You forgot that horsemen have biology.
The spearman hits 5 hits in feudal to kill 1 horseman, in imperial 6.
The problem is another.
I know youâre upset that they arenât going to change the game to use percentage based damage reduction.
You seem to allow that emotion to make you incapable of having a reasonable discussion or one without being insulting. So Iâm done paying attention to you.
Yeah, they have Biology, but still only that give them HP, the infantry get 20% HP plus 20% attack bonus with their University Upgrade. I have calcutate with prub and error, and discover that this bonus of attack is the result is rounded to the nearest integer if it is above or below 0.5.
If the unit has 14 of attack + 3 upgrades of blacksmith â 17*1.2 = 20.4 = ~20
The Men-at-arms have 20 of attack in Imperial with all tech upgrades, and a Rof of 1.37.
The spearman has 17 of attack in Imperial with a Rof of 1.875
The Horsemen has 16 of attack in Imperial with a Rof of 1.75
Because obviously, polearms are slower than swords, their attack speed is slow, and thats is why the gold invested in swordmen has value.
The problem with horsemen is that their base attack is slow in Post-imperial because if âBiologyâ, the Cavalry upgrade in University, would have a 20% bonus of attack, knighst become invencible, or even melee elephants, so this become a only HP technology.
Because this only affect Horsemen, and Elite technology is a investment, I suggest only improve their attack, so they would be more usseful as riders aggainst villagers, traders, monks (as in Age II) or even ranged units.
The thing is that horsemen still need to be âLight Cavalryâ, even in Post-Imperial, but at leat they still need to be useful enough as a anti-ranged unit in that age, or at least as meat-shield, that generates enought damage to villagers, infantry and knight until they die, and thats only could be done if we improve their attack.
Horsemen feel pretty good to me still, theyâre the kings of sniping siege and ok for raids.
IF they need anything maybe just the elite version could get bonus damage to villagers or something, although thatâs not a thing in game at all currently. Or maybe even just enough flat damage so they take one less hit to kill villagers (would stack up with a group raiding).
They certainly donât feel as strong in raids as AoE2 Hussars.
1 Like
The horseman with the upgrades needs 6 hits to finish off a villager with textiles. The rider has mobility, snips siege better, sieges relatively well and stuns the opponent if theyâve broken through walls, as well as still countering well against ranged units.
There are horsemen with more HP with certain civs.
I donât compare it with infantry units because they have nothing to do with it.
I repeat, the problem of the Late Game is another and not the horseman at least.
When archers fight in melee when they are engaged in melee, theN horses will be useful again, this was the original design.
1 Like
Horsemen are fine vs ranged for sure. They are ok as it is.
2 Likes
there is also different ways to fix horseman like reducing their training time for example this way archers cant easly outnumber the horseman
You have a warning. Moderate your behavior.
If they were ok, no one would complain.
And the fact you stated the horsemen is fine is just illustrating your ignorance.
There are a lot of issues for this unit and people always complain, but there are people who say it is ok.
And those âOKâ people have low standards because that is what they areâŠ
Many people donât like how Horsemen is acting and not performing well.
Starting from its super slow attack speed to horrible combat animation and movementâŠ
The unit is certainly not good at all and it is not at a satisfactory level.
See that the game may deserve criticism in some aspects, but in the balance of a unit that few ask forâŠ
You say there are many who ask to buff the horseman. Maybe you have to ask the top 30 players (not even the top 10 anymore) 1 on 1 and have them answer your question.
Attack animations have always been a problem for units in general and this can be improved.
Those top 30 etc do not understand what is fun, they make money through tourneys, streams and what benefits their play style. They are not the representatives of the whole AOE4!!!
See this is one of the major problems!
They simply talk about things that they want, solely for their benefit, not for the players!
This is why you must stop this!!!
However, instead of understanding the real problem, you are making it worse!
You are making those 30 to represent all the playersâŠ
That is an autocratic way of dealing with the problem.
When talking about balance, you should consult professionals (i said top 30 because there are differents points of view), technical players who really know the game and devs should be careful about strategies that are excessively effective at lower levels and are too easy to do.
In terms of the attack animation of the units, the addition of abilities or questions that are about the design, it is a different thing that affects the fun in the game and I understand the criticism.
1 Like
Neither do you. Fun is subjective. What might be fun for you wonât be fun for someone else. Which makes it a bad starting point to talk about fine tuning unit balance.
4 Likes
but the basis is objective of the kind of game we want to have fun with it
1 Like
You, specifically, donât want to have fun with AoE IV. You want another game 
If you want to talk about balance, high level player input matters. If you donât want to talk about balance, nobodyâs forcing you to participate.
2 Likes
you donât want to a better aoe 4. You want a game that resemble to your taste which is not the majority
If you want to talk about balance, high level player input matters AND CORE DESIGN IF THAT ONE WAS DONE CORRECTLY. Today patches are focused on remake some units which tell that point. Also. nobody is forcing you to respond this forum comment and stop enjoying the game because someone say other thing.
1 Like
This is a common mistake. High level players provide invaluable balance insight, but theyâre not designers. One relates to the other, but theyâre different skillsets.
Why?
Letâs take an unrelated example. Letâs say Iâm developing a system that allows power users to export data in bulk to another system (of their choice). A very common scenario.
I design the flow; the inputs, how they talk to each other. But I have nothing to do with the values the user inputs (beyond making sure the system works with them). My job is to ensure the system works. The end user defines the actual tuning in a real-world scenario.
But I do. So this is a lie, and a poor one at that. Your opinion of AoE IV is well known at this point, by far more me.
And I donât mind that you have such a low opinion of the game. Youâre entitled to it. But it means what I said was true. And what you said, isnât.
1 Like
Ahhhh did u ever play horsemen vs archers?.. An archer is down in like 4 hits max. 3 in later stages with full upgrades. Not sure what u mean they are slow in terms of attack⊠Attack speed is part of balance of each unit. Horsmen good at raiding, eats archers. And only for 130⊠What u want them to do⊠2 hit kill to archers and 0.2 attack speed?
Some humans are just strange. Complaining about stuff that is working as intended. While we have 10 other things that is more priority like forced dsync in a game with competitive ranked modeâŠ
1 Like
yes they do but not what the game itself needs. they only offer for the mp aspect but not for thr sp which is the othe rhalf that need to be cared. mp is not the rts formula in a franchise that is lived first for the campign and then for the mp.
you re also entitled and everyone knows your opinion about the game. i also donât mind your low opinion because the game needs changes.
1 Like