Ok my argument that its ugly because its always on tech per age in every of the three military building is super dumb. Somehow I forgot the existance of squires in castle age. As I said it doesnt matter, supplies can be kept at feudal, however I still think I like it more in castle age for flavour reasons but those are minor ofc.
1 Like
That definitely made sense to me. The idea of organising supplies going in hand with a more advanced society. But unfortunately the balance didn’t seem to work.
not much. they still cost 45/60 food, yeah they perform slightly better for their cost, but they aren’t what the op wants.
they already have that. 20 gold for the unit. how many other gold units cost less then 40 gold? on top of that two civs get them even cheaper, ports and goths.
no, my point was that it’s something i threw out before and got mixed bag on it. my goal when i proposed that buff to them, was not to make the compete with archers or knights. my goal when i proposed this change to was to make them hardcore trash killers. i even added an armor class to trash units (scouts, skirms, and spears) that would take bonus damage from the militia line, to further flesh out the trash killer role.
1 Like
You say cost reduction (which is most certainly strengthening their identity as a cheaper line) isn’t what op wants, but speed increases (literally making them more homogenous with the knight) is increasing identity… Ok whatever im done
1 Like
umm false. i didn’t say the op wants a speed increase. the OP Clearly wants militia and infantry UU to compete with archers and knights and cavalry and archer UU.
my comment about the speed increase was in response to one person suggesting it, and my response was purely that i had suggested it before, not necessarily for what the op wants though. did you see me suggesting in this thread that they buff infantry by raising their speed? no i didn’t.
Something a bit more radical to consider on top of the speed increase. Militia line gets +1PA. But all archer line types including UU (arbs, plumed archer etc) gets +1 bonus damage to militia line (no CA, or skirms)
So the “counter” to militia line still exists. But they’re stronger vs every other ranged unit /building. Improving their identity as building killers, even less affected by skirms etc.
And just a reminder for the speed buff, it will give Celt militia an even higher speed. (not that it’s an issue)
2 Likes
I’m totally fine with that, though i don’t think it should kick in until longswords. would be a bit too strong in dark/feudal. would require adding a new armor class to militia line and adding bonus damage to bunches of units, but shrug.
1 Like
Give Militia-line +0.1 speed, reduce the cost of the Longswordsman upgrade to 120F/60G and it’s upgrade time to 40 seconds.
However, there are useless Infantry UUs: Karambit Warriors, Shotel Warriors, Teutonic Knights, Samurais, Jaguar Warriors
The unnecessary Frame Delay of Gbetos have to be reduced.
2 Likes
The problem is that by buffing the militia line you literally just buff the drush or the m@a rush. After that, they’ll disappear again untill imp where they might be needed.
I don’t think it’s possible to make them good enough to be used in castle in place of xbows and kts without them being busted, but a little buff in speed could be useful to make them better against eagles (not that they are not strong already, but you have to be perfect in positioning them to be useful)
3 Likes
There is a power gap between longswordsman and xbow/cavalry in castle age. But before Castle age, Militia and men-at-arms are very prevalent. So, Militia and men-at-arm should remain no change. Longswordsman deserves a buff. (This inevitably buffs 2-handed swordsman as well)
Longswordsman and 2-handed swordsman get +1 melee armor (better against cavalry) and base speed 1 (close the gap faster against xbows). This avoids to buff drush/m@a rush while promotes the use of Longswordsman. 2-Handed swordsman gets buff inevitably and champion get +0.1 base speed but I think it’s fine.
5 Likes
That’s the thing though. by design infantry are clearly not meant to be such a niche unit especially since it’s one of the gold trio. if they were meant to be just ‘‘dude they counter eagles lol’’ as their only niche we wouldn’t have so many civs with infantry bonuses that ultimately lead to nothing and fail at developing identity or infantry focused win conditions due to how bad they are against everything that isn’t halberdiers/eagle warriors. and how bad they are at threatening anything as they can be easily kited by archers with little to no losses and are neuted with quick walls if necessary and are heavily out traded by knights. that includes all infantry UUs with the exception of the huskarl and woad raiders because woad raiders are atleast good at raiding. most infantry UU serve EXTREMELY niche purposes if any at all like gbeto or teutonic knights for example. I’m against any new radical changes as I do believe the game is in a decent shape right now but leaving militia and infantry UUs in the dust with how well archers have become since DE is just a lazy balance choice and they definitely need to be buffed to be at least usable in some sort of win condition instead of being there as a cool looking but useless unit.
