Infantry and Barracks lack varieties compared to other military units and building

Teutonic Knight shows that tankish infantry units are very situational.

If tankish, it means slow and it means very situational.

For comparison, all units from stable are useful in general.

So if they add a third generic infantry units, it should be, according to me a light unit with high mobility like eagle of gulham but without the pierce armor bonus. An alternative for raids without dying againt spear line.

Slightly better than spear line but dying vs archers, other infantry and doind bad vs buildings. Maybe a unit with a dagger without shield.

Those would be the revised Assault Infantry (or HP/Armor buffed Militia-line), which are expensive melee units with that can beat most units and have good melee/piercing armor. That being said, “tankish” here means that they have a speed of 0.96-1 (about archer speed), as otherwise they would be whittled away too quickly by massed archers. Furthermore, outside of UUs, I don’t think an anti-infantry infantry is a good idea (who uses the Jaguar Warriors anyways?)

Sort of disagree with the Teutonic Knight part. The issue with the Teutonic Knight is that it is the wrong type of tanky. If Teutonic Knights have 3 (normal) or 4 (elite) Pierce Armor they would be terrifying. However, the current situation is that they are slow and only have good melee armor, which means that they will die to anything ranged, and cannot catch up to anything melee.

Agree on the third generic infantry unit. A fast infantry unit (pseudo cavalry) is definitely something that is missing in the current barrack roster. As a balance to them not taking bonus damage from spears, these units should have relatively low pierce armor. Furthermore, we can then have a fast, high melee armor fast infantry as a Regional or Secondary UU in the game.

As a rule of thumb for game balance and unit viability, slow units needs higher pierce armor, while fast units needs more melee armor. The fact that the militia-line and most infantry UU have rather poor Pierce Armor is probably a cause of the underuse of infantry.

2 Likes

With the nowaday meta, I agree with you, but if you add more infantry units, I asume this will promote more infantry presence in general… so, adding another generic counter (not an UU), would be a good addition, I think.

The Eastern Swordsman looks more like a ME unit.

Agree. If infantry are buffed sufficiently to become valid power units, then anti-infantry infantry may become more valid.

Amusingly, I think the best tanky anti-infantry infantry would be … Pikeman. Note that I don’t mean the current Pikeman, but more like a weaker Kamayuk. Individually, these units would be relatively poor, with high HP, low armor, low speed, and low (ranged) melee damage. When massed, their ranged melee attack would deal a lot of damage against infantry (and cavalry even without anti-cav bonus) so long as they hold their formation.

Obviously, they would be countered by archers and siege, and any melee unit that deals splash damage. But then you can bring your own archers and siege (simulate pike-and-shot), or your own cavalry (to create a melee rush army).

edit: I may have went a little off the OP but, it is still technically related. (I can delete this if need be.)

Hmm… Thinks

The only idea I could think of would be either a ‘rogue’ unit with a dagger that is fast and maybe have sneak attacks… I have other ideas but, most UU already serve that role.

Ex: Mace, Axe, Scimitar, etc…

The only other melee weapons that comes to mind is/are the Quarterstaff, Sai, Numchucks, and Scythe. (Don’t think those are in the same time frame. Except maybe the Quarterstaff. I think… Similar to a Spear.)

edit: Oh, there is also the Rapier for Dueling.

edit: Well, there is also the Whip… Although again, UU.

edit: And if you want to stretch it to it’s limits, there is always Fists/Kicks. :wink:

Its not used by any UU yet.bulgarian uu has a flail and milita has a club.

1 Like

Yeah I was aware it was a flail. I was thinking Warrior Monk but, it seems that is a hammer. (don’t own the dlc.) Thanks for pointing that out.

edit: (checks in editor) Oh, that’s an axe. XD It’s hard to tell.

oK, now this have more logic for me.
When I think in a counter-infantry infantry unit i think in something like the shieldman i mention here: Soft Barracks Rework - #19 by Martinurello

In resume, soldiers with a huge shield and a short spear. Not specially high HP but very high melee armor, Mid/high PA and bonus vs infantry. It could share the spearman armor class with pike-line, sharing the same counters.

No, I don’t think so. You will still choose your main unit according to your strategy. For example, if it is archer+skirms or knight+camel, usually you don’t go for all upgrades for both units. You commit for just one of them.

2 vague ideas of infantry units:

A front line “villager”: an infantry unit that can repair siege units and build palisade walls/outposts. They would have bonus damage and/or resistance against sieges. The unit would probably be weak in terms of attack.

A unit with trampling damage: to give another option to fight multiple units other than using onagers and a few UU/unique techs. It could be a regional unit with variations depending on the region.

Slavs already have this.

That would be a villager with sapper researched.

