood or gold). Making the militia line already take the same resources to age up and to make villagers while not standing out compared to the others.
• Incorporate Supplies in the upgrades of the militia line. MAA, LS and 2HS upgrades would reduce the cost of the militia line by x food instead. For Goth, maybe this would not apply if their civ bonus is left unchanged.
• High conversion resistance. The militia line is already rather slow and its purpose is rather unclear. Since monks and pikes are popular counters to knights, I think it could give the line a bit of a clearer purpose/role.

[L0rdc0nquest]

Ohh, I understand now. Yeah, this would probably make Goths the strongest civ in the game, 11.

[Martinurello]

I agree with almost all op statements. Playing with militia-line is far more stressful than play with other power units. Still you can make it work, but the error range you have is very small and the dependence of the opponent’s mistakes and luck factor is huge in contrast with kt, crossbows or even CA.

[IEatPain1227]

All Militia-Line & Militia-Like UU: (Berserks, Condottieros, Dismounted Konniks, Jaguar Warriors, Karambit Warriors, Samurais, Shotel Warrios, Teutonic Knights, & Woad Raiders)
-NEW Armor Type 50(Onager Nerf) INTO 0. (-70%, Royal Heirs style modifier, Also Now You May Ask Why Onager Nerf, Simply Cuz Food Units Are More Expensive Than Anything In Castle Age)
-Line Of Sight Into 4/5(+2)/7(+2)/8(+2) For Dark/Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age. (The +2 Is An Existing Bonus That Applies In Feudal, Also How Come Archers & Mangonels Can Shoot While These Guys Can’t Even See It Coming When These Are The Expensive Units In Castle Age)

Militia-Line:
-Nerf 2~3 Man-At-Arm Opening & Early Imperial Age Spam Cuz Those Are Broken And Everything Else Isnt Used, Probs Through Value Tweaking Of Unit Costs, Training Times, & Research Times.
-Make Towers Heal Infantry by 15HP/m in a 8 radius. (Modded It In… This Feels Way More Natural Than It Sounds I Promise, Requires Tower Range Indicator Though… btw i did a circle radius, stronghold tech has a square which feels unnatural)
-Speed FROM 0.9 INTO 1.0. (To Run & Actually Survive From Archer-Line…)
-Bonus Against Stone Defense That Scales With Building Bonus.

Rams:
-NEW Armor Type 50(Onager Nerf) INTO 0. (-70%, Royal Heirs style modifier)

Scorpion:
-Pass-Through Damage FROM 50% INTO 25%. (black forest proves that this is broken)

EDIT: I’m Ignoring A LOT Of Meta Fall Out From These Changes, But I Don’t Feel Like Talking About Every Little Tweak.

[SMUM15236]

@Zelley00

Is the objective mainly to increase the viability of good non-armenians champions in TG BF ?

Objective is making SOME civs (not all) that are labelled as “Infantry” relies on “Militia line” as much as Lithuanians, Burgundians rely on Knight line. (I wish I could say Franks too).

@Zelley00

If archers bully 45hp/0.9ms maa they should also bully more expensive 55hp/0.9ms maa as well.

They won’t be able to bully some “Infantry” civs maa as they will have better stat than 55hp/0.9ms. Vikings, Romans, Celts, Goths and maybe Japanese, Burmese and Dravidians should be very comfortable using them.

@Zelley00

Why integrate very minor changes such as making Gambesons cheaper and Longswords more expensive ? It decreases the visibility of the balance idea.

Okay. I think that was a mistake. If anything should have been the opposite.

[casusincorrabil]

@SMUM15236

Militia

HP increased 40 → 45. (Drush has become too weak nowadays as people are very good at quick wall and saving villagers. +5HP won’t be that big of a deal.)

I think a buff to Militia would make a lot of sense at this point. I personally would like a boost to their damage potential. But +1 Attack might be a bit too much. The reason for that is how hard it is to find damage with them when the opponent is just decent in early defence. Which most are.
Ornlu said he could think of +1 vs Buildings. And I think an anti-building buff can make a lot of sense. But I would make it +2 at least.
A health boost would only really help if the opponent doesn’t protect his vills with miniature walls Which some high level players can get away with, but is quite rare on the majority of the ladder.

@SMUM15236

Man At Arms

HP increased 45 → 55. (This is the hardest part as this unit is the most balanced in the entire line. I wanted to have them +1 MA to beat Bloodline Scout but I guess that will be too powerful).

