Ok so, this post will be controversial, but: why were infantry necessary in medieval war IRL?
It was hard to kill them with just ranged units, especially as better shields and armor were developed.
They were needed to operate siege weapons, such as rams, ballistas, rock-throwing weapons and artillery
They were much cheaper to produce in large numbers
They carried out logistical operations, like getting supplies to the battlefield (food, medical care supplies, ammo, weapons, armor and materials)
So, to make them viable in AoE2 one could do some of these with the militia line, maybe incrementally:
Give them a lot more pierce armor if they have full plate armor, or an ability to raise their shields which increases their armor but makes them move slowly
Give them the ability to repair, build and deploy siege weapons. Siege weapons are kind of “magical” looking at the moment. They self-fire, move on their own and trebs self pack/unpack. I think it’s done for gameplay simplicity purposes and we’re supposed to imagine there are operators for all these units. Requiring infantry to garrison or operate these weapons might make them more relevant. Maybe infantry should be able to build palisades, but slower than a vill.
They should probably be considerably cheaper than an archer in total resources.
Maybe introduce some logistical mechanic, like adding a limit on projectiles for ranged units (including archers, gunpowder and siege) and having “fresh” newly arriving infantry units automatically replenish that.
But all of these seem more suited for a different type of game than AoE2, maybe AoE5
I thought about this also at different occasions. Imot the biggest “threat” is currently how Siege operates, especially Scorpions and Mangonels.
Probably it would be best to consider tweaking them a bit, so they aren’t that “devastating” agains infantry anymore, reduce the “nuking” potential of Siege mostly vs Infantry and we don’t need such a complicated mechanic.
Don’t forget there are game modes with different amount of max pop. Whilst we might be able to adjust it for 200 pop with this kind of mechanic it might be hard to fix it for 500 and 50 pop then. With this variations in mind it’s really usually better to try fix things on their source than on the Symptoms.
Curved swords (Sabre, Scimitar, Szabla, Kilij etc.) is main weapon of cavalry with lance/spear. Curve of sword is designed for swinging in order to sabre infantry fast which other kind of weapon can’t. Other weapons you mentioned should be rarer. Mace used especially against heavily armored enemy. Images of Cavalry with saber:
This was later with the re-implementation of very light cavalry. I’m still not sure wether this was really a “superior” weaponry and really used in the battle or was mostly for posing.
Sabres ofc have a better weight distribution than Swords which makes them indeed easier to use from a horseback. I would still prefer a spear actually.
Doubt that actually. It is for sure depicted a lot, especially in the napoleonic wars. As with Swords it just makes a really good picture. Doesn’t mean it is really representative.
Never said mace. Mace is not very well suited for cavalry cause of the disadvantageuos weight distribution. That said, there are reports of maces being used, but rarely.
I’d rather go with the low-hanging fruit of simple accessibility solutions (at least as a starting point) in favor of major reworks or super-gimmicky abilities like a wolf’s chase mechanic or snaring enemies. Some of the ideas are interesting, but would be extremely disruptive as common abilities in AoE2
Nor is there need for one - attack bonuses are not always needed even to hard-counter units. Infantry are countered by archers and scorpions and can be countered indirectly by raiding. Generic swordsmen are also mutually soft-countered by knight line, where the latter can choose the fight.
I’m open to the idea of more (regional, unique) infantry, but this just seems like an overly complicated and roundabout way of addressing militia-line. This could be done, but adding 1 or more new common units in a way that doesn’t totally goof up tons of other interactions is much more work than just making militia line a little more useful in the context of existing units. And the “role” of a new unit being ~“so that it can get countered by an existing unit” just seems like the opposite of how I’d want to design anything.
There are older medieval battle depictions shows cavalry using sabre in battlefield. Cavalry sword is very old, there is 7th century Avar cavalry swords found in Europa. Usage of mace also mentioned in manuscripts and depicted in illustration and miniatures made in these times. European Knights battling with swords (curved swords entered European warfare afterwards it seems) in Medieval ############
I read mace is used extensively not rarely. For instance, in battle of Nicopolis 1396, one Crusader Knight injured Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I with mace, it should be common weapon.
