How could a new "Power Unit" Infantry look like?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
69

Maybe this Morningstar unit could have the ability to cause an “Damage Over Time” effect (DOT). Blunt weapons can inflict blunt traumas.

I could be wrong on this one but I remembered reading somewhere that Morningstars are not considered to be maces. A mace is always a one-handed club that can only have either flanges or studs, while Morningstars are clubs that can be either one-handed or two-handed and that possesses at least one or multiple spikes.

But in the end both of these weapons are used for the same purpose.

70

Actually, there are 3 different type of morning stars which should be differntiated:

The first is basically just a Club. And I don’t want to name it any different, as it’s basically just that.

The second is the flail which was hardly ever useful cause uncontrollable.

The third is a club with an added weight on the top. Like a sceptre but with the spikes. Also hardly ever useful in real warfare as it doesn’t offer any protection whilst you can’t use it together with a shield as it requires too much strength to be used.

I think you mean the 3rd variant and that’s also that one I was referring to in my post.

I think it’s definitely an option for a UU. I don’t think it makes a good generic unit.
I mean it’s clearly “iconic”, but it wasn’t spread wide enough to make it a generic unit.

71

Like the warhammer, the flanged mace and morningstar came pretty late because they were counters to full body armor (which had made shields fairly obsolete). Mace-type weapons were more limited in their use than spears or bows, but still relatively common worldwide.

That’s a possibility, although I think that could be more interesting for a new American or African unit that uses a poisoned weapon. Maybe something that lowers the total HP cap (to represent crushed armor and/or blunt force trauma wounds).

2 Likes
72

I think extra bonus against villagers could be interesting.

But idk… the issue with the mace type for a “common” unit i see that you can’t explain why this unit should have any real “protection” ability against archery type units. Cause it’s so appearantly clear it’s only intended to crush in melee with unforgiving power.

Idk how i could make a power unit out of that if i’m honest. It’s too specialised.

73

For sure, it’s not really a generalist unit, so probably doesn’t quite fit what you’re looking for in this thread. I just got sucked into the discussion by morning stars, but I’m not really proposing anything beyond the possibility of having similar units in the game, if only in the Editor or for new civs.

74

Blunt weapons do lean towards the more specialised side of things. But make no mistake a well placed blow from a mace, morningstar or warhammer can be very lethal.

A blunt weapon can still be useful against an unarmored opponent, where the impact from the weapon can disable a body part of the opponent or cripple them severely before dealing the finishing blow. Maces and morningstars were apparently very lethal when used from horseback.

1 Like
75

I also just did an alternative design for the Glaiveman. The alternative design is weaker against archers but stronger in most other matchups. The new alternative would probably require the addition of mangonels against archers.

I personally think the first variant is better suited to fit in the game. The second has just “better looking” stats for an infantry unit.

Name Glaiveman Elite Glaiveman
Armor Class Infantry Infantry
Armor Class Eagle Warrior Eagle Warrior
Armor Class Spearman (+1) Spearman (+1)
Produced at Barracks Barracks
Production Time 25 s 25 s
Production Cost 50 F, 35 G 50 F, 35 G
HP 100 120
Speed 1.1 1.1
ROF 3 3
Attack 10 Melee 12 Melee
Atk Bonus 5 vs Standard Building 6 vs Standard Building
Atk Bonus 6 vs Cavalry 8 vs Cavalry
Atk Bonus 4 vs Camel 4 vs Camel
Atk Bonus 8 vs War Elephant 12 vs War Elephant
Range 1 1
Accuracy - -
Melee Armor 0 0
Pierce Armor 2 2
Benefits from Infantry Upgrades Infantry Upgrades
Upgrade 60 s 750 F, 400 G

About the utilty of other polearms: there are examples for that on foot and horse which were widely spread and effective.

For Cavalry it’s usually named ########## pick".
For Infantry we have things like the Poleaxe or the Bec de Corbin. Or even simpler the war hammer.

