Base cost of militia-line change to 20F/45G. Supplies makes cost become 45F/20G and no longer a prerequisite for gambeson. Arson auto applied to m@a in feudal. Thoughts?
What does this solve exactly?
3 Likes
Makes sword Line even less viable for civs without supplies in late game
5 Likes
Generally this kind of concept can definitely bring some life in that line.
It’s mostly because the line would be more affordable in the early game as you would need way less farms.
And as said, in the lategame civs lackin supplies wouldn’t be able to spam them.
i personally would though prefer an addition of a new gold intensive infatnry unit. Something kinda similar to the warrior priest (which seems to work despite being definitely overtuned in the midgame).
The main reason for that is that the current militia line has no trash counter and is therefor unterdeveloped and can’t fill the requirements for a midgame powerunit.
With underdeveloped I also refer to lacking a “microable” utility. Something like the range or mobility of the well known power units.
1 Like
Make feudal m@a and castle age LS pose less burden on eco while you need food for villagers.
Gambeson independent of supplies to give more flexibility to adjust infantry civs with further buff of militia line.
Arson auto apply should be fine
True. I am wondering whether this a big matter for those civs.
Among the civs lacking supplies, there are 3 infantry civs, Goths, Incas and Romans. Goths will be severely affected. Maybe just give supplies to Goths.
So you want to remove militia rush and MAA rush from the game?
A 2 miltiia rush would be very easily affordable then, you just would delay loom to feudal.
Only if you want to make more you had to place an early mining camp.
MAA would possibly a bit delayed cause you’d need that mining camp, but as the lin itself would be cheaper in the long run it would be more affordable and you could more easily add additional maa.
So I don’t see why this change would kill these rushes, they just would be different.
I wouldn’t open the barrell of the various civs with bonusses. Ofc some of these bonusses would need an adaptation, but for the sake of the discussion it would be better if we stay in the “standard” civ interactions.
Civ bonusses can be easily adjusted and won’t be an issue. Like when I see this I would just adjust goths Infnatry bonus to 10/20/30/40 % and they should be fine, even without supplies.
3 Likes
I totally support this. I have been proposing milita cost swapping for a long time.
Agree with supplies being no longer a prerequisite for gambesons too.
The only thing I disagree is with arson merged with MAA upgrade. I think it is the opposite, arson should be buffed, moved to feudal and rebalance availability.
Sorry for the spam, but this is how I think barracks techs should be:
Feudal Age: Arson (+3 vs Standar building) - Squires
Castle Age: Gambesons (+2 PA) - Siegecrafting (able militia build rams and siege towers) - Shieldwall (+2 Melee armor)
Imperial Age: Supplies (as you proposed) - Professionalization (Militia takes -20% pop space)
A total availability rebalance is required.
For example, Goths should lack Arson, Gambesons, Shieldwall, supplies but could have Professionalization for free.
Celts lacks squires, arson, shieldwall and Professionalization, but gets Siegecrafting for free.
Etc…
1 Like
A better and simpler solution is to just have another Supplies tech in imperial age which lowers cost from 45F 20G to 25F 20G. You need Supplies first to unlock it obviously.
But this doesn’t address the early game problem of militia Line.
1 Like
Militia-line is fine. It’s maybe a bit niche, and cannot be used in every game, but when the situation calls for it, they are quite good and certainly do not need buffs. Similar to cav archers actually in this sense.
I’ve recently made good experiences with 1-tc longsword pushes in castle age. At least at my ELO range (around 1400-1500), it works more often than not. Excellent for maps like hideout, but even on relatively open ones like runestones.
I doubt anyone will waste wood on mining camp that early instead of directly going to Feudal.
Will be very risky to lose villagers against opponent starting scout.
And I don’t see why anyone will make militia…until some meta establishes which may take couple of years.
I made experience too, and went from 1300 to 1500 elo using infantry. But I say that it is everything except fine. IMO it works only because nobody expects full infantry, and the reason is because infantry sucks 11
If u go over 1500 elo, you struggle more. I had a peak at 1650 elo, but when micro start to make a difference, infantry is harder to manage (and pathing is terrible).
But real point is: the only way to use infantry is going all-in, hoping that the opponent doesn’t do the same with another army composition, since infantry cannot keep up with an All-in cavalry or Xbow strategy. To counter a 3 stable or archery production you need like 5 barracks, and you can’t have it with an early castle pre-boom economy.
On the other hand, you can produce from 3 stables, and even more easily from 3 ranges, just after going castle age.
https://aoe2-de-tools.herokuapp.com/villagers-required/
5 barrack production with supplies requires 45 vills
3 stable production requires 38 vills
3 ranges production requires 22 vills
4 Likes
these numbers involve constant villager productoin as well, don’t they? because if you’re willing to ditch villager production, the numbers are lower. this is significant if you’re going for double or triple barracks in feudal.
But if 2 militia rush succeed, you can delay their aging up and scout rush.
Besides, I suggested to lower villager melee by 1 to make militia rush more rewarding and combine scout into eagle armor and m@a would have slight edge then
This is still the range where optimizated builds have huge advantages over micro intensive units.
So I’m not surprised you can have a lot of success there with ANY unit type when you found a good civ and setup for it. And a way to deal with the standard rushes of the opponent ofc.
You can have the same success with mayan/ethipian archers or mongol/khmer scouts there.
But at higher levels it becomes increasingly difficult, especially as there everybody plays these super optimized builds with the standard openers AND has decent micro to utilize these units. Then it becomes very difficult to find success with non-meta units, if they aren’t sleeper OP.
1 Like
Paying for an upgrade to just swap the cost for a generic unit is bad. Even though it makes militia line a bit easier to produce in the earlier stages, it still doesn’t make them very useful because of their poor speed and upgrade costs. Also causes some imbalance against Dravidians and Slavs whose bonus of supplies being free or cheap becomes nearly irrelevant.
Tbh with you, I strongly feel Drush, especially 2 militia Drush, has become not useful now. People are very good at countering Drush in almost all levels imho. Also militia can’t beat a loom villager in one to one. Granted there will be at least 3 military units - scout+2 militia, there will be multiple villagers as well.
I think militia line needs more HP instead. Generic HP should be same as current Vikings HP if not higher. Then remove Supplies+Arson and Arson is free for gold infantries, maybe excluding Eagle.
2
Will lose to 2 range archer in feudal anyway. 3 range archer needs 17 villagers, 2 barrack militia needs 23/19 before/after supplies.
2 Likes
Actually agree. The low HP is an issue, especially against Siege.
We see with Vikings and Fereters how much of a difference in Viabilty that makes. Also with various UU infantry like warrior priests and condos.
6 Likes