hei! so i know this topic has been discussed previosuly but all the thread i could find are from 2020 or so so i bit outdated. simply put: do some UU infantry need a price rework in light of the supplies tech?
with Militia costing less, some UU are kinda expensive in comparison, considering they often time cost more gold to produce, and are not super stronger in every case to begin with, and cannot be spammed in barracks. Obviously the Huskarl is the exception cause it is awesome as is, but others, thinking samurai, woad raider, and such, need help in the cost department? or are just fine?
i think maybe supplies could add a side effect to UU as well but that would be gimmicky as most civs have supplies while not all civs (infact, quite few) have infantry UU, but maybe their cost could be simply reduced by 5 or 10 food, to still be more expensive than militia but at least cheaper than now.
some units would require a deeper loock maybe like the already cheap and spammable karambit, but i merely want to hear the opinion on the forum on this take, since i do believe supplies hitted the UU a bit
I think Infantry UU can be improved a bit through stats not cost. Most infantry UU are overshadowed by champion currently. If you apply supplies to infantry UU, they look more or less the same while requring a castle
Samurai can move a bit faster and maybe +1 PA. Berzerk and jaguar already got 1MA for elite.
Realistically we care about villager time efficiency more than things like absolute costs. But youre right that most infantry UU are very expensive for what they do. For example the jaguar warrior is a pretty soft counter to buffed champions because of its cost.
Ideally this gets fixed by having the ratio of food to gold remain relatively constant but otherwise reducing cost. Or you buff the stats of the unit.
I wouldnt hold your breath though because i dont think the devs have a robust methodology for identifying poorly balanced units. The fact that supplies was implemented without automatically triggering changes to the infantry UUs indicates a lack of modeling regarding how the relationships between units and game balance are related.
E.g. it should be modeled somewhere what the cost effectiveness of the jaguar warrior should be relative to other champs such that any changes to champs trigger recommendations on changes to jaguar warriors. This also works the other way: if the devs change something exogenously it should be to affect these kinds of relationships (cost effectiveness is just one). By writing it down you force yourself to think about how to keep some relationships static while changing others, or which parameters inherently affect multiple relations.
what about serjeant high cost (60/35) or even Woads, or others. most of them have a big disadvantage in needing a castle and already have higher cost than militia line, but they lack the magnitude of the militia bonus vs eagles and buildings, which is good to let the militia have a niche, but are not clearly superior than militia most of the time.
Woads for example are faster yes and have bit more HP than champions, but have less armor, less bonuses, do require a castle, and cost much more (+20/+5), so its a tradeoff, not an upgrade from the base militia in any case.
Even berserk have higher attack than champion and a bit more speed and armor, but less HP, less bonuses, and are not cheap to fully upgrade, and again higher cost (+20/+5)
you already mentioned samurau and jaguar, but there are other examples as well, like the serjeant extremely high gold cost, or meme teutonic knight
imho infantry UU should be generally stronger than militia considering their higher cost and castle requirement, since infantry is already not great in this game unless massed to outnumber opponent cavalry 2 to 1, which is difficult when you need castles. you then can choose to have a superior unit for a higher cost, or the cheaper champion with its niche to be stronger against eagles and buildings
i do not think they are trash or anithing like that, but i think a -10 cost here an there or a litle tweak in stats could go a long way since atm some of them are not clearly superior to champions compared to the cost and the castle requirements
to make a comparison, archer UU are not always seen and used, but surely fairly more often than some infantry UU. they do not alway cost more than generic xbows, or at least, they may cost more resources total but less gold (like 40 gold longbow or 35 chu-ko-nu) or when they cost more, they are clearly superior than generic counterpart in almost every way, like plumed with insane HP and speed, added bonuses, and just 1 less attack base as a tradeoff from arbalest, or rattan with 6 more PA, more speed, more attack.
they egenrally seem less like a trade-off and more like a straight upgrade, that you do not always use aniway not because they are worse than arbalest, but cause are harder to mass because of cost and castle, just like infantry UU, that have more of that “trade-off” feeling instead
Searjants have huge armor advantages that make them excellent tanks.
Woads have insane speed and realistically can’t be buffed too much.
woad is straight upgrade. mobility is king.
berserks are insane and one of the best Infantry UU in the game
TKs problem isn’t cost. but realistically i don’t see a way to safely buff this unit short of maybe reducing its cost, but even then i don’t think it needs it.
not all of them are militia line replacements. pure and simple.
see here is your real problem - you think infantry is supposed to compete with knights and archers, and that is just NOT TRUE. go look at the tech tree and tell me what it says on infantry.
here you go:
Create Woad Raider (6525)
Celtic unique infantry unit. Fast-moving. Strong vs. infantry and siege weapons. Weak vs. archers and cavalry.
oh look. not supposed to fight cavalry.