I’m not sure if I would touch the MAA stats. My experience is, that in early Feudal MAA are for the most part “Balanced” statwise.The issues come later in Feudal.But I can think of a tweak to the cost of the upgrade. Esepecially when Militias receive a small Buff, MAA upgrade would give less value and therefore a cost reduction. I can think of halving the cost for the MAA upgrade - it would still be 70 res to make a unit just “balanced” in feudal. Instead of Buffing MAA directly I think this idea:

@FourCloud176402

Supplies now grants +20 HP to Militia and +10 HP to Spearman instead. (Maybe +10 to other UU Infantry as well?): This addresses the low HP of infantry, which is the biggest issue. Note that the cost of Supplies can be adjusted, but it must be available in Feudal.

Would be much more suitable. I also get often the feeling that Spearmen fall behind in late Feudal / transition to Castle age a lot.They already have issues with Scout + Skirm, but esepecially when Knights are added they just fall too fast. This would ofc mean that Pikeman upgrade would need to be adjusted accordingly.
Ofc the main selling Point of the upgrade should be a Boost to the HP of the Militia line. How much is ofc a delicate question. 20 HP seems a lot at first glance. But if the later militia upgrades would have less Attack in the exchange it wouldn’t be oppressive - as for my recgnition the “Oppressive” units come usually mostly from their Damage output. like Monaspas. And I think in general this would definitely be a helpful tweak to the Militia line to reduce their sheer DPS/Investment potential, as this is for me what makes the unit so strong at low elo - they just can’t handle the sheer damage done by the swarm.

Which I also see reflected in many posts here that aim for a Buff to the HP/survivability of the militias over the damage output. Like here:

@SMUM15236

Long Swordsman

HP increased 60 → 70
Upgrade cost increased 150 food, 65 gold → 175 food, 75 gold
Upgrade time increased 40 → 45 seconds

Two Handed Swordsman

HP increased 60 → 80
Attack reduced 12 → 11
Upgrade cost 300 food, 100 gold → 350 food, 150 gold
Upgrade time reduced 60 → 50 seconds

Champion

HP increased 70 → 90
Attack bonus vs Standard Building increased 4 → 5 (Still 1 less than current as Arson is removed)
Speed increased 0.90 → 0.95
Upgrade time reduced 85 → 75 seconds
I really want 100 HP for champion for everyone like current Armenians. But with so many civ bonuses, I know that will be too powerful.

The first thing that catches my eye here are the increased uprade costs. Which I don’t like, as imo that’s what holds back Militia the most currently. And the main reason I see why you went this path is that you didn’t have the “bloodlines like” supplies in your concept. Therefore the individual upgrades look very powerful in comparison to the current state of the unit. But if you make the LS 60 HP / 8 Atk , THS 70 HP / 10 Atk and Champion 80 HP / 11 Atk it looks completelely different. The individual upgrades would be way smaller and therefore could be reduced in cost. Like LS could go to 100 F / 40 G and THS down to 200 F / 100 G or something like this. Champion I wouldn’t change though, as I see it also more in the realm of stuff Like Palading or Imp Camel. With the HP boost from the new Supplies Tech the FU Champs would have 100 HP, but at the cost of losing 2 Attack (and 15 F cost more). Which for me looks fine.
This concept would also solve a lot of the Issues with various civ Bonusses. As the ########## unit upgrades are just “tweaked”. LS is a lot cheaper, but gives -1 Attack, THS and Champion trades off -2 Attack for +10 HP and THS is also a lot cheaper to get.
It’s easy to see that in this concept the already “strong” Infantry civs would not become OP or oppressive with the line, as without the new Supplies the line is just only tweaked and most of them don’t get Supplies. The only 4 civs that might end up being “problematic” are: Malay, Japanese, Malians and Armenians. But if they turn out to be, they could just be stripped from Supplies, Gambesons or Squires.
Slavs could possibly have to research their free Supplies and Gambesons and Civs like Bulgarians and Dravidians could receive a small compensatory buff for the loss of Value of their free or reduced upgrades.

In general I think this is a direction the Line could definitely brought into, independently from the more sophisticated adjustments to make it a “Power Unit”, like the microability and counter mechanics. A tweak that will just make it feel more “suited” to be useful at different states of the game. Still probably very situational, but at least a viable option in some situations.

I hope I can cover some of the other ideas/concepts here later. There was a lot going on in the Thread

[Pulikesi25]

That’s a great summary of most of the existing problems with this unit line. Apart from these issues there’s also no purpose for making this unit in any practical situation beyond the first 3. The first 3 are made because they’re the only available military at that stage. After that other units are better.

[SMUM15236]

@casusincorrabil

But +1 Attack might be a bit too much.

What? I’m not asking for attack.

@casusincorrabil

A health boost would only really help if the opponent doesn’t protect his vills with miniature walls Which some high level players can get away with, but is quite rare on the majority of the ladder.

Pros now don’t even bother small palisade walling against Drush. Currently it is always 2 militia Drush if any, and 3 lumberjacks can get away with 2 militia + 1 scout at their level.

@casusincorrabil

My experience is, that in early Feudal MAA are for the most part “Balanced” statwise.

Maybe. But not necessarily at pro level. Generic MAA is not worthy at their level. Romans or Japanese can be a different topic.

@casusincorrabil

But I can think of a tweak to the cost of the upgrade. Esepecially when Militias receive a small Buff, MAA upgrade would give less value and therefore a cost reduction. I can think of halving the cost for the MAA upgrade - it would still be 70 res to make a unit just “balanced” in feudal. Instead of Buffing MAA directly I think this idea

Change Supplies into +10HP instead? Maybe further lower the cost.

@casusincorrabil

The first thing that catches my eye here are the increased uprade costs.

I replied in a previous comment. It was a mistake. I did that because I reduced Gambeson cost a bit too much.

@casusincorrabil

But if you make the LS 60 HP / 8 Atk

I mean I removed Supplies. 60 food for 60 HP LS is totally not worthy unless you have Romans level armor.

@casusincorrabil

THS 70 HP / 10 Atk and Champion 80 HP / 11 Atk it looks completelely different.

I think this can work. HP is way more important than attack for melee units.

@casusincorrabil

LS is a lot cheaper, but gives -1 Attack

I don’t like it. You need HP. Look at other infantry UU that have some play. Even when post-DotD balance buffed almost all non-elite infantry UU, they mostly got a buff on HP, JW, Samurai, Shotel, Kamayuk and Gbeto. Berserk and TK got attack buff only, and WR got both attack and HP (HP was buffed after a couple of patches later).

@casusincorrabil

FU Champs would have 100 HP, but at the cost of losing 2 Attack (and 15 F cost more)

I think that is not that far behind from 90 HP, 13 attack as I proposed.

[casusincorrabil]

@SMUM15236

I think that is not that far behind from 90 HP, 13 attack as I proposed.

In general we’re not far apart. The main difference is that I kept supplies which gives +20 HP instead of cost reduction whilst you removed it and traded some HP for less HP than yours (in the result).

It looks to me that you interpreted my approach as individual tweaks to you concept - and didn’t had in mind the extra HP from Supplies. So in the end eg LS (with Supplies) would have 80 HP / 8 Atk in my view and yours would have 70 HP / 9 Atk.

[AbuzzJam4677680]

Summary for those TLDR

[Efaisto]

@Efaisto

Population efficiency.

Isn’t it really strange that the knight is more pop efficient than the longswordsman? It makes no sense!

For 1 pop, you are feeding:

• the knight itself;
• the horse; and
• the squire.

It would be too drastic to change the population required to produce a knight, but what about reducing the population required to produce a longswordsman? To something between 0.5 to 0.75 population.

I compared with the longswordsman because it is available at the same age as the knight, but I would like to have this pop cost reduction available earlier, as a technology, in Feudal Age.

It could even be a second effect of supplies.

I would like to explain more this point of view.

Consider that the cost is not a problem, you have unlimited resources, pop space and time to produce any units.
In this scenario, what is the difference between heavy infantry (militia-line) and heavy cavalry (knight-line)?

Heavy infantry has a melee attack, somewhat high damage, OK resistance (compared to light infantry), and a basic move speed.
Heavy cavalry also has a melee attack, but has a bit higher damage, considerably more resistance and high speed, only behind light types of cavalry.

Why would you make heavy infantry instead of heavy cavalry? They do everything better, and are easier reposition.

This is why I think there should be a drawback when choosing heavy cavalry, and it is about cost.

Cost can be a wide range of variables:

• Villager time
• Amount os resources needed to train
• Amount of gold cost, specifically
• How many barracks needed to keep up with the cavalry production
• Pop space needed to train
• … maybe others that I can’t remember now.

There has to be a decision between training heavy cavalry and heavy infantry.

[AbuzzJam4677680]

I also find it not reasonable for heavy cavalry to dodge siege projectiles easier than heavy infantry. Mounted soldiers can only move in a limited way and their horse make them just a bigger target. Footman can duck, lie or sidestep.

@Efaisto

Why would you make heavy infantry instead of heavy cavalry?

I think we can make militia more worthy against halbs+ onagers. Reduce militia received dmg from mangonel thru a new tech maybe.

[casusincorrabil]

@AbuzzJam4677680

I think we can make militia more worthy against halbs+ onagers. Reduce militia received dmg from mangonel thru a new tech maybe.

I think this would even be better than the current gambesons.
For me 2 pierce armor make a unit already quite sturdy against bow attacks - but don’t change anything against Hand Cannons. Leading to the odd result that currently cavalry civs have the better counter to Champions than the Archer civs.