All of these had a well constructed weight distribution which made them handy to use.
These could indeed be weapons of choice of new power units in the game. They were usually used by well trained professionals which also had good armor that synergized well with that kind of weaponry.

When thhinking about the proposed “Guard” unit I think a Poleaxe and armor would be a very easy pickup as armament, as it’s shown in the video.

1 Like
77

Here’s my design for that unit. I removed the “Spearman” class as I think it’s already countered pretty hard by archery type units. Also an Axe isn’t a Spear.

The unit is deigns as an easy to make Raiding unit that doesn’t needs many upgrades.
It has notably a huge weakness against cavalry archers which I tried to “fix” by giving them the ability to make Scorpions.

The bonus damage against other infantry makes it a bit weird in the midgame imo where the only ways to counter it are archery type units and defences. In the lategame the high Gold cost and available counter units (as they are all units you can do from the range) will naturally limit their utility. Also therefore they are fairly cheap to upgrade and get a huge amount of extra attack, so at least can use that powerspike.

In feudal their main role is to counter MAA. It’s intentional they kinda suck against everything else there. But you can make them on the way up to castle age.

Name Hatchman Axeman Pollaxeman
Armor Class Infantry Infantry Infantry
Produced at Barracks Barracks Barracks
Production Time 40 s 30 s 30 s
Production Cost 45 F, 45 G 45 F, 45 G 45 F, 45 G
HP 65 90 100
Speed 1.05 1.1 1.15
ROF 2 2 2
Attack 6 Melee 11 Melee 16 Melee
Atk Bonus 2 vs Standard Building 3 vs Standard Building 4 vs Standard Building
Atk Bonus 4 vs Infantry 5 vs Infantry 8 vs Infantry
Range - - -
Accuracy - - -
Melee Armor 0 1 1
Pierce Armor 0 0 0
Benefits from Infantry Upgrades Infantry Upgrades Infantry Upgrades
Upgrade 30 s, 100 F, 150 G 45 s, 200 F, 350 G
Special Can construct (Heavy) Scorpions

I’m not necesarily convinced their weakness against archery type units is formittable. Ofc they can outrun foot archers and have few counters otherwise. But imo for being a power unit it’s too big of a weakness against some of the other power unit types.
But that’s just my personal opinion.

78

I made a design for a unit that could use the Bec de Corbin as weapon. It’s actually soft-countered by both the Knight and the Archer line. And hard-countered by the militia.
So what’s the selling point?
It’s a great raiding unit with dealing double damage against VIllagers. It also pairs very well with counter units as it has a quite high Health pool and therefore can tank some damage.
Finally it doubles down on the anti-Building damage of the Militia line and even damages garrisoned units inside the attacked buildings. This makes the unit very dangerous as when you have a critical mass of those you can just jump under TCs or other defences and tear them down. At some point low HP garrisoned units will just die inside the Buildings if not ejected before. (Garrisoned dead units shouldn’t fire arrows btw, they die the same way as they would on open field.)

So it can be especially useful aagisnt greedy enemies who don’t want to make reasonable military numbers in the midgame but instead try to boom ahead. They can potentially be punished for that greed.

The Imerial upgrade is comparably cheap as the unit will at some point fall of at this stage.

Name Soldier Elite Soldier
Armor Class Infantry Infantry
Armor Class Eagle Warrior Eagle Warrior
Produced at Barracks Barracks
Production Time 30 s 30 s
Production Cost 75 F, 45 G 75 F, 45 G
HP 120 140
Speed 0.95 0.95
ROF 2.4 2.4
Attack 9 Melee 12 Melee
Atk Bonus 8 vs Standard Building 12 vs Standard Building
Atk Bonus 8 vs Stone Defense 12 vs Stone Defense
Range - -
Accuracy - -
Melee Armor 0 1
Pierce Armor 2 2
Benefits from Infantry Upgrades + Supplies
Upgrade 60 s 500 F, 350 G
Special Deals double damage against Villagers
Special Garrisoned Units take 5 % Trample Damage
79

Another unit type could be the Partisan who wears the weapon of the same name.
Partisans themselves were developed a bit late in the aoe2 timeframe, but their predecessors were used way before the ectual partisan.