In conclusion, cavalry used sword, curved sabre or straight sword throughout history. Knight with sword in AOE2 wiki is historically accurate depiction.
I’ve never claimed Swords weren’t depicted as cavalry weapons.
I only said it actually found basically no use in real combat for obvious reasons.
Why do you bring a duelist weapon to a Fighting class that can chose the engagement whenever it wants to? You don’t need anything to parry opponent blows.
Swords always made for good pictures, but that doesn’t mean they were really used on the battlefield.
These are battle depiction, not duel fights. Who said that sword isn’t used as cavalry battle weapon, really? Who said that medieval illustrators continually lie about battle weapons? They depicted weapons and equipments correctly because they saw that these battles. That’s why they drew pictures cavalry with swords, spears, axe, mace etc…
Maybe you should consider the propaganda effect of pictures like this aswell.
Man, you should understand that history sources aren’t written as accurate repesentations. Almost all stuff we have are sources that passed the likings of the rulers of that time.
Swords just aren’t a good Weaponry to be used from Horseback. Just live with it.
In eyewitness sources, usage of sword in battles also mentioned continually. I give you an example: Chronicle of Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis completed in 1309 about Seventh Crusade (1248-1254) :
“Just as we were returning to the shore between the small stream and the river, we saw the king coming near the river. Meanwhile, the Turks slashed back the king’s other troops with swords and maces and forced them to retreat towards the river with the king’s troops. The rout there was great, and so many of our men considered swimming across the river to the Duke of Burgundy, but they and their horses were too tired to do so, and it was also too hot. As we went towards them, we saw that the creek was covered with shields, spears, drowned human and horse corpses.”
Book of Zafarnama by Nizam al-Din Shami completed in 1404 describing battle of Ankara (1402) poetic way:
“Emir Timur gave the order for the battle to begin… From all sides, the warriors were striking their swords on the heads of the enemies so much that it was thought that swords were raining from the clouds. The spirits of the warriors were wailing from the sounds of maces and arrows. The air became dark from the dust lifted by the horses of the cavalry, and the battlefield was filled with the dead.”
Everyone can obtain wrong informations about history but it is wrong to insist on wrong information.
My point was that Long Swordsman are only soft countered. It they are buffed to much they would easily become unstoppable for many civilisations especially if you add civilisation bonuses.
Infantry bonuses are often a lot stronger then Cavalry or Archer bonuses.
Japanese Infantry attacks 33% faster while Ethiopian Archers “only” fire 18% faster or Bulgarians need to build a Castle and research their unique Technology to get 33% faster attack.
Vikings get 20% more HP while Franks lose out on Bloodlines effectively giving them equal HP to a generic Knight. Vietnamese Archers also get 20% HP but Archers have a lot less HP in relation to costs then Cavalry or Infantry so it’s worth a lot less.
Burmese get +2 Attack in Castle Age, there is no equivalent for Archers or Cavalry. Unless you count the Lithuanian Relic bonus.
Malians get +2 Pierce armour in Castle Age, there is also no equivalent for Archers or Cavalry for this either.
Goths get a 30% discount on Infantry in Castle Age. Mayans only get 20% discount and Berbers just get a 15% discount for Cavalry.
If those civilisation bonuses are changed then the Pikeman and often the unique units of those civilisations have to be adjusted too.
ok I agree. I maybe just like the idea of those units too much.
Maybe they should only be given to a few civilisations and Infantry gets a different buff.
Arson replacement
Every civilisation besides the Goths have access to this technology but they get the same effect for free.
How about we remove the technology for the game and just give all Castle and Imperial Age Infantry +2 against buildings.
Then we can add a new technology instead that actually improves Infantry in some more significant way but not make it available to all civilisations.
The Thumb Ring, Parthian Tactics or Bloodlines for Infantry basically.
It could be a little more expensive so it doesn’t make Infantry too strong to easily.
This technology could be moved to the University if to strong. Giving it the same limitation as Ballistics.