A partial reduction to the taken damage from Siege (Mangonels, but also Scorpions and BBC) would instead give the unit a role against halb/siege combos which currently most civs don’t have an answer to. (Only one civ has Cataphracts)
This is definitely a role that the militia line could take, giving many civs a potential choice against Halb/Siege combos.
Maybe just taking like half damage from Siege isn’t enough, as it is a very special trait. Maybe they should also get +5-10 HP in addition. But 1 PA is too special against the Archer line and we saw it didn’t really work. It only made the lategame Champ switch (which was always a thing) even harder to deal with as an Archer civ.

And instead of the +1 P Armor for the militia line: A tweak towards more HP and less Attack should do a way better job without making the line too sturdy against the standard Archer line. Actually, considering the current state of the game with the different lines: 1 PA seems actually optimal for Balance between Arb, HC and HCA.
The main issue was always the “glass cannon” design of the line, not specifically the weakness to Archers - but that’s where it became the most obvious as Archers are so early and easily available.

[AbuzzJam4677680]

@casusincorrabil

A partial reduction to the taken damage from Siege (Mangonels, but also Scorpions and BBC) would instead give the unit a role against halb/siege combos which currently most civs don’t have an answer to

Scorpion can be still fine to kill infantry effectively imo. Currently, Scorpion counter archers and infantry but hard countered by mangonel and BBC. Knight, hussar and cavalry archer can deal with scorpions properly in non-closed maps. Let scorpion> onagers facing militia is fine.

[SMUM15236]

2nd attempt -

Supplies and Gambeson are removed.
Militia line food cost reduced 60 → 55.
LS, THS, Champion PA increased 1 → 2.
LS upgrade cost 150f/65g → 200f/75g.

Civilization Specific Changes

Aztecs
(Elite) Jaguar Warrior cost 60f/30g → 75f/15g.

Chinese, Cumans, Hindustanis, Magyars, Mongols
Champion is removed from tech tree.

Celts
Champion is replaced by Gallowglass.
Champion → Gallowglass
HP : 70 → 65
Attack : 13 → 11
Armor : 1/1 → 2/3
Upgrade cost and time : 750f/350g, 85 seconds → 500f/250g, 75 seconds

Goths
Infantries are 20%/25%/30%/35% cheaper in the Dark/Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age → Infantries are 15%/20%/25%/30% cheaper in the Dark/Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
“Infantries +1 attack bonus vs Standard Building per age” bonus is removed.

Japanese
(Elite) Samurai now takes 3 (5) less damage from UU.

Malians
Barracks units +1 PA per age → Barracks units +1/+2 PA in the Castle/Imperial Age.
(This will make their MAA generic. But Malians have plenty of options anyway. So it won’t be an issue).
Alternative idea - Keep the civ bonus as it is. Remove Champion but add Blast Furnace. Reduce Farimba effect from +5 attack to +3 attack.

Romans
Bloodlines is removed from Tech Tree.
(Elite) Centurion HP increased 110 (155) → 125 (175)
Legionary HP increased 75 → 85
Knight line doesn’t benefit from Comitatenses UT.
(This one was the hardest to balance. They have probably the best MAA and LS in the game. Changing their infantry bonus will only make them a pure cavalry civ which they already kinda are. So I tried the other way around).

Teutons
Teutonic Knight cost 80f/30g → 70f/40g.
Elite Teutonic Knight PA increased 2 → 3.

[casusincorrabil]

@AbuzzJam4677680

Scorpion can be still fine to kill infantry effectively imo. Currently, Scorpion counter archers and infantry but hard countered by mangonel and BBC. Knight, hussar and cavalry archer can deal with scorpions properly in non-closed maps. Let scorpion> onagers facing militia is fine.

Well Scorpions will remain better than Onagers in killing Infantry, as they always have been.
I would much prefer if Scorps would get a minimal damage Increase instead - and then even with 50 % reduction they will still be good against Infantry… just not to the extend they are atm.

We don’t see it a lot these days as there is rarely a lot of Infantry play. But Scorpions are really strong against them. Atm this is somewhat compensated by their terrible weakness to the other siege, but I think this should be tweaked a bitt.
And something like +1 or +2 attack to scorps could be a small adustment - not as much as extra range, but it at least allows for a minimal counterplay chance when facing onagers and BBC.

[AbuzzJam4677680]

@casusincorrabil

then even with 50 % reduction they will still be good against Infantry

If the pass thru dmg is not reduced but only the first hit dmg is, then scorpion will be still good vs infantry.

Btw, my initial proposal was militia-line take -20 damage from mangonel-line.