The Partisan isn’t a Power Unit. It’s a fast raiding unit with extra Bonus against Cavalry. It’s super fragile and has no Pierce armor, so even a low amount of underupgraded archery units can stop them.
But their high speed, range and damage output make them an ideal raiding tool, very effective already in low numbers.

Name Partisan Elite Partisan
Armor Class Infantry Infantry
Produced at Barracks Barracks
Production Time 24 s 24 s
Production Cost 55 F, 45 G 55 F, 45 G
HP 45 60
Speed 1.25 1.25
ROF 2.5 2.5
Attack 14 Melee 18 Melee
Atk Bonus 4 vs Standard Building 6 vs Standard Building
Atk Bonus 13 vs Cavalry 16 vs Cavalry
14 vs War Elephant 15 vs War Elephant
7 vs Camel 8 vs Camel
Range 1 1
Accuracy - -
Melee Armor 0 0
Pierce Armor 0 0
Benefits from Infantry Upgrades Infantry Upgrades
Upgrade 75 s 450 F, 600 G
80

I honestly would prefer if it was soft counyered by militia and was sorta just an all roundrr

Because I dont think the unit you desogned would have a place in the meta with how weak to ranged it is

81

I made like 3 or 4 designs which are allrounders but countered by the milia line. Maybe not directly soft-countere, but a “real” counter. But the militia line is also very expensive to get rolling in the midgame.

You only chose that one line which I tried to fit to one others idea. I said myself

But imo for being a power unit it’s too big of a weakness against some of the other power unit types.
But that’s just my personal opinion.

I’m currently run out of “special features” ideas. Something that can be used as “micro ability” against the other power units or otherwise make the unit intereesting to play with.

I know some of you don’t like this, but its one big part of the reasons why Knights and Archers are so popular as the Knights have that speed advantage and Archers the Range. Infantry doesn’t has one comparible property that can be used to get an edge over the others.

I think it would have a place in the meta, it’s a very good raiding units that isn’t easy to deal with. It just probably won’t be a power unit but more a very efficient herassment tool.
Imo it would probably even reinforce the current meta, as it would be even better to use against “vulnerable” eco than Knights.
Probably better if we add one more “rounded” unit indeed.

82

Just buff the militia Line with the ability, staring in castle age, to build Siege Weapons in the field. 10% added cost compared to a Siege Workshop as it isn’t required. Buildingspeed should scale far better then with vills building Buildings.
1 Longswordsman = 5 min
5 Longswordsman = 1 min
15 Longswordsman = 30s

So its not worth building 1 Units instead of a siegeworkshop at home. But yoh have a great benefit while attacking with infantry.

83

I just remember I got 2 more ideas when I designed other UUs that could be useful as a special ability for a new Infantry Power unit.

One is a “shared Shrivamsha Shield”. Each individual unit adds 5-10 Shield parts to the culminated total shield (Which may start at a number of 20-40 or so, just to give a little bit for lower unit counts). The consolidated shield replenishes at a given rate, much slower than the current Shrivamsha shield (yet still relative percentage of the full amount). The Shield doesn’t blocks individual projectiles, ratha it blocks Damage from ranged sources. And contrary to the shrivamsha shield once it is depleted ALL units start to take damage.
It can be debated whether the shield should also apply to other units of that player which might then use the mechanic to indirectly boost others of his units like Knights or Archers with it.

(Alternatively to the damage block, the shield could also block amount of projectiles like the current shrivamsha shield. But then I would make certain proj deplete 2 or even more shield parts per “hit”. Like HCs and other stuff that’s supposed to counter Infantry.)