Some ideas:
+10 HP for all Infantry
+2 Attack for all Infantry
+1/1 Armour for all Infantry
+1 Melee Armour and +2 Attack vs. Cavalry for all Infantry
Half population for Militia and Spearman Line
+33% creation speed for all Infantry/Barracks and -5 Gold cost for Milita Line
Milita Line +5 attack vs “Trash” units (give the tag to all none Gold units including ones that turn into trash via UTs)
Infantry can block one melee attack every 20 seconds (like Shrivamsha Rider but a lot weaker)
I think MAA are already good enough in Feudal Age. Maybe move the bonus to Cain Mail instead.
But the issue with that would be that Archer civilisations are already weaker then Knight civilisations in the current Meta. This would make them even weaker without addressing the performance or Infantry against Knights at all.
Alternatively make the Techs:
Feudal +1/1
Castle +1/1 and +1/1 again
Imperial +1/1
This way Infantry had +1/1 more amour in late Castle but only +1/0 more armour in Imperial.
Yes, but infantry discount is only bonus of Goths and Goths lacks last armor upgrade in Imperial Age as well. Britons range bonus is very strong almost as strong as Goths infantry discount. Infantry bonuses are bit stronger than Cavalry&Archer but it isn’t too much in my opinion. Franks cavalry hp is weak because Franks eco is very strong. If Franks doesn’t have eco bonuses similar to Goths, Franks also can get 35% hp even.
So maybe it’s time for you to get into the right sources.
As I said, Swords are not very well suited to be used from Horseback. Not saying that they weren’t present. But often they actually represented a status symbol rather than a primary weaponry on the Battle Field.
All I said that the way the game depicts it isn’t representative for the use of Cavalry on medieval battlegrounds. And the way they were used would be represented better by cav having less HP and more attack.
Maybe you don’t like it, but that isn’t an excuse to try bend History so it fits your preferences.
Edit: Here a video that shows something i tried to talk about. It also refers to Knights as when they startet to fight more on foot during the military revolution of that time. In the end it has to say something about the Sword you might find interesting.
Imo Archers are a hard counter to the Militia line if you use them well. At least these days.
But Infantry doesn’t have a trash counter like the Archers or Knights do.
But only because these bonusses are absurdliy high. If you gave this kind of Bonusses to Archers or even Knights, they would be completely broken too.
Maybe… But it would make teching into infantry even more expensive than currently. IDK.
Don’t agree with this either. We have the MAA rush, but that’s really only about working with the better timimg. MAA themselves aren’t that strong really. Usually you make the MAA to open breachers for your archers, not to stick with more MAA in feudal.
And even with that, afaik MAA buildorders have only about 45 % winrate or so, so stats show they still could get buffed.
But I agree that Militia and MAA have definitely more usage than the LS. Even if this comes mostly just from the military timing that can’t be matched by any other unit type.
That wouldn’t be the same as 3035 % discount.
Berbers already have 15-20 % discount and they are one of the best civs on the ladder.
I don’t see a reason why when Infantry gets more useful why the Goths discount and other bonusses can’t be adjusted. They have only be brough to that level cause Infantry sucked and needed to be so strong to somehow make Infantry play viable, so the Bonus served a purpose.
So they can just be tuned down accordingly when there is more useful Infantry it can apply to.
Perhaps makes scorpions have higher attack against cavalry, but cause less damage with a negative bonuse against infantry, which could make them change from counter infantry to counter cavalry. Infantry can thus gain a new feature that is effective against almost all siege weapons.
But cavalry and cavalry upgrades are so much more valuable. So for just a few knights or scouts, +1 attack or armor can lead to so much more villager/archer kills. Infantry in general is meant to be spammed in large units and the cost of these upgrades delay the point at which their production can start in large numbers.
That’s just an adaptation of Serjeant and some civs like Vikings nearly have these stats. 60 food cost and that low speed is always going to make them more niche. Like the guy in the video says he and others built the game with these costs back when microing was much harder to do and a lot of things like bloodlines, thumb ring weren’t there.
I was only comparing Castle Age bonuses.
In Imperial Age Goths even have a 35% discount.
The Japanese bonus is a fixed 33% starting in Feudal.
Vikings arguable have the best economic bonus in early Castle Age in the game on top of having a 20% HP bonus for Infantry.