Create Shotel Warrior (5030)
Ethiopian unique infantry with high attack and fast training speed. Fast-moving. Strong vs. infantry. Weak vs. archers.
oh look. not supposed to be good vs archers or cavalry.
Create Samurai (6030)
Japanese unique infantry unit with fast attack. Strong vs. unique units and infantry. Weak vs. archers.
get the picture? stop assigning roles to units that don’t have that role.
there is NOTHING that says infantry are some sort of gold triangle with archers and knights.
and yet i don’t see you complaining about archer uu or cavalry uu which rarely see use either.
yeah no. in games i watch i see infantry uu more then any other uu in the game. the only archer uu i routinely see are CKN.
meanwhile i see woads, berserks, obuch, and kamayuk as example more often then any other archer unique unit. even more then most cav unique units too. the UU that see most use are Jans (arena mostly), and cav archer types. outside of those? infantry sees more use then most.
and yet how often do we honestly see plumes these days? yeah exactly.
for all you guys complain about infantry unique units, i see them more then most unique units in the game.
if i had to make a top 10 list for uu useage there would be cav archer types and infantry as the mainstay of it.
the point here is wehter or not the stats upgrades from unique units are effective in comparison to the cost. for example, yes a serjeant is tankier than a champion, but cost almost double the price, without even taking into account gold value. is that worth it?
in the same vein, woads are faster and chonkier yes, but do still cost more and have other trade-offs. speed is pretty much their only clearly superior aspect, while still costing 25 more resources, which is like 40% more than a champion
militia line do good in 2 vs 1 against knight line with supplies, while infantry UU do not fare cost effectively in that matchup because their better stats here and there are offsets by tradeoffs and are still more expensive, preventing to have a better mass
and while berserker are probably the best of the pack, they still see little play being very expensive to upgrade and relying much on their regeneration to actually be better than a blank viking champion
infact units i am talking about are those that directly have to stack up against champions in comparison, like woads, bersekrer, serjeant, TK, jaguar, samurai … things like shotel warriors, kamayuks, karambit, obuch, are all very different having unique twists or clearly different design
weak vs archers traslates to weak against cavalry? i don’t see that. also the tooltip is referring to a 1 vs 1 engamenets, which infantry do indeed lose, but again militia is still cost effective against cavalry thanks to supplies, while infantry UU are not
simply because archers UU do not have the same counterpart. there are many cases on paper when you would prefere to have a rattan archer instead of a xbows, then in real games things may be different, but it’s pretty clear on paper that the rattan is stronger in any way than a xbows. this is not the case for infantry, which have harder trade-offs AND have a tech to be made cheapers, which further emphasize the difference
They also require less upgrades, and I laugh at you saying double. maybe 33% more at most (For most of them) but you ignore the advantages those stats give.
and guess what i see more of from celts? woads or LS onwards? woads. so hmmm.
militia line only does good in 2 v1 vs knight line assuming a heck of a lot of investment and the ability to actually force a fight. also a 2 to 1 ratio means your spending a lot more food then your opponent. and i don’t think that could be considered DOING GOOD either.
except clearly all those aren’t militia line replacements.
good luck getting your 2 to 1 engagement. also congrats on outspending your opponent to win. why not just use spear line instead and save a lot more resources? also if infantry is supposed to compete with knights, why does the tech tree say otherwise?
Create Knight (6075)
Powerful all-purpose cavalry. Strong vs. infantry and archers. Weak vs. Pikemen, Camel Riders, and Monks.
I guess i’m the only person required to do research in this debate. meanwhile you give one side huge advantages in resources spent and pretend thats okay.
assuming you outspend your opponent to begin with.
think about it.
men at arms + longsword upgrade + supplies + a 2 to 1 advantage.
except it is pretty clear that most infantry unique units are better then the militia line - depending on what you’re fighting. you just assume they are fighting cavalry only and pretend that is fine while ignoring that literally most infantry aren’t supposed to fight cavalry, and ignore where those units DO excel better then the infantry line.
but hey, you haven’t been honest in the debate yet, only focusing where the militia line is superior, but ignoring where the other units are superior, so why am i not surprised?
i mean lets look at the units you complain about
the serjeant is MUCH better against archers and lower attack units then the militia line ever has a hope of being (and sees a lot of use), also sicilians hardly need buffs.
the woad is great at closing the gap and even very good against siege and forcing engagements, again something the militia line is bad at, but again, something you ignore and complain about.
the jag could use some love probably - but it also belongs to one of the strongest civs in the game and is hard to buff because of that.