The other is a “shared health pool”. Which means the unit don’t die individually but only start dieing if you have brought most of them down to very low health already. This can be done in multibple ways. Like eg. when a singular unit is hit, the damage is split in x+1 parts whilst x is the amount of units fielded by the player. All other units of that type take 1 part whilst the unit that is hit takes 2 parts of that damage. (Can ofc be done with x and each unit takes 1 part, but then we can have the effect of all units dieing only if all of them are brought to 0 at once, which I don’t like too much either. I think it’s better if they still die individually but have that “partially sharing” damage capability.)
This feature paired with some regeneration can make for a great feature for a “Power Unit”. As it would revard everybody who tries to keep his units alive. Like with the other “power units”.

84
Name Shieldbearer Elite Shieldbearer
Armor Class Infantry (+3) Infantry (+5)
Armor Class Eagle Warrior Eagle Warrior
Produced at Barracks Barracks
Production Time 27 s 27 s
Production Cost 50 F, 40 G 50 F, 40 G
HP 80 90
Speed 0.9 0.9
ROF 2 2
Attack 8 Melee 10 Melee
Atk Bonus 2 vs Standard Building 3 vs Standard Building
Atk Bonus 4 vs Cavalry 6 vs Cavalry
Atk Bonus 4 vs War Elephant 6 vs War Elephant
Range - -
Accuracy - -
Melee Armor 1 1
Pierce Armor 2 2
Benefits from Infantry Upgrades Infantry Upgrades
Upgrade 75 s 600 F, 450 G
Special When hit, only 1/2 of that Damage is taken individually When hit, only 1/3 of that Damage is taken individually
Special the remaining is shared evenly among all Shieldbearers the remaining is shared evenly among all Shieldbearers
Special Regenerates 10 HP / Minute Regenerates 12 HP / Minute

So this is again a unit with a “Special feature”. There were a lot of voices that said that Infantry should basically just be “stat monsters” for their cost, similar to the current Elephant Designs.
And I heavily disagree with that.
The “stat monster” idea will only lead to a unit being completely broken as it would totally dominate low elos but see basically no use at the highest level of play.
Ofc due to the lack of range and mobility Infantry necesarily needs some stats to compensate for that. But what about having a special feature that scales with the Skill level of the player?

And that’s the idea of the mechanism of the Shieldbearer. It’s a unit designed to revard player caring for them, trying to keep them alive. When a shieldbarer is hit, it only takes 1/2 (1/3 elite) directly. The other part is shared among all Shieldbearers. So if for example you have 5 Shieldbearers and one of them takes a 10 Damage hit, it will only take 6 Damage (5 individually + 1 shared) and the other Shieldbearers will all take 1 Damage. At the same time shieldbearers have a low amount of healh regeneration (10 per minute). This means after 6 seconds the 1 “shared” damage is completely compensated by the ######### regenerations of the Shieldbearers and only the initial one will still have 5 HP less than before the hit.
This means, the more a player can keep his Shieldbearers alive the more he will benefit from the ######### regeneration of the units at later stages of the game. Revarding players that care for their units rather than throwing them away.

The pure stats of the Shieldbearers aren’t amazing. They should basically as good against Knights as Longswords. They can be microed down by both Xbow and CA, but this will take a while.
The Shieldbearers have the “Eagle” armor class which means they are hard-countered by the current Longswords.
Dangerous are still Siege Weapns (Ballistas + Mangonels) in their current state, but this I can’t really tackle here.

The Shieldbearers are intentionally designed to not pair too well with the other Infantry units. Otherwise a combo of Shieldbearers + Siege + Pikes would potentially very tough to deal with. They still should pair well enough with all trash units (Pikes vs Knights, Skirms vs Archers and Light Cav against Monk + Siege).
With the damage sharing the Shieldbearers might work massed aswell like the other current Power Units. Just probably not at any leverl above 1k2 elo and even at lower elo probably only if you at least try to care a bit about them. I tried to design them in a way they aren’t really suited for a “noob basher” build. If this holds that intnention is ofc a completely different topic. And if the special feature is enough to make it viable at higher elo is also hard to predict, cause it’s a new mechanic we haven’t seen yet in action.

86

After we now have Gambesons in the game which in my opinion doesn’t make the militia line a “power unit”.
But I see several issues for now but also later if infantry should play a more important role.

