Bounties(feudal): (research cost 100G, time 20s) militia-line -40F, +25G, pre-requisite of supplies (militia-line: 20F, 45G)
Supplies moved to castle age and change effects; militia-line +25F, -25G (militia-line: 45F, 20G)
Arson automatically applied in castle age to all infantry now and the UI spot replaced by Gambeson
Gambeson: militia-line +1 PA; receive -20 from mangonel-line for itself and other units when same mangonel shot lands on militia and otherâs unit hitbox. (More like real meat shield)
Militia-line upgrade time: All upgrades change to 20s
Tower upgrades now researched in towers instead of universities. Militia-line can add arrows to guard towers and keeps. (Added dmg like villagers)
I would buff HP and add more armor against Cavs only. In fact buffing HP of all units in general. Almost similar to how AOM handles it.
Dark Age/Feudal Age will stay same but Castle Age where HP gets buffed all across the board. Buildings in AOE2 gets this treatment but normal units doesnât. Making infantries in AOM doesnt feel a mistake compared to AOE2 and HP plays huge factor in it.
I doubt cost would do anything if M@A-line just dies with few shots anyway. So buffing every unitsâ HP besides Villager and Siege is the way to go like AOM.
+1 extra attack is a huge buff as they can kill Knight in 15 hits instead of 18.
Fine. 25f/25g then.
I think saving 175f/175g and 45 seconds is good enough. Let me revert the training time nerf then. Maybe LS is not at that level of my previous suggestion that had 70 HP. But in this version, MAA is stronger. So there will be more initiative from players to think about opening LS in Castle Age while still in Feudal Age.
Big disagree. I think it is a big scam of the game.
In fact, all infantry upgrades of the Armenians are too expensive to be researched so far in advance. They put you in a position where you can never go into the imperial age with decent timing.
I would really go for a shameless -50%, as in the case of the Burgundians. A slight nerf of the THS attack (-1? / - 2?) would really only be appropriate if my idea of +2 bonus attack against light cavalry class was implemented. This is obviously because the Maleyâs unique tech, otherwise it would be too strong. They practically cannot be made stronger than they are now.
You can also compensate by giving him 1 bonus armour against siege attacks (or as much as will be necessary), I donât see the problem. But I much prefer a slightly more mobile and less cumbersome unit to use than 10 HP more.
Apart from the fact that they have the free armour that has made them a kind of cheap eagle for several stretches of the game, they are actually efficient in melee. This is because they are extremely fast (1.2 speed) so they can very often do the 2v1 situation in which they are better than many other units.
Obviously, however, mine was an extreme example to say that before touching the HP or the attack or the cost of the militia line one should think about how to make the unit more manoeuvrable and less clumsy.
I didnât check either.
Actually it does matter, I have more than once seen Viper use Karambits to successfully surround and clear masses of archers and HCs. By the way with the current path the Condottieri donât work so well against the Janissary. They too would need improvement but letâs leave that topic for another thread.
I feel exactly the opposite. The cheaper a unit is, the worse it has stats, the more it needs the number to fight expensive units. And to engage better it needs to be relatively fast and take up relatively little space.
In this case, we can even open another tech line for militia-line in blacksmith or university. Like hobnailed boot, gauntlet and pummel etc to increase movement speed, atk. But I am not sure if direct stat buff will be better.
No itâs not, we see even Hera do this frequently in certain endgame Situaions to win the game.
Though we see less Champion play in general because of mainly 2 reasons:
A) People usually add CA and/or HC and this stage which counter Champs, even in âmediocreâ numbers
B) Most games donât even reach a state where you could possibly make a Champ switch to win
Champions are fine. Mostly because they are so gold efficient. Itâs the stuff before that causes issues for the line.
For some reason I canât find a citation for a question I though I read regarding the malay Trashmen.
For me the main Reason we donât see them as much is because most games End way before it gets to the stage where they would dominate. Though I have to admit iâve seen pro games that went to that stage and didnât used forced levy. And idk why, cause there is historical evidence of the trashmen absolutely tearing apart everything. And on the ladder tbh I never had the opportunity to see them in action tbh. Especially with malay most games are decided in other ways and way earlier.
I think Malay Trashmen are still broken, but we just donât get to see them these days. Which is a bit sadge tbh. I like when games go long.
Ofc a cheaper unit needs higher numbers than a more expensive one.
But most of the time the better uses for these cheap units is actually to avoid the direct confrontation (except they are specific counters).
What you probably refer to more is that some of these comparably cheaper units (Karambit/Militia/Monaspa) have actually a very high damage output for their cost. So thatâs when you can use that to just overwhealm your opponent. You just pump all your eco in that, spam these, try to win the fight with the opponent army and then kill the eco. But itâs not because they are âcheapâ. Monaspa show itâs also possible with a unit in the medium cost group. Itâs because they snowbally so hard with their insane DPS that the opponent canât get up a defence in time.
Yes Karambit can do that. But usually these masses arenât that big. Running with Karambit into a real blob of Arbs (at the same upgrade level) or Hand Cannons usually doesnât end well. But if itâs only like 20 Arbs or 15 HC you can use the Karambits, especially when you already have a way bigger mass quite effectively to surround them.
This is usually what we then see when the spam is already full on. If one side just has more to put in itâs army these cheap high damage units can then just overwhealm the opponent army.
But this is already the case, even with the militia line. It doesnât need super small collision size to do that. Just outmassing the opponent army works anyways.
Where it would help in theory is ofc in mass melee battles. But as I said, theres almost always a Siege component to them and then the denser packaging would actually backfire massively.
One of the major weakness in later stages of the game before gold becomes really scarce for the opponent. Just a few Siege units can do massive damage to a lot of the militia with single shots. As militias are slow and have comparably low HP. And as militias still cost some gold - as long as the opponent has some Siege (Onagers/Scorpions) out and/or a healthy Gold income it makes no sense to tech into that unit.
