Do Infantry civs need a stronger identity/role?

Am I the only one that feels like infantry civs lack a strong identity in the infantry department? Right now most infantry civs aren’t even considered strong for their militia/UU line like the vikings for example are considered very powerful simply because they have a strong ECO bonus and fully upgradable archers and we rarely see them opt in for militia/berserks.

Right now most infantry civs are rarely ever picked for their infantry options in both competitive and online scene with the sole exception of goths due to them having access to huskarls and very strong discounts for infantry units which makes opting into ranged units for enemy players a late game suicide. Ironically they’re also the only civ where opting in for militia line against them is an actual good starting game plan.

It just feels like militia line serves no clear purpose other than an initial MAA rush and being a counter to halberds which can already be dealt with with other units like archers/siege anyway without having to opt in for the upgrade costs for militia. that and most infantry UUs have nowhere near as much impact or oppressiveness as ranged/cavalry UUs like mangudai/arambai/leitis/boyar for example.

And finally I’d just like to mention that I’m speaking about the MILITIA line and most infantry UUs not the spearmen line as those clearly have a strong and important role.

7 Likes

The militia line isn’t intended to be a power unit like Knights, archers and unique units. It is intended to be a unit that counters trash units and eagles.

To change this dynamic would require a radical shift in the design of the game.

Most infantry civs have strong cavalry, archers or siege to back them up, so that helps, and I dont think any infantry civ could be identified as weak atm

8 Likes

Infantry has the role to break walls. However they cant play that role currently, that is why we never see them in feudal post a m@a rush-time. They run into walls as badly as do scouts which makes them not very attractive since scouts still are mobile. And that walling up, after nerf of towers is uncounterable is what we get. And people cry over walls being op and needed to be fixed or even talking about Feudal battering rams from the barracks, while they forget that there are units in the barracks made to play that role already. You can only fix the lack of mid-game infantry and the walling meta with one move. When three m@a are at your pallisade a villager should not be able to counter repair so fast that he can part time still collect ressources. That pallisade should go down like paper. But being somewhat of a hinderance for scouts and archers to complete the balance cycle.

My ideas are:

Give from m@a onwards bonus damage against pallisades, and change position of arson from castle age to feudal and supplies from feudal to castle. Arson for sure is a feudal age tech, that describes pillaging infantry taking down your pales of your walled village very fast, while supplies lives more in a well-structured castle age with armies and cities.

17 Likes

If anything, the game needs more Infantry units to not only pad out the Barracks, but also give Infantry civs more Infantry tools.

This would be easy proposals:
-A Maceman in the Castle Age with a Kite Shield and a lot of armour, but slow and with extra damage vs Siege, that upgrades into Foot Knight in the Imperial Age with a Lucerne Hammer and a Heater Shield.

-An Axeman in the Castle Age with extra damage vs Infantry and good Speed, but low Armour vaues and HP, that upgrades into Poleaxeman in the Imperial Age and gets Trample Damage.

3 Likes

While it’s true that militia line seems like a good counter to eagles on paper. in most pro play matches you’ll see pro players opt in for knights over militia when met with eagle plays due to how long it takes to upgrade militia to swordsmen and how long it takes to mass them while knights are strong right out of the gate and they can actually chase down the eagles unlike the militia line. that and knights can actually serve more purposes than just to counter eagles like killing siege or raiding thanks to mobility while militia serve no other purpose than to outfight eagles as they are easily killable by knights/archers/siege and eagles can easily just run away from them anyway.

I actually really really like this suggestion. it does make sense with how the militia line was originally intended with how they deal bonus damage to buildings. it was always strange to me that arson was a castle age tech when by that point it was already too late for it to be useful. I’d love to see how this would affect their usage in feudal age if devs were to implement this change.

5 Likes

Yeah thats a very extreme design change to the game which could take a while to flesh out balance wise

1 Like

Swordsman line is cheaper and doesn’t take bonus damage. Resource for resource against the eagle they are better value.

That said I do think that militia line needs love.

Just not a complete overhaul

2 Likes

I do not think so, spcially since the new units could be added just strategically to a few civs.

For example: the maceman idea of a slow and armoured Infantry that is only really good against Siege, would be more of a defence against Rams and Mangonels, and not something that would change the game too much.

I guess you’re not wrong with your overall argument but the thing is that infantry is, by design, an early aggression and late game unit. Vikings is a good example for that. Berserks are a great unit and you actually see them quite often but not before the game reaches a certain point. Since vikings can be very deadly in early imp they often are able to close out games before berserks come to the table. But this doesn’t change that it’s an increadibly powerful unit that kills almost every melee unit in the game (apart from some UU with dedicated bonuses but these are weaker as a general unit).

2 Likes

In all honesty I don’t think there would be too much of an issue keeping both as feudal techs, right?

4 Likes

Technically not supplies is seldomly used anyhow in feudal, its just too expensive but that price is necessary for the effect. And having two upgrades in same age in a military building is something we dont have in archery range or stable either. It is not necessary to move it but more beautiful :smiley: Only problem might arise for slavs that just got free supplies after tracking was gone but I guess you can give them the bonus as freely formulated one instead and maybe of some extent better like -20f in feudal to make slavs a bit stronger again but feudal arson would need to be looked on to balance itself again anyhow :smiley: Just like the nerf of towers affected balance of rest of game ofc

Yeah I was thinking about Slavs too

1 Like

Well, if you gonna play longswords (not that common but you see it sometimes vs meso civs) you usually would get supplies on your way to castle age while I don’t think having arson that early is that important. Imo that would rather be a nerf to infantry, altogether.

2 Likes

Agreed.

Its rarely taken because the line is rarely used to the extent where it pays off. Why remove the player’s choice?

But that’s part of the OPs point… EVEN the berserk which is an absolute top notch infantry is hardly used. Because archers are simply too good to pass up.

As others have repeatedly mentioned and proven the game was balanced pre de around bad ping, better pathing and less stacking. All resulting in less useful archers.

Now that archers perform like they do, infantry should be buffed in turn until those issues are resolved.

1 Like

You see military running into walls in feudal more often than the longsword rush in castle age. Your way of thinking stems from only having arson being used in the late mid-game onwards that you lay focus on the maybe more often use of supplies but still very rare use of that. It is kinda silly that you can make infantry cheaper in the second age already when you didnt use them one proper age for full price.

But UU infantry also suck… And eagles run circles around gold costing militia line, so even if knights are more res intensive counters they’re still a better counter (like the camel is to knights, except phenomenally better due to other utility)

It is never seen because you need like 17 m@a for it to pay off. never on earth you need so many m@a in feudal. It just was never thought of to change the positions of the techs when you lost tracking and you wanted a replacement in feudal to makes infantry more seen but that tech does not buff infantry in the early to mid game but mid to late game.

Ok so to get your point you think its better to NOT have the tech and rather train more expensive m@a in feudal and then still take the tech in castle AND ONLY then start paying less? Wtf… No

Let people choose

I wrote it would be more better to just change those two instead having two techs in the same age for some streamline reasons and that the 1/200 cases are not balancing that off enough. I never said it would be better for infantry, I said it doesnt really matter.

There’s part of your problem. You guys keep thinking the militia line and infantry uu are supposed to be some sort of gold triangle with archers and knights. Different roles.

1 Like