the samurai fairs far better then the militia against all unique units.
the TK, since you like to assume militia can actually force engagements, would be far better against knights then the militia line ever has a hope of being.
the berserker is absolutely and one of the best infantry unique units in the game.
but funny how you ignore all those advantages.
and again - let’s ignore that pretty much the knight line is also superior across the board to most cavalry unique units, except in the one area that is said cavalry unique units niche, that you aren’t complaining about either. by the logic you have shown in this thread, you should be complaining up and down about them, but not a peep from you.
yeah my bad, i had a brain fart. probably considered only the food cost after supplies. but even then, it’s 45% more cost (65 total vs 95 total for serjeant), not 33
what matters is that they do not lose or are not cost inefficient compared to total resources, which is far from what you claimed by saying they are supposed to be bad against knight. they might not doing good, but they do not do bad either, it’s a trade, depends how you value gold and food, but it’s a trade, not like they are countered by cavalry.
obviously you can’t force an engagement, but this still is far from what you claimed that they are supposedly trash against knights, and while yes you are outspending food, your opponent is outspending gold. it’s just a longer game but gold is a more valuable resources the longer the game goes
why not? they have the same stat profile they just have some stat bumped up here and there but are clearly modeled on the champion
the fact says otherwise, they are strong in 1 vs 1 as they should, but not outnumbered. infantry tooltip says “all-pourpose” as well, so it should not came as a shock the fact that they can hold their own in melee at least since you already cant force engamenents with speed. also the tooltip are a limited way to read a unit…
oh no, i did not assumed cavalry at all. it’s just a fact that there are trade-offs. vikings berserk have advantages over viking champions, but still cost more, have less HP, have less bonuses, are difficult to mass. this is not underestimating their +1 attack +1 MA and more speed, it’s just pointing out that there are tradeoffs. vikings champions are going to be betetr than berserker against arrows, for example, as well as in other situations. that’s a trade-off
same goes for woads. they are faster yes, but have less MA, less attack. they are better in tanking arrows with 10 more HP, but in melee they are worse with less attack and armor. thats a trade-off
now the wuestion is, is that tradeoff worth a 40% cost increase after supplies? i’m not sure about that
and again, i’m not ignoring advantages, i’m just pointing out trade-offs and asking if they are worth over the cost increase, cause in many cases, this change is not as clear as you claim, but you seem to ignore the disadvantages as well
i never really assumed anithing like that. but you seem to love to assume others assuming things to suite your point so go for it. i merely said militia is more cost effective than UU in melee in total resources, which is just a fact. some UU can fare well as well in melee but again, have big tradeoffs over the generic militia line.
oh and i do not know why you get so salty and toxic against me for just proposing 5/10 resources discount on some unit? you make me seem like i’m some wort of whiner just for saying an opinion. something i do not really appreciate that much i admit
and guess what i see more of from sicilians? serjeants. food for thought.
if they can’t force a fight, how are you even going to take that fight? also again - what you are saying is basically “I spent more and beat them”. congrats you outspent your opponent (somehow, magically), and won. see the issue there? also. why use militia line and barely win, when you could use the spear line and win hands down?
well considering most people value food more then gold…
well for example - the woad has the speed of a knight without husbandry. does that sound like the slow as crap militia?
the serjeant is incredibly tanky, does that sound like the militia line? the serjeant is the one i would compare the most to the militia line and that is designed to be a veritable tank, and actually sees use.
go show me this mythical real game situation at the pro level where we are seeing 2 to 1 odds of militia against the knight line.
all your comparisons so far for how they fair in combat are against the cavalry only.
i could say this of almost every unique unit in the game. especially among cavalry units. but i don’t see you complaining about those.
really? vikings berserks are also faster then champs, which means they are going to close the gap against archers better then champions will ever do. did you factor that into your equation? that said, i wouldn’t bloody use either against archers.
and that means you have situations where both are viable and usable. but guess which i see used more? the woad. hmmm.
you could say the same thing about cavalry unique units, but i don’t see you making a thread about those.
actually you did, when you said that militia win 2 to 1. which is only true if they actually engage for one.
and your problem is that you neglect the ability for the militia to force those engagements. why do you think civs prefer to use the knight against the eagle as opposed to the militia line despite the militia line being much more cost effective in those engagements? real game application.
I’m not salty or toxic, your argument just makes no sense and relies completely on hypotheticals and paper math but ignores what actually happens in the game, I’m just against buffing units like this that don’t need it. for all your complaining about these I see a good chunk of these units more then i see the corresponding civ use the militia line (woads, berserks, serjeants). That should be something for you to think about.