On the other end we currently have a lot of civs that donât have a good answer against Halb/SIege. Interestingly a lot of these are Archer civs. Like Britons. Which often also have access to a solit militia line.
So when tweaked excessively into that direction the unit could theoretically even become a counter to Halb/Siege available to most civs. Which could theoretically even justify the high investment cost as the side defending against Halb/Siege is often the side with the stronger eco.
As the change wouldnât impact the current utilization of the line, especially on low elo it probably also wouldnât necessariyl need a (big) compensatory nerf. Though maybe Champions could see a mini one.
So on itâs own itâs probably a B-Tier idea - as the concept of countering Halb/Siege is inherently situational. It can definitely be a part of A-Tier concepts, though then itâs more likely to go a more broader way like increasing the HP which will help a lot against the Siege already.
Both in food and gold, the upgrade cost is 17 units. Now I really need to see the math when Champion can become equal to THS that has 17 more units. The reason they donât suck that hard for the ridiculous price is you almost never have the 17 pop space to spare. This is somewhat similar to hussar upgrade. Too expensive for a little stat boost.
Just did the math. It is around 62 Champions. For reference Paladin pays itself at 29 units. And thatâs even ignoring their +1 PA. For champion, against Arbalester the number is even worse as you need 85 Champions to pay the cost.
The difference is 62 Champs cost 1240 gold and 29 Paladins 2175 Gold - thatâs usually the most limiting factor at this stage of the game. In total Res they are actually comparable, weirdly enough.
The issue for the Militia Line in itâs current stage is really not the Champion itself. Maybe it lost some power due People now add more high damage backline units than they used to.
But generally the issue is thatâs just way too late. Most games are already over and in many other cases itâs often just âsaferâ to invest that res, and especially the gold in the other units you already teched in rather than taking the risk of losing because of the hard tech switch.
For knight-line, knight and cavalier are fairly good in their respective age. But players are very unlikely to invest in longswordsman and related techs in mid-game. If players go for champion, suddenly players have to spend so much on the long and expensive upgrades for champions. This makes it even more unworthy.
add/modify a trash unit to synergize with the militia line
The power units usually have a trash unit they Synergize with very well. Archer with Spears. Knights with Skirms, Cav Archers with Light Cav.
The militia lin though doesnât synergize well with the Trash units. In many cases you want to use Skirms agains Archers, but Skirms canât protect the militias from being picked off really. Their damage output isnât the highest. Even Dravidian Skirms arenât good enough to justify going for their cheaper to upgrade militia line. Instead, in a lot of cases, we actually see more dravidian light cav than the militia line.
One conceptional Idea could be to increase the DPS against Archers and potentially even add one Range in Exchange of losing armor for Skirmishers. Or add an entirely new line of trash units.
One idea proposed in that direction often is the âShieldmanâ which would be good against all kind of Archer type units, absorbing a lot of arrowfire.
Given the currently quite state of the militia line this change alone wonât do much. So C Tier. And itâs probably only one idea of choice when you try to push the line into at least A-Tier. Otherwise it wonât be worth the therewith associated effort. Itâs more of an act of establishment and stabilisation as such a trash unit would probably result in a compensational nerf of the line against the units that are countered by that trash unit. But allowing to buff the militia line in another department. So potential of A Tier with an asterisk.
The comparison was not Paladin vs Champion. It is mostly (THS vs Champion) vs (Cavalier vs Paladin). If Champion was not already a super late game last gold unit to transition to, the upgrade would suck. 17 extra THS would perform better in almost all situation. Right now, when you research Champion, you are probably at your pop limit anyway (just like Paladin). So every small boost to your military helps.
Personally I want SOME âInfantryâ civs use LS as much as Lithuanians use Knights. So for the most part - probably 35 out 45 civs - I donât mind LS being useless.
So instead of increasing the Speed of the line it would require to activate a charge bar for a timed Speed boost. The idea is usually more associated with Elephants which were traditionally used to just Charge into enemy lines to cause a lot of havock. In case of the Militia Line it would be more of a strategical/skirmish/micro feature. The Charge would potentially not as massive (Elephant Charge should outspeed even Cavalry units) but for a longer time.
The most important part for this feature is that it would scale with skill level. As the militia line is currently mostly based on the sheer stats for the associated (gold) cost. Which makes them usually way stronger in low elo than in high elo. The Speed charge would allow to be utilized to leverage against the current âpower unitsâ - mostly ofc against Archers, But it would also greatly increase the raiding capabilities and tactical movement of the line. (Also good against stuff like Siege and Monks)
Itâs again one of the changes that wouldnât need a lot of compensation because they destinctively buff the line in skill levels and situations itâs currently almost unusable.
Itâs probably maximum a B Tier on itâs own, but similar to the basic speed increase ideas the charge can easily get the line up to A Tier with some synergetic other changes.
I do really think that cost adjustment is necessary and fundamental for mid-game viability. But I guess my proposed changes can only push Japanese and Teutons to play longswordsman more often.
I doubt any amount of new techs is ever going to solve M@A-line unless HP of military units are rebalanced across the board. Especially HP only and to some extent attack. Doubt devs will take that endeavor at this point. Just look at the comparison just here. Same type of unit at their base state. See how much it is in AOE2 and how much it is in AOM.
My suggestion is with each age upgrade. Just buff the HP only across all military units. Stat difference between Knight and Swordsman should be similar instead of big difference we see. Effect starting to see its effect from Castle Age instead of Feudal Age. Well you dont wanna make the pros mad even though I wouldâve suggested a huge buff of HP in Feudal Age based on how AOM plays out.