First the current Gambesons design makes Archer CIvs actually the worst in lategame against Infantry civs. Cavalry civs can still use their mobility but usually also have access to HC or some different anti-infantry unit. Whilst most archer civs don’t, cause before archers were the most efficient infantry counters. CA civs also have less issues cause CA have 1 more base attack but also move fater than archers.
So what this tech achieved, weirdly. Is that the Archer civs which by game design should actually be the best against Infantry civs are now for some reason are the worst against them. Which is super weird, given that Archer civs are still quite bad overall against Knight civs. Putting the Archer in an even more weird spot.

This could be solved though with something that is imo essential for “making Infantry great again”. And this would be a ranged infantry counter. Something in the effect like the slinger but more specialised and overall weaker. This unit could benefit from the archer civ specific bonusses and therefore better with the good archer civs, as these would have natural bonusses to them. Having this kind of trash counter would finally enable to make an Infantry “power unit” as then all civs would have a tool to their disposal to counter that.
I made several designs for such a unit, usually called “lightbowman”. Depending on what I wanted to achieve with it it either had same or even better ROF than the archer line and cost like 50 res in total. I currently prefer the designs with that better ROF cause it would enable to make the bonus against infantry rather small (smaller than the various bonusses we see from anti-infantry units already in the game). This would then enable to give certain type of Infnatry some Infantry armor so these types would be less effectively countered by this new trash counter… This would be relevant for civs like Goths or Celts who heavily depend on their Infantry play and otherwise could be too easily shut down by just spamming that new anti-infantry archer type.

But with this in mind there emerges the question for the current militia line and which role it should play then. There are imo three main options.

A) The militia line then becomes the new “power infantry” unit. I’m not a too big fan of that cause I think the line is kinda “used up”. We need something fresh. Also the lines comparably low Gold cost doesn’t make it nevessarily a good choice for a “power unit” as this would mean you could make them way, way longer than any other power unit, giving a huge strategical advantage in the lategame. But this would mean that instead of the militia line most Infantry UUs could get some Infantry armor, adding some extra incentive to go for them. This would feel the most “natural” solution.

B) The militia line becomes the main counter of a new “power infantry” line. Like skirms counter archers and Camels counter Knights it would be a unit from the same building and same upgrades to be the most efficient against the overall “strongest” unit from there. This could be achieved by giving that Power Infantry unit the Eagle armor class but in the exchange some Infantry armor, so the Lightbowman would only hardcounter the lighter infantry classes (still good agaisnt the power infantry but less effective than the militia line).

C) Re-establish the Anti-trash function of the militia line. Make the current +1 PA from Gambesons inherent from the LS upgrade and instead make Gambesons giving the line some Infantry Armor. That way, the militia line would be able to beat all trash units (skirms, spears, hussar, lightbowman) but otherwise maintain to stay quite weak overall. Cav can still use the mobility and Archers can micro them down. But once the opponent is out of Gold the militia line would become extremely powerful. The main counter of the newInfantry Power Unit would then stay the Lightbowman which in return would be countered by basically everything else.

I’m not entirely sure which of the 3 options I prefer. I actually would like some kind of “mix” between B) and C) where the Infantry line could still function as counter to the power Infantry but also stay strong in the very lategame. But I kinda doubt this is possible, in the endeffect there would be this decision to make which of these roles should be given to the Militia.
Possibly we need to ask ourselves the question wether it’s a good idea to have a “trash counter” unit anyways. Cause this can feel very oppressive in these situations where one player just has 1k more Gold to spend and makes 50 champs that can’t really be countered anymore. On the other hand it also revards players for saving Gold to make this kind of plays happen and is a good “game ender” mechanic - making games shorter which are actually alread decided and only would need some more time without that mechanic. I think both perspectives have their truth to them. I would generally lean more towards the game ender perspective but at the same time I would definitely miss the beauty of trash wars. (Though these have become increasingly rare anyways… :frowning: )

87

Sounds like a drawback because you just remove the enemy’s overkill over your units spreading it. Beyond the regen ability, you will suffer much more damage.

