Cost efficiency of different militia lines - An Analysis

Hello everyone,

I’ve just released a YouTube video analyzing the cost efficiency of different militia lines against different other unit types in post imperial age. I’ve used my combat simulator ( ) for this purpose.
You can find the analysis here:

Just a few thoughts:
-I like the new armor bonus for the Teutons infantry very much and the speed increase for Teutonic knights too.
-I like the buff of the Bulgarians’ 2H-swordsmen’s bonus armor from 3 to 5 (a few months ago).
-I think the speed bonus for the Celts’ barracks units is too weak (since they lack Squires). Making their infantry 10% faster than everyone else’s would be nice. Of course the base movement speed of woad raiders would have to be reduced in order to give them the same speed after the civ bonus. Champions moving at 1.035 tiles per second instead of 0.99 tiles per second is just not too impressive (and same goes for Halberdiers moving at 1.15t/s instead of 1.1t/s).

Just to show you two examples out of my video: Here are two matrices (one for mid game, so 100 food = 100 wood = 100 gold and one for late game, so 100 food = 100 wood = 17 gold) of different militia lines fighting each other:

  • (Cries in Persian) :cry:

This video proves that most champion lines aren’t “trash killers” at all…

They should trade cost-efficiently v Halbs, Skirms and Hussars in a trash war scenario to be called “trash killers” i.e. with 100F = 100W = 17G.

Which ALMOST ALL of Champion lines clearly don’t.

1 Like

I guess that the role of trash killer is intended in a condition where you have gold. Otherwise every trash war would be just a champion war.

Still the idea of a champion having a bonus vs trash sounds good, but probably as civ bonus. Ofc, Turks are a good candidate!


Trash killers doesn’t mean they should be cost effective with gold traded at bad rates. It means they are a good option to make use of a gold advantage you have over your opponent. That’s because they don’t cost much gold, so you will not run out of it very fast. But especially because they do well against all (regular) trash units, so your oppontn won’t be able to counter you without spending gold.
That’s what to phrase “trash killers” refers to - and the video shows that it’s right.

Now this is straight up stupid. @Sylux1000 already stated it, but I want to make it as clear as I can:
So you are saying Champions should trade cost-efficiently against all trash units, even if you are out of gold (that’s pretty much a direct quote from you).
You do realize that this would mean post imp in 1v1 would be only about infantry spam???
That’s certainly not how it “should be”. Trash war can already be quite monotonous - this would make it A LOT (I know you like this CAPSLOCK and bold way of arguing…) worse. It is a terrible claim!

I know you are on a campaign to push certain units into buffs (and sometimes your ideas might be not as stupid as this one), but please do us all and yourself a favor and take a moment to think about what you’re writing and if that would actually be good for the game. After you did this, it is still an option to not post it…

Please don’t take this as a personal attack, but rather as a suggestion to focus on making fewer, but better points, instead of spamming your ideas whereever you can, regardless of wether they make sense or not (and then you are surprised that people don’t like your posts…).


Exactly the need of the hour

i actually like this. maybe give all trash units a new armor type and longswords onwards get +4 damage -+8 dmg vs them.

1 Like

Champions should be cost effective vs atleast Skirms and Halbs in post imperial age scenario to be called true “Trash Killers”
is all I said

Trash units are better in other unique ways, that’s why

That would be relevant if people only started making trash once the market is bottomed out, if there was no pop limit and no such thing as “pushes”, ie. if the game was just an endless meat-grinder where your production buildings and your eco were never killed.

I think infantry really do need something changed about them so we see more of them. It just doesn’t make sense that medieval armies are mostly men on horses and archers, when in reality most would have been men at arms, militia etc…

Maybe all militia line infantry can have their pop space reduced? Maybe to 0.5 pop or 0.75 pop?

militia in the middle ages commonly weren’t armed with swords though, they were armed with pikes, spears, and cheap stuff in general.
and a man at arms, in those ages, was usually well armed and MOUNTED ON HORSES, and were usually Knights, Nobles, and their retainers.

so seeing as we see a lot of pikes and spears, i think they got middle ages Infantry pretty dead on.

I was actually under the impression that a lot of infantry were hastily put together militia who used whatever at their disposal, which included pikes and such but could also be anything from clubs, to wood cutting axes, to maces and anything in between.

Regardless of the terminology, uniform pike formations suggest a more specialised and disciplined force which I think is not what the general infantry was. And what this game really needs is more of that general infantry, meat shield, boots on the ground, whatever you wana call it kind of unit, that is just thrown in as fodder.

And anyway you only really see pikes against cavalry in this game, so if your oponent isn’t making cav you have no reason to make pikes, so its not really something that would be the backbone of your army. And I think that is really what the game needs, infantry to be the backbone of your army, and other units for specialised functions.

which is true, thus seeing as pikes are very common, i’d say they got infantry just about right.
the sword was limited to those who could afford it, and thus were usually better trained, which is why it makes absolute sense for them to win vs pikes, spears, etc. also makes sense for them to lose to knights as they were usually better equipped. and of course, mounted.

good thing knights are very common then right?