They shouldn’t have a trash counter. That’s precisely their beauty, to be the counter of trash units.
I thought Swordsmen were supposed to be a subtle “power unit” which always gave a good fight, but ultimately lost battles in the presence of Castles, TC’s, Archers, Cavalry Archers, Massed Trash, Unique Units, Elephants, etc. I think to fulfill that role they should be a little tougher, in terms of HP or armor.
The problem was that all civs had too much power creep - bragging about units with crazy buffs. But this can be fixed by giving some extra power to Swordsmen as well.
PS. Perhaps the role of the Militia-Line is confusing, because they are the most classical unit, around which the whole game was designed.
The problem of this unit. For generic usage (Like Turks etc.) It needs to be buffed. But if we consider devs added every kind of bonus for some civs (except HP). Buffing things makes civ bonuses less effective. (For more information check; Malians, Burmese, Teutons, Japanese (Free bonus), Bulgarians Aztecs (Unique Tech) ). So it’s awkward because any changes effects those civs. To change trash countering identity you need to change unit stats more than a few changes.
What about a technology for Slow Health Regeneration? I know it would conflict with Berserks (which should have a much stronger regen rate anyway), but it would help Swordsmen fit their niche of being competent melee-hungry fighters.
This would also increase the micro options available. Since Swordsmen get sniped very easily nowadays, perhaps the surviving heroes could live to be strong again.
I know somebody is going to bring a good reason to say this is madness, but perhaps there is some merit in the idea, at least for some civs.
Swap Squires and Supplies age unlock, lower cost of LS and Supplies. Supplies has not encouraged more use of M@A in Feudal. Squires might give M@A more of a fighting chance until Scouts + Archers clean them up. Meso civs should still be able to overcome them.
If we put all this together, a good start of improvement would be :
Militia line speed increase 0.9 → 0,95
Creation time 21 seconds → 19 seconds
Supplies technology 150f 100g → 100f 100g
Long Swordsman technology 200f 65g → 150f 65g
They would be easier to commit, without changing a little bit better at everything.
In Feudal : They will enter in action few seconds sooner ; being better at chasing vils ; able to escape archer’s fire easier. In Castle : Cheaper upgrade help for sure in early castle ; easier to mass with cheaper supplies and more speed creation In Imperial : not fundamental change, but more mobility overall (1,04 with squires ; Arbalest’s speed is 0,96 in comparaison)
In my opinion, they could even give M@a an additional +1 bonus vs building to reinforce their role in feudal of breaking walls fast (+2 into +3). In castle age I would put the LSM upgrade at the same development time than crossbows. (35s instead of 45s)
I’m not sure about changes like less food cost, extra pierce armor or more HP, it sounds strong to me.
But maybe it’s the way ! Actually food reduction is probably a good one, but -10 like you propose is maybe too much. It needs a lot of testing.
Even with those eventual balance changes they’re definitely a lot of adjustments to make ! (Celt Militia speed bonus +5% in dark age, 10% in feudal, + 15% in castle / Removing free loom for Goths, etc)
Just yesterday I got destroyed by Champions in a Japanese vs Vikings war.
I’d played poorly -it was completely fair- but again: Champs can rock. They don’t need buffs. (If they get a tiny buff in order to facilitate a LSM buff it would probably be ok).
In upgrading xbow -> Arb, you get 5 extra hp & 1 extra attack.
In upgrading LSM -> Champ, you get 10 extra hp, 4 extra attack, 1 extra armour.
There is room to buff LSM without buffing Champs
I don’t like that this change will make every infantry UU obsolete, except maybe for ranged infantry and huskarls. For example, let’s compare Viking elite berserks and Viking champions after your buffs:
health 75 vs 84 (champion is better)
attack 14 vs 13 (berserk is slightly better)
Armor 5/5 vs 4/6 (champion is slightly better)
Speed 1.05 vs 1.00 (berserk is slightly better)
Cost 65/25 vs 40/20 (champion is better)
Other features: Berserk has regen, but is much more expensive to fully upgrade and is produced from castles.
In other words, the proposed champion is arguably better than one of the best infantry UU in the game.