Especially when you neglect all the other units that this is also true about. (compare most cavalry unique units to the knight line, for example).
I agree swordsman line should be weak to archer and cavalry. But I think its fine for some infantry UU to fight better against either archer or cavalry. Otherwise, they look more or less the same as militia line.
For japanese, they dont have last cavalry armor. Imo, its fine for samurai to have faster speed to fight slightly better against archer. Elite Jaguar and berzerk at least gain +1 MA against melee units compared to regular counterpart.
nope, i spent the same (LESS infact) and beat them. 10 militia-line with suplies costs 450 food and 200 gold (total 650) and trade on par with 5 knights with bloodlines which costs 300 food and 375 gold (675 total). wheter it was cost efefctive or not depends entirely on the situation on the battlefield, but you are definilty not paying more than your opponent. infact you pay less, even wiuthout considering cost difference between supplies and bloodlines
in castle age yes, after that you know food does not matter nearly as much as gold
all i’m saying is that i’m not sure those advantages are worth 40/45% more cost also considering the others tradeoff.
it was merely an example to show that militia can do something UU can’t, which was interesting to point out to me since i’m talking about cost effectiveness, not that i want infantry to be better than cavalry. that’s entirely your assumption. also i mentioned advantages and disadvantages against arrows as well. and again, my point is still that i’m not sure the advantages of some infantry UU are worth that much more cost considering the disadvantages
cause this post is about frikking infantry. why i need to complain about something that is not on the topic? and to your knowledge, cavarly UU are often time much more clearly stronger than their counterpart. A boyars cost more than a knight, but it’s clearly superior than a knight in all aspect except 0.05 speed. A leitis is not clearly superior than a knights in every situation, and infact it costs overall less.
which is why the discount i’m proposing is very limited to like 5 food cost. also you see them more also because militia line is bad to tech into later, while UU are easier, but that more of a fault of the militia line which should be looked at, the transition cost and time.
again, who hurted you? i opened a thread about infantry, why i would talk about cavalry UU in detail here? maybe i’ll do in a later thread. but that’s just saying “hey let’s not talk about war in ukraine since there are other wars in the world”
nope. i merely sayd in a perfect situation, they are more cost effective than infantry UU. of course wether or not that situation is going to happen in a game is an entirely different story, but doesn’t change the fact that infantry UU are not capable of doying that
to my point of wiev i could say your argument does not make sense, but you do not see me disregarding your opinion with a toxic attitude.
Infantry UU are buffed in previous patch and I think most of Infantry UU is in a decent spot. Even Obuch are too cheap compared to its strength. They need slight cost increase for balance.
I think only infantry UU that need buff is Samurai. They can’t perform well against most of good UU because simply cannot chasing archer/Cav archer UU.
I consider about just leaving Samurai as niche use, and giving Japanese another archer UU have slight bonus damage vs UU.
and there are some who do that. the kamayuk, berserks are for example obviously better against cavalry.
woads, serjeants, and huskarls are all obviously better against archers.
I have no issues with units having niches. i have all sorts of problems with pandas argument because he’s comparing the one area where militia is better, and it’s completely based on hypotheticals and actual game use shows us that these units all see more use.
now throw in the men at arms and longsword upgrade.
except you ignore the cost of the upgrades associated with the infantry units.
considering that we see people use knights over militia against eagles despite militia being much more cost evffective, i’m gonna say yes, mobility is worth it.
and the knight does better against archers then most cavalry unique units, but i don’t see you making threads about that?
why single out infantry though if the argument could be used for non infantry though? makes no sense.
you’re the one who made the topic - why complain about what is true for more then just infantry but select only infantry to complain about it? it makes you look biased as hell.
yeah a boyar is inferior vs archers.
except it costs more food and has a huge archer weakness. also compared to a lot of cav uu its training time is high.
except if they are more used then the unit you are comparing them too, why do they need a buff? your argument makes no sense.
because the same argument you make about infantry applies to cavalry, but you’re only complaining about one. it makes you appear biased as hell in your argument and omitting facts.
i’m not being toxic - you’re the one using hypothetical and paper argument to argue for units to be buffed that see more use then the unit you are comparing them too. that to me appears incredibly dishonest.
Think about it - the pros and other good players are willing to pay the higher cost for these over going for the militia line, the unit you are comparing it too, they clearly think the unit is worth it. thus there is no justification for buffing them.
It depends on scale. In small scale, swordsman can win with double number. In large scale, swordsman cant win with 2:1 ratio. Swordsmen are slower and hence walk slower to the next target while knight move much faster.
But I guess no one will forget pikes to fight cavalry. So why compare militia and UU capability of fighting cavalry?