The only way taht you would ever see Jaguar Warriors, is if Longswords were basically Knights (fast and with good Pierce Armour). Otherwise, people will still always go for Crossbows, as they will always counter Longswords anyway.
But the thing is, we already have Knights.
Which if you buffed long swords to be more like knights would just swap building knights with building Longswords. Does nothing for variety.
If anything itās worse for variety because then no one needs to make pikes or camels. And since swordsman would then counter xbows no one needs to build those either
Since xbows are out, skirms are out. Congrats our new options are Longswords
I totally agree
I see a lot of people basicly trying to buff longsword speed and pierce armor, and I always tought about this. You guys basically want to make longswords more like a knight??
I have never liked that idea, people tend to say āgive them more speed and more pierce armorā
But longswords are NOT supposed to be fast and tanky, they are supposed to trade well on any melee battle and also to take down buildings. Both of those, longswordman actually still do, even if they are not meta, they are still good for what they are supposed to do (only if you have an infantry bonus like more hp or atack speed, etc).
As an aztec player, you might want to go eagle warriors. Then (after a longswordman buff) Your enemy might switch to longswords more often, and then you as the aztec player might need to decide: Should i switch archers? I already have all infantry blacksmith upgradesā¦ Is it worth to go crosbows right now?. You might always have to think about the future. Is my enemy an infantry civ (like viking) ?? If thats the case, the right decition might be jaguars. If the enemy is a archer civ, then archers would be better to kill those longsword (because they would still be weak against archers) and then just keep going eagles + archers the hole game, but at least you will have to think a little about actually going jaguars.
Both Aztecs and Vikings have Arbalests with Bracer, so often they do go max Xbow in Castle, and upgrade to Arbalest in Imp, which is still the crux of their armies for a long time.
In fact, Vikings are considered a suprise Archer civ by a lot of pro players.
Aztecs actually donāt have thumb ring. But yeah.
Talking about castle age, vikings always go crosbows, then the aztec might go eagles and then viking might switch to longswords, then the aztec might switch to jaguars.
Well it would be fun, I am not a pro. I have always thought that pro players are the ones that are supposed to be disscusing this, but I would still like to see more variety.
I donāt like the idea of changing the longswordman, so, my suggestion is to make supplie lines a cheaper tech, and also decreasing the longswordman upgrade time, so that the unit is still a longswordman, a normal longswordman, but more likeā¦ Available. I donāt want to make longsword something like a knight, I donāt want to buff longswordman stats, just to make them more available and easier to switch to. What you think about this?
Longswords would not replace pikes, they would still be kind of a weak unit, but at least more available. Maybe your enemy is going eagles or trash units and longswordman are supposed to counter those, but switching to longswordman is too expensive it simply doesnāt worth it. It should worth it some times, but it should.
Even without Thumb Ring, Arbalests with Bracer are good enough taht you will alwasy want them.
As an Example, Byzantines have both Paladin and Arbalest, and even if the Paladin was FU, most people would go for Arbalest + cheaper Halbs anyway, because Arbs are just that good in Imperial.
Not trying to be rude, but thatās not relevant to the discussion. Hussars only add 15 HP to LC. That just shows that Hussar isnāt a very good upgrade unless youāre in trash wars and you need cavalry. Weāre not talking about Imperial Age, weāre talking about Castle Age.
I never said Longswords should be faster. They canāt even beat a generic trash unit of their age. Thatās a problem. Knights give strong all-purpose mobility, thatās their purpose. Longswords are similar, all-purpose, without mobility. So, they should at the very least be stronger than mobile TRASH units!
If Light Cav can beat a Gold unit thatās far, far slower than them, and designed for melee-only combat, thatās a problem. I donāt see how to argue around that.
Okay, great. So the best infantry in the game barely trade well against units that can actually choose to take fights, nearly double the mobility? I tested it. Japanese Longswords BARELY beat out Knights (~2-3 units remaining). Thatās with Supplies, a 33% attack rate boost, and double the numbers (which also takes 50% longer to train than the equivalent amount of Knights)! How does that make sense? Youāre also fighting generic Knights. What about actually good Knights? Teuton Knights?
Longswords have no strengths over Knights, but a mass of downsides. Why? It doesnāt make any sense objectively speaking. I see no reason to argue otherwise other than attachment to a meta that is poorly founded in reality and improperly balanced. They canāt even beat Light Cavalry!
This isnāt true. Even if you buffed their speed by a large amount, theyād still get destroyed by Knights performing poorly as to cost effectiveness, while still taking longer to train numbers and being weaker to Archers than Knights. But Iām not saying they need speed. They need to be able to actually take cost-effective melee fights. They need more damage, or another point of armour.
They can be massed earlier (Man-at-Arms in Feudal Age), require a Dark Age building taht you are likely to get anyway, the upgrade is inexpensive, cannot be countered by Pikes and they are cheaper than Knights.
Knights are better than Longswords, but Longswords do have advantages over them still.
You can also mass Scout Cavalry in Feudal Age, which are cost-effective against Longswordsman when you upgrade them to LC. Plus, the armor upgrade synergizes into Knights. I still donāt see a reason for Longswords - skirms and Knights deal with Pikes better.
