Not such a big issue, but am I the only one who is kind of annoyed of the influx of hard cavalry counter infantry? (AoE2 spearman archetype) they even have very similar parameters like 4.8 speed…
As of the titans we had only one such unit for the recently added atlantians, but retold added such a unit to the norse and to every expansion civ (Chinese, Japanese and now Aztecs). I dont count the actual spearman of Egyptians as they are still more of a soft counter.
I just wish to have more variety? Differences in countering systems between civs so they dont all have classical age spearman.
So for future civs I wish they either put it on heroic / classical age cavalry counter cavalry / archer counter cavalry etc… even different parameters like high pierce and low hack armor to spice things up (kinda like aoe2 firelancer)
3 Likes
I agree. While having a Spearman as an Anti Cavalry unit made a lot of sense for Chinese and also for Japanese they feel kinda boring for the Aztecs. They could have given some other unit like the Eagle Warrior an Anti Cavalry role like they have in AoE3.
Also think that AoM needs a civ without infantry in general. Something neither AoE3 nor AoE2 have managed yet.
1 Like
Yeh agree in general, one of the things that keeps factions flavour and variety distinct is how they militaries play out; unit choices, strengths, etc. The newer factions, whilst many things have been done well in terms of flavour and uniqueness, do feel a bit “samey” when it comes to roster and counters.
Spearmen existed even before Egypt (5000 BC). Theoretically, all civilizations should have had them.
5 Likes
I mean, a pointy stick is about as basic weapon as one can have. Doesnt surprise me its on all civs since its as staple as one can get. Same way they have archers.
Its also as effective a thing you can have melee vs a cavalry group, long stick that keeps you save and helps you reach.
Now if im missunderstanding and its just a naming thing, sure they could be names something other than spearmen, eagle warrior, bear warrior, hamster, snake, w/e so its all not the same brand + 1 word like yari spearmen.
5 Likes
All civilisations should have Archers too.
AoM lives from civs being different so Norse don’t have Archers despite there being a lot of evidence for them using bows.
It would be AoE4 where most civs have most of the same units.
1 Like
Some panteon could have a spearman that counter infantry. Same unit, different purpose. Longer reach gives an advantage against swords anyway.
1 Like
That’s why I said spearman archetype, for instance i don’t consider hoplites or like I said the actual spearman on the same boat with all the new ones as they are not hard counters but soft counters- so having more cives using spear type weapon (phalanx or whatever) is not what I’m against.
It’s just the- infantry good only vs cavalry weak especially to archers on classical age type of units- even a high pierce armor one would be interesting as it shifts the counterplay from archers to infantry
It’s the execution that makes the difference!
Egyptians have archers, but as fast chariot archers on heroic age, classical is only counter archers, Norse have an infantry archer hybrid that is a hard counter rather than soft, they also have different range from 11 to 20…
Different parameters or age makes the unit play differently overall. those 5 spearmans are pretty much copy paste with slight non significant differences that does not effect how the unit is played or countered at all.
or at least very small dependency on infantry, or limited/late access like many civs have cavalry from heroic only
Sure but thats the same dynamic for things like Hippeus and raiding cav, naginata riders, Just generalist cavalry
Toxotoe, arcus, chu ko nu and yari archer its Just generalist archers, same purpose same counters.
Theres unit archetypes and they Just have stat changes. You can make up any unit give it a spear an a bonus vs archers and magic the logic around it, but then you are designing something for it to be different for the sake of it being different and nothing actually useful.
Like if huskarl had a spear instead of a sword would it be a different deal? If murmillo had a spear instead of a sword? If hoplite had a sword instead of a spear?
In the end its those stats that makes untis different. The speed value are also a given since they have to work in consideración with other pantheons.
1 Like
I think 0 Infantry should be possible in AoM. All units are either mounted or foot archers.
Shouldn’t be too hard. You would just need good anti cavalry options that are not Infantry and all the other roles can already be done very well without Infantry anyway. While you are at it you can give the civ mounted villagers too.
I think a Tengri pantheon would be perfect for that.
3 Likes
Why would the game “NEED IT” exactly?. Not even the Mongols historically could renounce to having infantry because cavalry should is expensive and all-cavalry army would have have a lot of disadvantages (battles in this games have absurdly bad balanced armies because it’s gamey)
1 Like
Because AoM is not a historical game. It can do things that AoE can’t do. Having a civilisation with no Infantry would be unique and interesting, that alone is the argument in favour of it.
And then you would have the typical readability player “That unit is different I can’t recognize what that unit does visually and I won’t read descriptions, Why do I lose?” typical in every AoE2 discussion about unusual unique units and skins that is so annoying.
They had to give a cavalry unit to an aztec civ that historically didn’t have at all, Do you really expect cavalry-only Tengri Pantheon?
1 Like
Thy didn’t have to do that. I would have preferred Aztecs without Cavalry. Now they have a Mythical Age only cavalry unit so for most of the game they don’t have one so they would have clearly worked entirely without.
Maybe the will add the Inca next which will have no cavalry at all.
They will now have at least Llama rider and you know it.
It would be very difficult to balance a civ where all the units were horses because they are fast and annoying. And making fast infantry and slow cavalry would just is a re-skin for flavor, no real person could catch a horse running. How to balance a civ were every unit is fast?
1 Like
I hope not. That would be so stupid.
I want a civ without Infantry not without foot soldiers. They can still have foot archers and siege weapons.
It could be:
Stable:
- Light Cavalry (Anti Archer)
- Steppe Lancer (Anti Infantry)
- Camel Rider (Anti Cavalry)
Archer Range:
- Foot Archer (Anti Infantry)
- Skirmisher (Anti Archer)
- Cavalry Archer (Anti Cavalry)
Fortress:
- Elite Cavalry (general purpose)
- Capped Ram
- Traction Trebuchet
Just as an example.
So you want a civ with no sword/spear but with foot archers for some reason? That’s even more stupid design, archers are ranged-infantry and if it a power fantasy, why would they do have a foot archer but no spearman?
If you had the choice would leave on foot only one: the unit that is defenseless in melee or the unit which can counter the fastest units? No foot archers makes more sense than no Spearman.
Simply because we already have a civilisation without Archers. It’s not about having a historically accurate representation of an army that really existed, it’s a game about Mythology. So why not try making an interesting civilisation that plays around the limitations of not having Infantry?
Even AoE games often remove units that armies actually used in real life because if they didn’t most civilisations would be too similar and the game would be boring. That is kinda what AoE4 is doing though.
I see what you mean, but I would argue that 3 is less than 5, and the rest of the cavalry are more different in parameters, age, abilities etc… same goes for archers- toxotes and yumi are the only classical age ones. And they all have different ranges.
If all the spearmans were more different than one another, then it wouldnt be such a glaring issue, for me at least.