But people still chose to play them as a Crossbow or Knight civilisation despite them not having Bloodlines and Thumbring.
But changing those bonuses is a little more complex since most of them affect the Spearman Line too. Unique units are easy to change.
So basically Infantry is weak so it requires heavy bonuses to be useful. If Infantry is made to be useful without those heavy bonuses then those bonuses have to be tuned down.
You would get them to the current state a little cheaper since you get Arson for free.
But it should be a technology so its not automatically available to all civilisations.
ok you are right.
I forgot that Japanese already get 33% faster attacking MAA, Burmese get +1 Attack, Malians +1 Pierce armour and Goths 25% discount without thier MAAs being OP at all.
A buff for MAA or Spearman too would probably mean that those civilisation bonuses would need to be reduced for Feudal Age.
Because it’s hard to make Long Swordsman and Pikeman equally stronger and you also have to consider unique units.
Seems like people tend to forget that the Spearman line also exists.
That’s technically not possible but maybe you could give them a bonus against Cavalry and Archers.
Infantry Blacksmith rework.
Look at the Sicilian unique units, they only costs 15 Gold more then a Long Swordsman but gives you +5HP and +2/2 armour with only 1 less attack.
Compared to an MAA it’s +2/1 armour and also 1 less attack.
A noticeably better unit against every but Eagle Warriors, but they are still barely used.
Giving Infantry a little more armour would certainly not be OP.
Scaled Mail Armour: +1/+2
Cain Mail Armour: +2/+1
Plate Mail Armour: +1/+2
Now Infantry has 0/+1 more amour in Feudal Age and +1/+1 more amour starting in Castle Age.
To prevent the Champion being to dominant in Late Imperial it could be taken away from many civilisations. A Two Handed Swordsman with +1/+1 Armour should be equal to an old Champion.
To balance the new Spearman line units like the Skirmisher Line could get +1 bonus damage against them and their performance against cavalry could be brought back to about the same level by just removing 1-2 attack damage vs. Cavalry. In the case of Elephants where the reduced trample damage would help even more more attack damage might have to be taken away.
As a historian, i kinda need to chime in to your discussion here.
You started with a great point about ikonographic sources: A thing beeing depicted does not mean it looked like this. There are two main causes for this:
The artist might not know himself. See e.g. the pictures of warfare on the traians column: Some details are debated in their accuracy, they might be accurate or they might just be mistakes because the artists were not soldiers themselfes.
The second cause is more relevant for the medivial ages: The picture was never intended to show what something looks like, but it was symbolic in nature. Eg most chessboards you will see in medivial paintings are not 8x8, because there was no need to paint that much. A 6x6 board shows them playing chess just as well. Since nearly every medivial painting was symbolic, you sure have a point: Knights fighting with swords might be more a representation of their status than their fighting style.
However, just dismissing those sources without bringing up anything on your own is very cheap. All you showed was a video by someone who showed his great understanding of the middle ages by saying all christians were catholics back then (hi at orthodoxes, kathars, hussits, coptics…)
They are good as an opening. Not to be used with continuity as the main unit of the army.
With the actual blacksmith upgrades they can keep up with Scouts if you mix some Spear (that you can train from a barrack, so you don’t need another building)
Vs archers M@A they get melted if you don’t add archers or skirms of your own, and it’s quite expensive unlike other META strategies, like going full scout or full archer. Even with Malians, you can barely keep your opponent away from your base if you train only infantry vs archers.
So no, I don’t think M@A can be considered “good” in Feudal Age.
I won’t push that too far neither, considering that Armor affects even Eagle Warrior and UU.
Maybe a little change here, and some other changes in the tech trees, using current techs and mechanics without adding new gimmiks, could be enough.
It’s not hard to just take aways some armour from those units to get them back to how they were before.
Even possible to give Eagle Warriors -1 melee armour if necessary.
Or reduce their HP a little.
Unique Units are a little harder to balance since many are just better Milita without really having big differences.
But many of them are underused too.
Maybe we should make a mods to test those changes.
Like if the Goths 25% discount would be to strong with +1 Pierce armour in Feudal Age.
