Which thread though? Every thread of mine has a specific theme to it. Buffing champions is totally different to this one. That one was specifically about making champions like paladins.
11
Okay, which civs would/could get this tech (pop cap)?
Well, one of the big reasons infantry falls off in the lategame is because of how poorly they scale in large numbers. Adding an extra 20-30 infantry in the back does very little when the front is just getting hammered by mangonel fire or arrows or scorpion fire or splash damage. Having 2 champions isnât equal to having one paladin. Extra numbers does little without the capability to apply it effectively.
You have to remember, the Goth swarm only really works because of all the factors combined; not just the 10 extra units, but also 2.4x speed barracks to keep those numbers up, massively cheaper units to make it affordable, extra bonus building damage to beat down buildings, and of course, huskarls to deal with the weaknesses it still has.
Basically the only use case I can envision is in big team game setups where you have time to completely max out your armies before smacking them together. But even in that case, should we really want the swarm of infantry to beat the swarm of war elephants? Thatâs exactly the place where the war elephants should win.
This kinda feels like the 2x pop space elephant idea, just reversed. But ultimately, population efficiency should be a meaningful factor.
Iâd be more inclined to go for a tech thatâs something like, âThe first 10 infantry take no population capacityâ. That would give much more potential utility at multiple stages of the game, especially since it would be applicable not just in the extreme lategame, but even in the earliest parts of the game, where being housed is still an issue.
This isnât even true. You said 3 things, out of which 1 is not like the other. Infantry absolutely can deal with arrow fire in large numbers. If you have 1.5 champions for every arb, your arb will lose unless you run into a castle or something. The other two does splash damage. Meaning, numbers donât matter. However, archers only attack one unit at a time.
Also, hold on. The notion that infantry doesnât scale in numbers is ridiculous. Sure, Onagers(and scorpions) do area of effect, so thatâs an issue. But you think you can handle 120 champions with like 60 of any other unit (barring cav archers with perfect micro, war elephants, or specialists like cataphracts)? Or berserks, urumis, or even woads? Thatâs ridiculous.
I already addressed siege. You have your own siege, mainly BBC. Mangonels or scorpions will be handled by your own siege.
What? No. War elephants already lose to halbs in resource efficiency. Where war elephants should win is against cavalry and archers. They should lose to infantry, just because infantry can swarm them. Thatâs the whole infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats archers and archers beat infantry trifecta.
Sure, but their infantry is also kinda weak, because they lack the last armour. But if you can afford more units, you shouldnât need to replenish them as quickly. Infantry is quickly made is just a stand in for you can have them active more often.
Also, team games and closed maps. You are missing that part.
All infantry civs. Goths would require a bit of an adjustment. Archers civs should get it too. There is a bit of a balance with the rest, but I cannot address 43 civs here.
It absolutely is. Even in circumstances where they outnumber their enemies significantly, infantry fail. Thereâs a reason Goths donât JUST have extra numbers OR production speed OR cheaper units OR huskarls; they have all four, and need all four just to be balanced. The niche you imagine does not exist.
I forgot you were including halbs in this idea, probably because itâs a terrible idea; Halbs already counter elephants more than hard enough. Elephants are bad enough already, the last thing they need is to be useless even in their wheelhouse.
Thatâs not how it works. Units die. The only case your tech would work is in a single, big, all-in push that completely overwhelms your enemy before it can be depleted. And infantry die far too easily for that to ever work. Even with 33% more infantry, youâre looking at something like 1/6th as much HP as an army of war elephants, and even that can be stopped with sufficient production capacity.
I just donât see this tech making the game any better. Try something else. Perhaps a tech for faster production for the militia line.
Which is fighting against infantry? What are you talking about? Elephants are good against cavalry, archers and siege (except scorpions). Late game elephants are nearly unstoppable. You just canât reach there in 1v1s.
I donât know what to tell you, you are just totally and completely wrong. Not just wrong, so insanely wrong that I donât think you play infantry at all. I donât see a point in this. Go play full infantry for like 10 games. Or talk to infantry players in the community.
Oh, there is an easier option. Play CBA games with infantry civs. Vikings, Japanese, Dravidians or Malay should be good.
I am mostly referring to TGs as well.
For open maps (e.g. Arabia, Atacama), most games does not really go (full team)-pop caps - most of the thems either side is crushed and rest of the time usually who destroys the trade carts wins - infantries are definitely really bad at trade carts.
For closed maps, I am not sure if champions are good against siege - in fact, I think siege (scrop+mango) counters infantry, infantry counters paladin and paladin counters (kinda, unfortunately) siege.
That means only halbs are kinda buffed - not sure if that is the most meannigful thing to buff (and bearly change anything, as sieges are basically OP at closed maps).
More infantries would just stuck in the choke point and destructed together.
UmâŠno. Elephants are definitely not good against siege, except in very small numbers. Get even a handful of onagers and elephants die hard. And elephants are only decent against cavalry and archers when absurdly massed, but the counter to that already exists in Halbs, which do perfectly decently already, and donât need any more help.
The only thing that needs help is the militia line; I donât see why youâre trying to solve a problem that doesnât exist.
No, youâre wrong. Youâre using civs with powerful infantry bonuses to represent the average. Every single one of those civs has some bonus that makes them dramatically cheaper or more powerful than average, and that, obviously, changes the dynamics for that civ in particular.
The tech you propose would make those civs in particular dramatically overpowered, while leaving infantry completely useless for every other civ.
Itâs just not a well balanced idea.
1 Like
What you are saying is true, except if you can totally push into one playerâs eco and take it over. Map control is just as important. Also, if you can afford just more of infantry, one player can push with that, while another raids. Not everyone has to do the same thing.