2 Likes
It’s ultimately a question of when the make sense to produce. You’re right in that longswords in castle are usually only seen vs eagles. However, in imp that changes. Although it’s still not as common as stable and archery range units, they are pretty well rounded unit that has no trash counter. So while you can counter archers and knights with skirms and halbs, countering champs without gold is almost impossible. This is why they lose to those gold units in equal numbers. Also you can pair them with skirms or halbs in imp. They might still not be the best imp unit but it’s not like they don’t have legitimate use, here. Also don’t forget arena where champs are quite common in imp and a great unit to have.
Isn’t that a bit exaggerated? Besides husks and woods, berserks, kamayuk and samurai are well-rounded units that are good in a lot of instances and therefore seen often if the game goes late enough to have multiple castles and a good farming eco. Others are rather niche because you only need them sometimes like jags are the ultimately counter if your opponent switches to infantry vs your eagles. Or like shotels are good if your archer bulk can’t deal with eagles or huskarls. Or Axemen are great vs all barracks units.
Not at all. There is never a reason to train Samurai or Jaguar Warriors, over +33% fasteer attack or Garland Wars Champions, which not only are mores easily available (Barracks vs Castle) but also beat the UUs en masse.
Infantry UUs tend to be the worst UUs in the game.
Karambits, Teutonic Knights, Jaguar Warriors, Samurai, Gbetos… all pale in comprison with the MIlitia line of their respective civs.
Only some Infantry UUs are useful, and that is because they do something that Infantry does not do, like replace the Hand Cannoneer (Throwing Axeman) or be quasi-Cavalry (Huskarl, Woad Raider and Shotel Warrior).
In fact, the only “better Champion” UU that gets played regularly, is the Berzerk, and mostly because it gets 2 UT that let it slaughter Cavalry and Regenerate, and those make th unit harder to counter.
Kamayuks are also well used, but they are much better than Halbs, rather than compete with Champions for the same role.
3 Likes
Going way back to an early comment, I love the idea of a +15 damage towards palisade walls for MaA.
3 Likes
there is no gold trio. there is a plethora of evidence that backs this up.
first there is the tech tree descriptions of the 3 units.
Create Archer (Cost: 25W 45G)
Ranged unit. Strong vs. units at long range. Weak vs. Skirmishers and units at close range.
Create Militia (Cost: 60F 20G)
All-purpose infantry unit. Strong vs. buildings and infantry. Weak vs. archers at long range.
Create Knight (Cost: 60F 75G)
Powerful all-purpose cavalry. Strong vs. infantry and archers. Weak vs. Pikemen, Camel Riders, and Monks.
so the archer is supposed to beat units at range.
the knight is strong vs non pikeman infantry.
the militia is intended to be weak against archers.
this clearly shows that the militia is supposed to be beat by both the knight and the archer, which means that it isn’t supposed to be on the same scale as them.
its further backed up by the fact that the militia line doesn’t take bonus damage from any trash unit, like the archer (skirms) and knights (spears) do.
and yet the only infantry civ that is weak right now is the Bulgarians. every other one is a solid civ and gasp, with the exception of Malian and Goths, they don’t tend to use the militia line outside of initial openers or super late game.
it’s almost like they aren’t supposed to be a power unit, as seen by how they are one of the cheapest gold units in the game.
i agree that they serve niche roles, but on the other hand, are infantry civs actually doing poorly? the worst civs in the game are Italians, Koreans, Portuguese, and Turks. and ironically enough not one of them is an infantry civilization.
except the militia line has always been like this. they weren’t a power unit when the game went live and aren’t now. they were never a win condition except in super late game against trash units.
if you’re goal is to turn them into a win condition like archers or knights, you are going to require significant buffs that would seriously alter the way has been played.
i think the militia line needs some love, but not in the way you want.
i’d make supplies and the LS upgrade cheaper. i’d increase their base speed a bit and maybe add extra damage to walls or increase their bonus damage vs trash units to further solidify their role as trash.