You basicly want to make longswords to become strong pikemens, but thats why you have pikemens!
Longswords beat light cav, donāt lie. Longsword beat all trash units, the only problem of longswords is that they are expensive to upgrade: first men at arms, then longswords, then supplies, then squires.
So longswords are not a bad unit, but there are always better options because longsword are expensive to upgrade.
They should be easier to get. I mean maybe decreasing their training time, decreasing longswordman upgrade cost, or decreasing supplie lines tech cost, but NOT improving longswordman stats, because they are already good for what they are supposed to do: killing trash and eagles. If you are having trouble with knights, you can always add pikemen. Pikemen are supposed to counter knights and they do. Longswords are NOT supposed to be the answer against knights.
Scout rushes are dominant for a reason.
And weāre totally avoiding the point - Longswordsman are a poor choice because there are no reasons to use the unit. All other options are more effective. Scouts are strong in feudal, better than Militia-line in Castle, and they encourage knights, which CRUSH the militia-line without making much sense as to why.
Test it yourself, they donāt. Not with bloodlines.
I agree, but taht does not mean they need a buff. I have won games with Longswords, in the early Castle Age, after M@A rushing.
They are good as a follow up, because tehy can deal with buildings very quickly, while Knights cannot.
I understand the strength vs buildings. That is the only real strength Iāve seen mentioned thatās real, so far.
But why do Light Cavalry beat Longswords?
So, recap this. Mangonels beat LS effectively. Scorpions beat LS. Archers beat LS. LC beat LS. Knights beat LS. What exactly are LS good for? Skirms? LC do better. Pikes? Archers do better. Skirms do well.
There are no unit compositions that LS really fit into effectively, unless the enemy goes pikes/skirm. If they decide to use LC, you lose the fight and they run straight into your eco and can also raid with their units, unlike LS.
Archers have a strong place. Knights have a strong place. So do LC, Monks, siege, camels, MAA, etc. LS donāt. Everything else does their job better than them.
it is relevant. the discussion involves the swordsman line and its uses. it may not have many uses in the castle age, but it has uses in the feudal age, and imperial age.
they beat pikes and skirmishers.
not if the people in this thread get what they want. letās use your numbers.
they do 11 damage upgraded. if they did 2 extra damage to a knight like you want, thats 13 damage. or 9 damage per hit.
a swordsman costs 45 food and 20 gold. 2 would cost 90 food (more then a knight) and 40 gold (less then a knight). 2 swordsman would do 18 damage per attack to a knight while one of them would receive 10 damage. in the end of the exchange the knight and one swordsman would die. 45/20 for 60/75.
on top of that the long-swordsman doesnāt get wrecked by pikes or camels. they do lose to archers, but other people in this thread want to make them faster and give them more pierce armor. now long-swordsman beats archer units except the cav archer, and those donāt even do that well against them due to increased armor.
congrats. why build knights?
btw i question your comment about light cav beating swordsman.
the light cavalry do 7 damage per hit (7 base + 2 from upgrades - 2 from armor).
that means 9 hits to kill. in those 9 hits the light cav would take 9 hits from the long swordsman back (at 9 damage per hit) which = 81 health. so at best they trade supply for supply. except the long swords comes from a building that comes first, and takes less time to build (21 seconds vs 30 seconds).
yes the swordsman costs more gold, but it costs almost half as much food, which is more valuable in the castle age.
9 damage per hit to the light cavalry (9 base +2 upgrades - 2 from armor). swordsman kills light cav in 9 hits (99 = 81)
7 damage per hit to the swordsman (7 base + 2 upgrades - 2 from armor). light cavalry kills swordsman in 9 hits (97 = 63).
at best they trade.
That is the whole purpose of the Militia line, killing Trash, and being mini-Rams.
they donāt. they trade even in supply (assuming the light cavalry has blood lines). difference is one costs 80 food which is a huge cost in the castle age, and the other costs 45 food. also the cheaper one food wise takes less time to build.
You can make rams if you really want to destroy buildings.
Yeah i agree there is almost always a better unit to go rather than longswordman, but in my opinion that is not because they are bad, thats because longswordman upgrade and supplies is maybe too expensive.
And also they hard to mass. They should be easier to mass. Thats the spirit of the unit. They are not supposed to be a strong unit 1v1, but they are still strong in group. Just add some pikemen or mangonels and you have a deadly combo, the problem is that itās hard to mass longswords and is also expensive to get to longswords, but again 100 times: they are not a bad unit overall, they are just different. Need to be easier to get (a buff), but they donāt need anything else.
If you are transitioning from Feudal to Castle, and still have M@As left, it is much faster to upgrade to Longswords and keep pressure, than it is to make a Siege Workshop and go for slow Rams.
to put it in perspective
britons, celts, franks, byzantines, vikings, ethiopians, and malay do not get bloodlines.
all are very popular, strong civs. so generic longswords would BEAT all those civs light cavs in a head to head fight.
btw all these assumptions were with generic units on both sides.
vikings, burmese, japanese, and teutons all slant even further towards longswords due to various bonuses.
bulgarians slant it towards light cavalry.