You should use a better timestamp that leads to the right spot in the video.
The video is also very hard to follow as it tangents a lot of different stuff on shallow subjective perspectives. And they aren’t even really “coherent”.
Sandy says on one end that he wanted to keep as many stuff in that people figured out independently what wasn’t “on design”.
That is also a big part of why Archers and Knights became so popular as they are the units that can deal the most economic damage with the fewest investment. It wasn’t necesariy intended that raids become so determining in the meta.
Sandy also refers to that, when he says that Archers have that Range and Knights the speed and Infantry just have the ability to “counter cavalry”. So he is aware that the Infantry is missing that speciality to use for an advantage compared to the archers and cavarly.
And that’s what infantry is currently missing, some special utility it has that separates it from the cavalry and archery that can be used to deal eco damage to the opponent. And it should be something “interactive”. Like if we just for example add a lot of anti-building damage, it will only turn into a repair or backwall war, which will necesarily lead to one side just winning it and the other losing the game cause of the snowball. With the current raids of archers / knights under the thread of counter units when both players do their jobs fairly well it’s usually less decisive on a single encounter.
Making Infantry just cheaper won’t work cause it would only lead to frustration. As in the current state Infantry just doesn’t have this “interactive” element to it.
We see that with the Goths. They already have that cheaper Infantry. Almoest nobody likes them.
I tried to collect some ideas what could be given to a new “Power Unit” Infantry in this Thread: