Extra pierce armour for Swordsman+?

yeah sorry, i don’t trust your opinions when it comes to balance, as you’ve literally given us zero reason to do so.

first of all, 12 attack before upgrades on the long swords? get real.
and the 2h swordsman going to 13 attack is a +1 buff, it got +1 attack in the forgotten expansion.


No not necessarily. I know lot of people want the Long Swordsman to be more viable, but think this. Not every unit has to be viable at every point of time in the game. The Milita line already dominates in Dark Age (only unit 11), Early Feudal (especially Slavic, Malian and Celtic) and Mid Imperial Age onwards. It drops a bit in Castle Age and Early Imperial Age because wood = food = gold in these situations. Even in these two phases, the long swordsman excels at killing eagles and destroying towns due to +4 (another +2 after Arson). Considering forging and arson for units and armor of common buildings (4 armor for TC, 2 for houses, barracks etc, 8 for castles, all without masonry) and 11% faster attack of Knights, the dps for Knights vs LS are:
vs TC: 3.88 vs 6
vs House, Barracks etc: 5 vs 7
vs Castle: 1.66 vs 4


what!? no ways i never knew that… O.o wow…

read my whole post next time

1 Like

archers would still kill them just as easily… so higher attack wouldnt help, it would just make the mbetter against the things they already counter.

i dono about that one bro… seen way too many games where archers easily wipe champs nevermind long swords (which is what i was originally referring) especially if you plop them on a hill, or even give them a couple buildings the swords have to path through…

Besides your sarcasm, I actually did answer your last question.
It would make them too strong against defenses.

absolutely broken for many civs now that we have supplies.

personally id just make LS upgrade cheaper and make eagles cost +10F -5G.

The only issue with swordsmen atm is that it’s expensive to both tech into supplies and LS to counter eagles. Eagles are too spammable since gold is not an issue until mid-late imperial age.

I would not like swordsmen to have a same role as xbows or knights in castle age. It is supposed to be a slow and clunky unit, and due to economy in aoe2 works, it’s only natural that a high food cost unit is fairly weak in castle age, but is stronger when you have more than enough food income to sustain villager production. The only way to “fix” this would be giving swordsmen some weird cost mechanic that makes it more affordable in castle age but more expensive as the game goes on.
This does not really fit aoe2 IMO.


aka “buff the unit that has no counter when it’s rushed” You could argue that men at arms are borderline the best unit among swordsmen.

This thing has the same firing rate as a samurai, requires no upgrade, runs and is produced super fast, so this change would definitely make you complain like you do for eagle warriors.

You’re not “preserving” its niche you’re making it waaaay better 11 One forward castle would allow to delete whole bases with shotel spam. Also, a FU elite shotel without upgrades would have 244% the base attack of a Mayan eagle, according to some quality logic I stumbled upon in these very forums.

I don’t have all the thresholds in mind but I know it would make Burmese champs able to 2 shot villagers like Aztec ones do. So +1 is definitely changes stuff (like negating the enemy’s last armour upgrade)

If you wonder why it was nerfed, it’s because it was somewhat cost effective against xbows, which is dumb for a counter infantry unit.

Not sure about that eagle tweak but otherwise it sounds good, especially as the LS upgrade is more expensive than the xbow upgrade for some reason (also, let’s remember to make bagains slightly cheaper before it becomes an “indirect Bulgarian nerf”)


that’s fair, I’m not sure myself either. on second thought, in TGs it might make meso pocket a little more awkward, particularly incas.

1 Like

Clarification : the Japanese condo has the same firing rate as the Japanese samurai, so the base firing rate are the same as well.

yeah that is an odd one, i wonder if it somehow couples to the m@a rush into LS

but just to be clear… everyone here saying sword line is fine, but if they were to fix the pathing/unit behaviour, you’re implying the sword line would need a nerf, since they would then be more effective then they currently are… if you think otherwise then yall need to start playing more to realise how bad it is…

1 Like

Also, another issue I have with Infantry in general is this tech, whose effect is too weak in my opinion.
And buffing Arson could be the way to make Castle Age Infantry viable as Siege-esque units that can fight back units.

1 Like

I disgaree with this.
First of all, the archer problem should be solved with pathfinding. And the swordsman line shouldn’t counter archers. With extra pierce armor there would be no doubt they are very strong against archers.

The extra attack would help in many things. They would be radically better versus knights, the competitor melee unit. While knights should counter archers, the swordsmanline could be used well against knights, with the current supply tech+better pathfinding, it is really possible to swarm the enemy. You could say that there is already a counter for cavalry, the spearman line, why would I use them instead of swordsmen, pikes are much cheaper, have the same speed and deal better damage (against cavalry). The answer is that while pikes are a defensive unit, the long-swordsmen are offensive ones. With decent amount of damage against buildings (factoring in the +1 attack), they could actually force fights that are advantageous for the infantry player, unlike with pikemen. Note that one long-swordsman costs 45 food and 20 gold with supplies while a knight costs 60 food 75 gold, and you can even mix in some pikes for help, since you must hvae enough barracks.