1 Like
Why is it, then, that pro players use samurai when they have multiple castles up and the goes game late. It has some requirements but if they are fulfilled the unit is better than champions (irrespective of their bonus dmg). And you almost never see champs with aztecs. This is because you go for eagles and then complentary units like pikes or skirms and if your opponent counters eagles with champs you go jags. It’s the perfect unit for this situation.
Kamayuks can work both as anti-cavalry or a general unit. In a critical number kamayuks are better than champions (in a straight fight with high numbers champs don’t stand a chance) so they can replace them.
The problem isn’t that they don’t beat knights or archers it’s that they serve no use that other units can’t do better. their description is that they’re meant to be strong vs buildings. yet guess what is also much better against buildings without the needed tech investments and fragility. rams and mangonels. it says they’re better against infantry but the only infantry they counter are halberds (and once again you also have other cheaper,quicker alternatives to halberds such as skirms and siege) and while they’re good on paper vs eagles the vast majority of the time pro players would rather opt for knights vs eagles instead because militia are too slow and are a dead end investment if the other player doesn’t all in on massing eagles.
You’re putting words in my mouth here. I’ve said nothing about infantry civs being weak although most of them are rarely picked in the competitive scene. and the ones that see success such as vikings see success because of bonuses unrelated to their infantry. the point of this thread is not to discuss whether or not infantry civs are strong or weak but rather the limited uses and applications of the militia line and infantry UUs
Being the cheapest gold unit in the game doesn’t mean it should have less impact and uses than trash units do. and you’re only looking at the recruitment costs and ignoring the necessary upgrades to keep them fully upgraded which are not cheap by any means both in terms of resources and time investment. if you want to switch to infantry against a certain unit/tech you’re looking at getting squires,supplies,militia line upgrades and arson and this doesn’t include their stat upgrades. all of this hinders its already niche uses as a reactionary unit especially if you consider the very meagre returns you usually get out of dumping gold into infantry in comparison to dumping it into something a lot more useful like siege or archers/knights. if the militia line was a wood/food cost unit it’d be a different story but gold is a very valuable and limited resource and it’s almost a never good option to spend it on infantry and this is where the issue lies.
They weren’t a power unit and this has become even worse over time and their uses have shrunk due to things like pathing which is why they need to get looked at again in terms of their place in the current meta.
Your own ideas for buffs are more than enough to turn them into win conditions though. extra damage to walls and extra movement speed are by no means small changes as it will allow them to trade better and become a strong raiding unit. I don’t want them to be a massable death ball type of win condition like archers and cavalry but it would be nice to see them serve some use that can lead to a win like actually being GOOD vs buildings/walls as their description seems to imply to make them a good raiding unit besides just cleaning trash in super late game.
This is a useless ‘‘strength’’ because if you’re in a situation in the super late game where your opponent is starved out of gold yet you have enough gold to tech into champs/two handed swords and their upgrades to clean up his trash chances are you’re gonna win regardless even without them.
1 Like
they perform insanely well against both trash and eagles. even to the point where champs can 3 shot non mayan EEW.
siege units should be better against buildings then infantry should. makes perfect sense.
and this is why I’m okay with buffing their base speed. but on the other hand, gold for gold, no unit performs as well vs eagles as champs do.
um in the current ongoing tournament kotd3
out of all the completed series, 52 total games (for a total of 104 civs used), infantry civs have been played 37 times. thats a 36% use rate.
and to get them to the point where they are a win con would require a radical change in the design of the game. furthermore buffing militia and infantry uu to be stronger would buff those infantry civs that are already performing well as well.
agreed, but you’re literally saying they should have similar impact as archers which cost over twice the gold, and knights which cost almost 4 times as much gold.
see the difference there?
archers require thumb ring, ballistics, and then the other black smith upgrades. knights require BL and husbandry, on top of theres. cav archers require a combination of both. and arson isn’t something you need to fight a certain unit or tech. its strictly anti building.
if the militia line was only food/wood it would be insanely strong with its current stats.
and pathing is being improved upon and many people agree that supplies should be cheaper, and that militia should get some love. but to make them a win con? you’re asking a lot.
they would still be relatively slow, have low pierce armor, and low health compared to other raiding options, like the Light Cav Line. they would trade a little bit better vs archers but that doesn’t say much because they would still likely die before even getting to them, and they would see no improvement vs knights.
they aren’t intended to be insane vs walls and buildings though, they are insanely cheap though, and it’s surprising how well they can perform against buildings. sure they don’t compare to rams and trebs, but that’s all those units do. and before you mention the mangonel line, those units cost almost 7 times the gold.
if you made infantry stronger vs walls like some people are suggesting, it would really only help in the two situations where the militia line already sees use as is. early game and super late game.
that’s why you start transitioning into them earlier then when you’re already out of gold. food for thought but teching from militia to champ costs less gold then getting pike + halb upgrade.