88

Don’t think so, the overkill is way less than the damage it needs to bring a single unit down.
The only thing where it can have negative impact is against siege units, like when SO shoot at a bunch of you units. When it’s enough SO to still kill them (even with the damage share), it also leaves all other shieldbearers damaged.
But otherwise in all matchups with single unit damage it woul only enhance the durability of each individual shieldbearer.

89

IDk If I already lsited the Idea.
But there could be one Infantry unit that gives a Gold (Wood/Stone) trickle when attacking enemy buildings.
Pretty much like the current Keshik effect, but instead only applying when attacking buidings.

This would kinda solve the issue of when buffing the militia damage ouput even more against buildings they would just bust through them like siege, giving the opponent no real options to deal with them, as the time would be too short to make enough defensive units. So it would be kind of a “buff vs buildings” without actually taking them down faster.

The trickle needs to be chosen wisely ofc. And ofc to be discussed which unit it should get. It could potentially be the militia line, but then I would actually like to see a small compensatory nerf, so it’s easier to get defencive units out for the defender.
The baseline would then be to make the militia against heavily walled opponents. Whilst the militia might still have issues to break through against repairs and backwalling, they would give some nice value through that ressource trickle and even force the opponent to deal with them at some stage. An interesting strategic tool that naturally would make too greedy approaches punishable without the needs to nerf walls and houses.
Also if it’s a gold trickle it could potentially accelerate already won lategames where one side has a nice gold advantage (eg relics) already. Making some of these militia and hitting some opponent buildings with them would further increase the Gold difference and therefore snowball these games faster.

I think that ressource trickle should be comparably low, like somewhere in between 5-10 G per minute or so. Don’t forget that the opponent needs to repair or backwall and therfore idle villagers and spent res anyways, cause they don’t want them in… And for me it’s still importatn that all units that don’t are explicitely siege should still give more value when attacking the enemy eco than just hitting walls and buildings.
But for that infantry this difference could be comparably close.

90

One other idea I posted a while ago in a different discussion was to give an infantry unit the ability to build “Field Fortifications”.

The Infantry would have a cooldown, so they can’t just be spammed everywhere. Like Walls they would cost some res (prob a bit of stone and wood) and also require some building time. Their cost would probably be significantly higher than that of palisades, like 4 S + 6 W or something like this.

But there would be notable differences:

A) Field Fortifications naturally expire over time

B) They can be placed, built AND passed on/by allied units, but not by enemy units. Meaning you can place a field fortification on the very tile you’re standing on, as long as no enemy unit is on it aswell.

C) They block all enemy projectiles (including mangonel shots) that try to pass over them. But they take damage from these projectiles.

D) Units standing ON the Fortifications don’t take ANY bonus damage

The listed features also imply, that units which stand on the Fortifications can attack/be attacked by melee units of the opponent. Kamayuk and SL theoretically can even attack through the fortifications.
It also implies, that you can build them in proximity to opponent walls. Whiltst your units standing on the fotrtications, they can attack the walls, but can’t be damaged by opponent ranged units trying to defend. Monks defence should work though. Also Mangonels after they destroyed the fortifications with their high damage output.

I think this could make very interesting battle tactics. I tried to give it basically even synergy with the main unit types. Whilst archers might benefit from the blocking of enemy movement, cavalry benefits from the blocking of enemy projectiles and bonus damage.

And for the Infantry itself the ability gives them finally the pretty much needed “disengage” utility they don’t have atm.

I think this is a way better way to tackle the weaknesses of slow melee units rather than adding techs like “Gambesons”. Cause it will require a lot of skill to execute the various tactics. You need to think about when you want to use it, cause there is a cooldown on it. And ofc the opponents can also try various tactics to counteract it. Like trying to cut off your escape route or just trying to bait you into placing the fortifications but then using their army elsewhere anyways. Or ofc trying to use mobile units to block tiles, so you can’t get up a “clean” wall.