Yeah, but scorp+mangonel are countered by BBC, and most infantry civs get BBC. Paladin can counter siege only if it can get to siege.
This depends on the type of closed map. Black forest? You are correct. Arena? Fortress? Michi? Thereâs enough open space so that they donât stuck in choke points.
Nothing is good against 30 SOs with halbs for support. Even your precious paladins will hard die. Elephants can withstand 2 more SO shots than any cavalry, which makes them pretty good.
Elephants arenât just more tanky, they also do trample damage. Meaning, Elite Battle elephants can damage multiple siege weapons when they are up close. This is insanely dangerous to even medium number of SOs. The only challenge is getting up close. It is a bit tricky, but totally possible for all elephant civs with husbandry.
Also, this is side point you are taking because you canât address the main one. Elephants destroy archers, cavalry and siege. Camels are useless against EBEs. So, if anything, it will be good that infantry counter them.
Go play infantry. Or show me your profile which shows that you play a lot of infantry. You said something so ridiculous that I donât trust your opinion on this, sorry. I am not going to continue this, considering how different the foundational understandings are. If you have played enough infantry and you hold this position, I can at least respect it. But as is, no. Just no.
I didnât say 30 SOs. I said a handful. That means something like 5.
I disagree with your basic assumptions. Halbs are fine as-is.
Again, you are using powerful infantry civs to represent the average. Unless you can demonstrate how this bonus will be both good for normal civs AND not overpowered for powerful infantry civs, this suggestion isnât very good.
Honestly, I think youâre a bit too focused on changing population efficiency, and I canât help but feel you have a constant hate for elephant units, which might be biasing your opinions.
1 Like
Alright. Move on.
This is silly. I love elephants. Look through my history.
Okay, you donât play elephants either. Go try that. Donât even make it resource equal. Say, 20% less on the elephant side. Then, micro properly.
In exchange for them being way stronger than they are now. Not for the current battle elephants/elephant archers.
You have persistently wanted them to take 2 population capacity, if I recall correctly. Nobody who likes them could want that.
Nobody makes pure champions vs cavalry, thatâs not what theyâre designed for. If only there was a specific infantry unit you could mix in with champions which was designed to be a hard counter to Paladin and Elite Elephants⊠oh waitâŠ
Champions are an anti-eagle / anti-building unit which are supposed to be protected with other units, e.g. hidden inside rams or with skirmishers or onagers if enemy has ranged units.
Also what game are you playing where you have infinite resources? Whatâs the point of speculating about unrealistic situations?
1 Like
Sorry. I thought you opened up this thread
1 Like
Yeah, anyone whoâs played closed maps would know that Elephants fall over to Halb + Siege combo, where you donât even need to have 30 SOs behind. Elephants move too slowly that you can easily fit in 2-3 shots of the same group of 5 SOs and flatten the Elephants, anyone else gets eaten by the Halberdiers.
Funnily enough, I would say Elephant Archers stand a better chance against SOs, as they can deal with Halberdiers and snipe any lone SOs. Of course, larger number of SOs (more than say, 3-5) and Elephant Archers go to heaven too. 11
(As for the topic at hand, I donât think the tech will solve problems with the Champion. I think they could just use some armor buff, especially for melee armor. Theyâll stay vulnerable to Archers due to speed, but Knights wonât be as effective against them.)
1 Like
If only halbs countered Paladins 1v1. Afterall, skirms counter archers 1v2. Hmm. if only there was a solution⊠oh wait⊠It almost feels like pop efficiency is a thing in this game.
Now you want to treat champions as a protected unit? Bro, what? Champions are supposed to be a cheap, general purpose unit. What is next, you want to treat knights as a protected unit? What is not a protected unit, then?
Also, who tf makes champions to destroy buildings except goths? I seriously want to know. Tell me, how many games have you played where you have destroyed castles with champions instead of trebs/BBCs? What fraction? Let me see your profile. I want to know this now.
I am going to demand this from every player who says âChampions are supposed to counter buildingsâ. When was the last time you made champions to counter buildings? How often have you done it?
This is why Iâd be more inclined towards an infantry production speed bonus. Cavalry are highly population efficient by design. If thatâs a problem, you fix it in other ways, you donât weaken the core design.
Nobody denies that champions are not in a great state right now; weâre talking about what they should be, not what they are.
How about adding Attack Delay to all cavalry. This idea is like the battling power of giving 1 attack range to infantry but it will not affect the current uniqueness of Kamayuk
Yeah, and the population efficiency is the same. Also, that is nonsense imo. All units need to have somewhat similar pop efficiency, at least in some common situations, especially in late game.
Not having this is alright in 1v1s open maps. Devs are stuck on that. But non-pop efficient units become useless in team games.
This sort of lack of balance is also why death match games are usually played as mirror matches. Death match games are widely unbalanced and in some matchups, almost unwinnable.
You might be, but he is not. What he said is just nonsense. Nothing more to it.
Also, if you donât like this idea, thatâs fine. If you plan to buff infantry in some other way, thatâs okay. This is just what I want.
Might be interesting, but cavalry players are never going to agree to something like that.
True, tho I donât think a 0.75 bonus would help much in this regard
Your change does not help any of the civ to get BBC, so it is only true that BBC counters siege - and tons of non infantry civs get BBC too.
In fact, quite a ton of infantry civ do not get BBC.
Michi is kinda like black forest.
Fortress is kinda like arabia with castle age start actually.
Arena is somehow true, but I donât think people go pop cap with Arena.
1 Like