Currently both cavalry and archers counter infantry, and archers and cavalry are pretty even against each other. I think this is not fair for infantry. I see this being fixed mostly by pathfinding, since that would help infantry in both against cavalry and archers, while it will help cavalry against archers. With good pathfinding, archers will still be superior versus infantry, if the player can micro, while they will be inferior versus cavalry, and infantry and cavalry would be pretty even (with supplies, a very underrated tech). To achieve the rock paper scissors gamestate, infantry should counter cavalry. And I completely see this being achieved by giving more attack to infantry, so with an increased damage they can force fights, and will also put up a much better fight against cavalry (+1 attack can even increase damage output by 20%, assuming knights and infatry players both teched into armor)

Summing up I think the infantry problem should be mainly fixed with improved pathfinding, but I don’t see why +1 attack would be a bad buff, even after better pathfinding (and it is also a really good buff before pathfinding gets fixed)

My proposals:
Supplies cost -25 food
Long-swordsman +1 attack
Two-handed swordsman +1 attack
Champion research time -10 seconds, upgrade cost -100 food (FU champion stats won’t change)

I would be really thankful to the devs if they could implement this, infantrys’ weakness is a long time discussed problem, and many players are bored of seeing only knights and crossbowmen in teamgames (look at recent BoA2 tournament), it is also disappointing that civilizations that have infantry bonuses usually tech into other units (for example vikings, malay and japanese archers, slav knights are much more often seen than infantry)

EDIT: long-swordsman and two-handed swordsman bonus damage versus eagles probably should be reduced by 1, if this balance change happens

so two handed have the same attack as champs?

yes, and champs have +10 HP and +1 melee armor, with reduced upgrade cost and research time

btw this would also be an indirect buff to bulgarians and malays, who are definitely not top tier civs

my man if they could fix it so easily they would have done so… it takes some time, as i said before we need to think of help to the game which is easier to do than “magically fix pathfinding” . the pathfinding isnt intentionally bad…

+1PA isnt going to turn the sword line into archer killers… as i said FROM THE START, ive been using mali and even they get rekt by archers due to the terrible pathing… and thats with 1-3 extra PA… at 3 extra they seem to do ok… but anything lower and archers still easily counter them with micro…

but yeah maybe the extra damage would be enough, for the reasons you explained, in general too much counters infatry (like you said, heck even onagers counter infantry in a lot of conditions)… part of me has always been bothered that these troops with shields have less pierce armour than a lot of lighter looking troops… besides the whole archers rek infantry due to pathing issue

exactly… so thats why i recommended the PA buff… but a damage buff might work instead, either way, any buff will help…

malay are extremely deadly if you can get their meat grinder going though… ive had a number of games where 1 guy has gone from almost nothing in castle age to 1v2 the enemy just with the infinite 2HS +docks… and bulgarians arent exactly bottom tier either (as others have proven a few times the konnik can be amazing in the right circumstances)


I know, that improving pathfinding is a long and continous fix, that’s why I said “it is also a really good buff before pathfinding gets fixed”

I agree, but I think that knights should be used against an archer civ either way not infantry

I also think malays are a really strong civ, but I don’t think it would be broken if their two-handed swordsman got a damage buff. Malays aren’t seen very much in high level tournamens anyways, in arena guess they’ll be top tier but there are always top tier civs in some maps.

Bulgarians use konniks too much, I actually would like if their infantry gets buffed

Militia-line is still underused despite the introduction of supplies. If you want to see more infantry, just consider that infantry is good when spammable and/or mobile in the game. So a bit of extra speed (like pikes maybe) and reduced TT (maybe locked behind supplies) would clearly help.

This would penalize some underused units, especially condos, which however need some other fix, possibly TG oriented. Also other infantry UUs like woad raiders may be penalized, but infantry civs would be helped but this small change.

1 Like

archers vs skirms, some archers will still die even if skirms win, same applies to spears vs knights(even more so here)

whereas archers vs infantry its quite possible to kill ALL the infantry without losing any archers, or such a negligible amount its not feasible… that is the issue, which i think so many people are missing… archers with micro should never (and have never) been intended to do so well vs infantry… if the pathing etc worked infantry would be more effective (STILL NOT A COUNTER) so we need solutions to make do with what we have (poor pathfinding)

on top of +1 damage (or +1 PA) i reckon the sword line should get 0.05 or 0.1 extra speed until the pathfinding is fixed… for worst case scenario, archer races will then be forced to speed bump infantry, as opposed to the current insanity of low critical mass archers rekking everything with impunity


My suggestion is to reduce the upgrade time for this units because you have to upgrade a lot already starting from the feudal age.


I guess a way to balance infantry would be to give a higher frame delay to archers so that they can’t hit and run as well as they do now. That would also be needed for unique archers.
Stop and move is too effective against melee units. When you look at the cav archer line you see that more frame delay changes a lot. This would be especially true in the case of archers as they are not faster than militia.
Also making sure archers can’t stack so close to each other would help so that there is more area for melee units to attack - also melee could then attack more units at once which would help the balance.

Another possible way to balance could be what many have already said:

  • 0.05 more speed
  • 0.2 range as partial fix to bad pathfinding and shorter attack animation like they did lately with hussar so that melee can catch up faster. Archers can move almost instantly after they stop and shoot which is a reason why they get hit less than they should --> same treatment for melee means they keep up with archers what they should do given they are slightly faster. But you still need more frame delay so that archers can’t keep the distance for too long while melee walks up to them.
  • Check the upgrade cost of archers and militia. Militia costs so much more and takes more time to upgarde. One more reason why archers are favored.