Going off on a tangent (away from the infantry diversity issue), it would be interesting to have a dichotomous sedentary/nomadic villager improvement tech in the Imperial Age based on the civ history (stereotype). For example:

  • the villagers of the Chinese, a sedentary civ, should have a tech that improves their (non-wall) fortification building and repair rate, and damage vs building.
  • the viilagers of the Mongols, a nomadic civ, should have a tech that improves their movement speed, LOS, HP, and attack.

These techs should not be anything to powerful, but could make the game more diverse in the late game.

The Slavs already do this with Druzhina. That being said, it would be a good idea to make splash-damage available to the current Champion-line for some civs (within reason, otherwise we would have the Urumi problem). As for Druzhina, maybe have it give a Shrivamsha-like arrow dodging/blocking abilities instead. Of course, this is would affect the game balance in unpredictable ways, but it is an option.

That could also be an idea. The only issue I see is that the unit is a bit too good. if the unit is tanky, can beat other infantry, and costs only food-and-wood, is it not just a better Champion? Both are moderately weak to cavalry, but only the Champion is weak to archers. But if we decrease the pierce armour of the shieldman, then it does not fit the shielded identity of the unit.

That being said, the shieldman could be general (gold costing) defensive infantry. The game currently does not have a high-defense low-attack infantry in the game (which is very weird, given that shielded infantry are the primary holding force for many civilizations in history). Given that currently, the one of the counters to massed archers is to park a ram ahead of your army to draw fire, deploying a line of shieldman instead would be a much more realistic option.

I’d like to see a fast cheap trash unit for raiding which is created quickly and specialises in killing villagers fast in only a few hits but has low pierce and melee armour, so it dies quickly to pretty much everything except villagers. Also does OK vs. non-garrisoned buildings with Arson researched. Would help civs who don’t have light cav for raiding or have really weak light cav.

Maybe rename the Vikings as Danes, and have a pillaging unit called Viking (take the Eagle Warrior slot in the barrack) starting in Feudal Age? This would be historically more accurate than their current free wheelbarrow advantage. They would have to fight for their economic advantage, meaning on land maps they are far more reliant on raiding than other civs, while on water maps, they have an actual reasons to build transports and go coastal raiding.

Renaming the Vikings to the Norse would be much better, if this civilisation is going to keep its Viking identity. The Danes weren’t the only ones who were Vikings.

Not really sure if the Vikings need their own counterpart of the [Eagle Warrior], but the [Huskarl] could be turned into a regional unit for both the Goths and the Vikings, since they were warriors from Scandinavia. The Goths could get another unique unit that will serve as a replacement for the Huskarl becoming a regional unit.

Perhaps the Goths could get the Gardingi as an unique cavalry unit for them, though they were apparently elite warriors of the Visigoths and not for the Ostrogoths.

1 Like

I have a felling about how infantry speed was decided in 1999 during game development.

We have
Spearman at a speed of 1.00
Light cavalry at a speed of 1.50 which is 50% faster than spearman.
Heavy cavalry aka Knight at a speed of 1.35 which is 10% slower than light cavalry.
Hence heavy infantry aka Militia line will be 10% slower than light infantry aka spearman.
So Light Cavalry is 50% faster than Light Infantry, Heavy Cavalry is 50% faster than Heavy Infantry, both Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry is 10% slower than their light unit type.

2 Likes

Sure. I think both Norse and Danes works. I wonder if there is an umbrella term for these two. (I can see why Viking is chosen here. Maybe we can just call the unit Pillager?)

I would actually be more in favour of letting the Vikings have the Huskarl, and give the Goths two new unique unit: Gardingi (Visigoth Retinue) and Falxman (Ostrogothic Thracian Warriors). While the Goths originated from Scandinavia, by the start of the game (Hunnic Invasion or Fall of Rome), the most famous Gothic “states” were the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths.

1 Like

Right. For some reason, variety means change the horse. And infantries role was never defined to begin with.

I think you’re asking too much. Right now a regional variety in Militia line upgrade will be enough. Let’s take one step at a time.

I’m unsure if there is an umbrella term that refers to all of the people who hail from Northern Europe. The term “Scandinavia” only denotes Norway, Sweden and Denmark and not Iceland and the Faroe islanders who are also descendants of the Norse. Another term that is called “Norden” denotes Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland but also includes Finland as well (The Faroe islanders are not included in this term either).

The Vikings did apparently have two types of shock infantry that is the Berserker, which is already in the game, and the Ulfhednar so maybe they could be this Pillager unit for the Vikings if they so need it.

A more simple solution would be to just make the [Berserk] unit more similar to the [Eagle Warrior] and where they could be available during the Feudal Age. The [Beserk] unit could also be renamed in the future to [Berserker] instead since “Berserk” is only an adjective and it doesn’t refer to the actual warrior but only the state of one’s mind. The horns on the helmet of the Berserk could also be removed.