Other comparisons:
-Malay THS costs 60 food vs Karambit 30 food 25 gold
-Goth champion is almost 2 times cheaper than the Huskarl, and is not quite as terrible against archers
-Aztec champion is likely to become more cost-effective against infantry than Jaguar warrior.
Sorry that’s almost like comparing non micro’d xbows to LS. Knights have tons more utility and their power increases exponentially with their mobility.
How long does it take to train 2 LS for every knight? How many more houses are you building? How much more tech have you paid for for remotely the same utility?
“because something has always been a certain way” doesn’t make it justified
1 knight easily beats 1 xbow. Does that mean knights demolish xbows in game? Not a chance because the numbers change when you introduce larger groups and micro.
Now that Arabia is less wallable, maybe Hera’s “A Top Class 1v1 Performance” YouTube video might become an instructional video on how to use the Militia line for players wanting to use more Militia. In the video, Hera (Slavs) loses to Daut (Celts) after Daut surprises Hera with a pre-Mill 3 Militia Drush, follows the Drush with a Fast Feudal instead of Fast Castle, builds 3 more Militia while advancing to Feudal (with coincidental timing to assist with defending against Hera’s counter Militia attack), and finishes the game by blitzing Hera’s economy with 2 different groups of 3 M@A each. It happened so fast that not even an Archer switch could save Hera.
In short, instead of the standard M@A rush, players wanting to use more of the Militia line are probably better off starting the pressure as soon as possible with a pre-Militia Drush into a Fast Feudal, making 3 more Militia while advancing, and then getting M@A. Only downside to Hera’s video is learning about how to play with this strategy in a longer game, because it has a chance at ending Arabia games so fast 11.
After reading your responses I too believe that the “COULD” suggestions in my original post might be too strong. I think the best for the Militia line would be a decrease in cost for both the Supplies tech and the Long Swordsman upgrade. Maybe even the training time but nothing more for the start. The initial idea to reduce the unit cost from 60f 20g to 50f 20g might also be a bit too out there and @SportyCoast3173’s post has a lot of weight.
Also I think every other Militia state is fine as they see SOME use (although not too frequent beyond the 3 Militia/MAA), the Longsword needs some love and the reduction in cost is the only option in my opinion. What do you guys think how the Infantry UU could be adressed? Supplies affects them as well?
Slightly confused why a tech cost reduction would be better at making longswords viable than a stat improvement.
If the tech was free, many people still wouldn’t make longswords.
Let me explain how I understand it then: The LS has good overall stats but performs poorly for the high cost it needs to be effective. There are two ways to tackle this issue, which would be either reduce the cost with the current stats, or keep the cost and buff the unit. From my point of view the Militia line should be a cheap throw away unit that is good in numberes and therefore needs to be easily massed. This is achieved by the cost reduction approach.
If you increase the individual value of the unit by making it stronger, you could potentially see it more often as well, but I belive this would lead to a deeper rabbit hole balance wise and more aspects of the game would have to be considered. In my opinion the bottleneck is the cost and not the stats of the unit (Goths use them effectively, because the high upgrade cost is negated by the low unt price and lack of upgrades such as Supplies and Arson).
Also a stronger Militia line would compete even more with Infantry UU if it was stat-buffed.
I’ll gladly have your thoughts about this question :
What if a little M@A buff could have a big impact on longsword importance ?
Here’s the statement, right now we often see 3-4 M@A in feudal. M@A have a descent place in the game with good stats, and only being hard counter by archers like they should be. At the end of feudal, the brave 3-4 M@A are usually dead.
They probably gonna generate idle time and worth their paiement at the end of the day so it’s ok, but if you have no units at the end of Feudal what’s the point to upgrade them and not switch into better options like knights ? At the contrary Archer’s survival ability is for sure what make them strong for example.
Deeper question is why players invest in just 3-4 M@A ? Don’t they worth more ?
They cost food and gold, that delay your Castle time
They’re not super efficient at raiding
Just two or three archers will harass and destroy your army
If at least they have more survival instinct (more speed to runaway from archers), and if they were a bigger threat to defenses and vils they will be a better investment in my humble opinion. And maybe then we could see more LS !
Or maybe it won’t change anything at all What do you think ?
Supplies affects them as well?
What do you think ?