Archers strenghts falls off at a certain point and that’s where Berserks come into play. It’s just that vikings is such a great civ. Not because archers are too strong but because their eco is insane so that they might finish the game in early imp. But if they don’t switches to infantry are pretty common.
I wouldn’t mind small buffs to infantry, I just don’t think this would change the way you’d play civs like vikings or japanese. It’d just increase their strenghts past the point when infantry becomes an option and I don’t see people going infantry in late castle age when you have arb available.
Of course, but you don’t get arson in feudal for a couple of militia or maa. You get it once you have a large enough army while supplies gives you the option to build up that army in the first place. If you put it to castle age that basically leads to not producing army on your way to castle age.
Unless infantry gets a huge buff (which I doubt will happen) longswords in castle age probably will stay a niche to counter eagles for which supplies is much more important than arson. The problem about infantry in the mid-game isn’t their lack of dmg vs buildings (already quite high) but their potential in fighting other units (most notably xbows and knights).
You normally don’t get in feudal but first thing after you clicked to castle age so that you have an army to upgrade upon reaching it. That’s the actual value of having supplies in feudal age.
If you dont plan to make 17 m@a you will never do it. Otherwise you are better of spending ressources for more m@a.
That strat doesnt make any sense. Why would you fear an eagle rush in castle age when you dont have archers and invest so much for a useless unit otherwise. And when you do your strat every time you face meso they will just go archer and you are dead.
Well, you are better off either way not spending res on 17 maa. Extended maa in feudal age is so situational that you rarely see it. Longswords is also rare but against an all-in eagle push it is one possible way to defend for a lot of civs.
Because an aztecs eagle rush is very good vs anything, it also can kill knights because you have an army to upgrade and then you add monks behind for some conversion. Also it is an reactionary approach. By late feudal you’ll know if the aztec player goes eagles or xbows. Once someone goes for 3 barracks it’s rather hard to switch into archers straight away so you are kind of committed to that strat.
And shorty after, modri went full eagles vs sitaux and it was gg at min 23. Poor eagles didn’t stand a chance against longswords. It can go both ways as with most strats in the game.
I think they’re in a fine place. The fast Feudal into M@A into forward Barracks for more M@A the Goths can do can be done by any infantry civ. It just takes a little more effort to setup for other civs. But the Goths ideal game plan is the same for other civs. Which is constantly damaging the opponent’s wood economy, military production, and upgrade production by focusing on destroying buildings, preferably with 2 M@A groups to make defending more difficult, until reaching the Castle Age for either more aggressiveness with Arson Longswords for rushing TC’s, or passiveness into a Fast Imperial for the tech advantages that will likely be fast Champion.
Overall, infantry does work. I’d wager the reason they’re not commonly seen in high level games is simply because of play style preference. Similar to how Teutons and Byzantines are a good civ, yet they’re still not a common pick.
Imo, infantry have a place in the game. They are cheaper, less Training time and hence easier to mass. They do more than just trash-/eagle-counter. Besides, when engaging in battle, their size is smaller and face less melee enemies at once than cavalry. Swordsman can also act as relatively cheap (compare to cavalry)and relatively strong meatshield (compare to pikes) to protect/delay opponent’s from attacking your archers/siege(which is much more expensive) when resource is tight. Though they are not as powerful as xbow/knight, they have a role to play.
I am not against new line of infantry. This game is ever-changing and make itself more interesting to attract more players. That’s why Steppe lancers have been added as new line of cavalry. Axeman/Maceman should be introduced as a new infantry line to very limited number of civs like steppe lancer to avoid to mess the balance. Perhaps, they may be introduced together with new civs like cuman/tatars steppe lancers.
On DE you can kill 5 man at arms full hp with only 2 archs by hit and run, in older version two archers were not enough, the fast response on archers nerfed even more militia line, solution would be adding frame delay to archers, so they wouldn’t destroy those units like flies.
Others would be to boost militia speed or extra pierce armor, but that could be dangerous.
none of that would make it so you see the militia line be used any more then you do now. The stated goal was to give them a stronger identity, to the point that the militia and infantry uu make as big an impact as cavalry and archers, you’d absolutely need a bigger buff. and if you buffed it enough that the militia line contended with archers and knights as a gold trio, you would absolutely need a trash counter to the swordsman line, otherwise it would be imbalanced, if you don’t think that is a radical design change, from the way the game has worked for the past 20 years, i don’t know what to tell you.
Let’s cut the anti-change talk, and let’s just give them a small buff like +1 attack or +10 HP or +1 armor or -5 Gold OR 1.0 speed to millitia line (and more to LS specifically)
Your arguments hold no weight against a modest change.
first of all, i’m not anti change. i’m anti useless and anti radical design change.
do you really think this is going to have any impact on them actually seeing play? they still get wrecked by archers, they still get wrecked by knights, they are a little bit better but not much, and not enough to have an impact
whats the point of a modest change that changes nothing?
+1 attack/armor will make them better against cavalry but still lose easily.
they perform better vs trash and eagles, but they already do very well there.
extra hp means they survive maybe an extra hit or two, again, not going to do much in the grand scheme of things except vs what they already do well in.
-5 gold means nothing when they still lose so hard to knights and archers. again it will help them be more cost effective against trash and eagles.
at the end of the day, these changes won’t do what the OP wants at all.
and my point about not changing anything is that it won’t affect the overall performance of the unit in question. it would be like giving ETK 1 extra attack. is that seriously going to fix ETKs performance?
so yes, it would, obviously “Change something” but the impact wouldn’t be felt much at all and the Militia line would still be as you see it today.
That’s quite a buff… Its ok if they lose to archers or knights. But that will make them much more spammable… Even more so for the civs that then stack a further discount on top… 10 gold for a goth longsword will make them a lot more appealing…
And it does improve their identity as a more spammable unit compared to the other gold lines. Relying more on numbers /replenishability as opposed to speed, brute force etc
This actually conversely reduces their identity and homogenises the game,which makes me think you are more arguing for the sake of it…
But ill support any buff to infantry anyway… I hate how overriding the current meta of knights/archers is.