They only perform well against eagles on paper. in reality eagles are gonna run all over your base and snipe your vills before militia can do anything about it. I’ll say it again. if you watch pro play you’ll almost never see people tech militia when they see eagles unless it’s an all in eagle mass which people only do if they’re against someone who’s heavily invested into archers which by that point it’s hard to afford the tech switch.
Undoubtedly. but that’s another scenario where the current militia are vastly outshined by a different unit in something it’s supposed to be usable for. not to mention the added bonus of the insane oppressive nature of mangonels that they have along with being able to destroy tcs.
Once again the strength of the civs theirselves is not the point of discussion regardless.
Being a win con doesn’t mean they can outfight other units. a win con can be secured in multiple ways I don’t know why you’re adamant about thinking that I’m demanding they be buffed to the same stat level as knights/archers. this doesn’t require any radical changes AT ALL I simply hope that they’d serve a use that can lead to a victory such as being good at raiding or better at destroying buildings in castle/feudal age through minor changes that you yourself have already suggested.
Not necessarily and simply because militia are a gold unit and players have a limited amount of gold. and the fact that not only infantry civs have access to infantry. it’ll give them an alternative playstyle goal for sure but it won’t necessarily mean they can add more units in their composition as you’re almost always limited to 1 gold unit+siege/trash. it’s not like archer civs are the only civs that are allowed to use archer units.
They should have an impact as a unit choice not as a 1:1 cost ratio. If you ever tech into infantry UUs or even militia in their current state you’re pretty much putting yourself on the backfoot and throwing your money down the drain because they offer you almost nothing in return and they have no impact and have little to no threat against an opposing player. as opposed to someone that opts to tech into powerful UUs like mangudai/arambai/plumed archers/leitis for example.
Archers and knights have their own equivalent upgrades but teching into them is not an issue because whichever one you choose to utilize is gonna be your bread and butter unit no matter what the opponent does and you’ll just sprinkle other trash units/siege according to the situation to make up for their weaknesses. meanwhile militia are not the bread and butter of any non troll build or game plan therefor when you want to swap into them to counter eagles as you say, it takes a very long time that you often don’t have to tech into them, especially when you start getting raided by eagles.
Light cav only come in play in castle age which is the big deal here. and the speed helps them trade better into archers in feudal age before a player can hit the critical mass where archers just heavily outvalue militia. it’ll still be a significant buff because it’ll be a strong early game unit that can give you an eco lead to win the game especially since you can have MAAs into an opponent’s base before they even have an archery range built.
Still the same scenario. if you can afford it while the enemy runs out of gold chances are you have enough of an eco lead to win.
That’s because halberds don’t cost gold to recruit which is why their upgrade costs more gold but less food than champs.
2 Likes
and yet the point still remains that gold for gold there is no better unit against eagles. the “problem” is this isn’t a monobattle game where you make only one unit.
i mean you could say this about anything. light cav are supposed to be good raiding units, but there are better units at it then they are.
you literally made the claim that infantry civs were rarely chosen. i provided evidence that your point was false.
lets say you make the militia line insane vs buildings. give them +15 attack. are they going to be a win con? no. because they will still die to archers or knights and won’t have an impact on buildings.
its literally 20 gold for a militia unit. that means 1 gold tile can provide 40 militia line units. they are insanely cheap.
and those civs are literally balanced around their UU carrying the civs, while vikings, aztecs, and other infantry unique units are not, bad comparison is bad. take away those units from those civs and they are legit going to PLUMMET.
and that just further solidifies my point - your buff only really helps them in the early game. guess what we see used a lot in the early game? militia/m@a. if there was a time where militia line needs buffs, its not the early game.
doesn’t mean much, the point is, it’s not some insanely gold heavy tech cost.