As ling as its only elite i could support it, but sgain i dont think its the right way to fix them.
Which means if the teutons player starts massing them in late castle age the players reliant on hand cannnons could still be hit hard in early imp.
True for pretty much every RTS game.
and high food to gold ratio.
Yes, only Elite.
1 Like
Which is good for the late game at least, which is one of the reasons why I believe that if militia and other infantry get buffed to compete with knights and archers they will need a trash weakness.
Could still cause early imp issues though. Not sure.
Unit like Teutonic Knight arenāt supposed to be used in every situation. It has very clear strength and weakness. This unit is weak and even useless in 95% situation but this unit is insane if it used in right situation. This is why that unit canāt be buffed more (It already got several buffs in DE) because it can be broken in some specific situation.
I would say Teutonic Knight after several buffs are already major threat to the civ like Goths/Celts/ Slavs/ Bulgarians. Not just useful in every matchup, but it would be unfair to match vs Teutons for melee focused civ if TK buffed more. Giving more PA should be accompany with other nerf like tone down Melee armor, which might ruin their identity.
1 Like
just jumping in to say no, because they have HCA. but agree on the rest. even if we exclude goth due to HC (their issue is more their eco) it still leaves civs like celts and slavs
like how slowly though? by definition (as many others have pointed out) pros are resistant or ambivalent to change, but very few actually want or even accept it before it happens.
for years now you make these exaggerations. its like you copy paste them. you exaggerate the other personās point of view and then die on the hill denying them
nobody here is saying TK should counter archers. nobody is saying woads should eat archers. just be less hard countered by them
neither is your tech tree argument valid either. so what if the tech tree says X, even when it doesnt. things can change, units dont have to fulful this holy MS ordained role from 20 years ago
whatever method they use, its certainly slow AF
No. They dont. But in order to change that role to something else, balance must be maintained. You cant just make change without considering how to keep it balanced. You want the militia and infantry uu to be better? Fine. Just make sure you ensure the unit is still balanced after. Because dezpire your claim thatā¦
I have literally seen numerous times over the years of psople asking for a gold triangle with cav, archers or infantry, or for infantry to compete with knights and archers. And woads arent hard countered by archers from everything ive seen. Do they lose? Yes. But not newrly as hard as say the militia line or jags, etc does. Youll see ive dven saod id be okay with elite tk getting extra pa as long as it soesnt prove problematic. But hey. Whose exaggerating now? YOU. Heck youll notice most my disagreeing with the op is not over buffing units like the tk or samurai or jag (though i wouldnāt buff them via cost except jag).
But its funny that you can make claims likeā¦
This, when youve been here for less then a year, ban dodger?
What level are you playing at exactly? 800 elo? At any decent level archer UUs are way more common than infantry ones, lol.
Funny when i watch pro gsmds the only archer uu i see commonly is the plume. And i use rhe word commonly loosely. Meanwhile i see woads, obuch, serjeants, throwing axe and berserks a bit
Chukonus and Rattans are very commonly seen though, even in Rise of the Clans we saw them very frequently, moreso than Plumes whenever I watched it really. Of course, that might be the result of also some maps starting with a Castle, but 
Yeah any map that starts wirh a castle for free js going to slant towards uu.
Once you factor in the multiple upgrades required for champions and the typical stats of unique infantry units i dont think itās the cost which needs buffing. Iād say itās stats and creation speed which need the buff.
True. Even before DE, when there was no āSuppliesā, I still saw Champions play mostly against Goths and Eagles, and occasionally against trash.
And I hope devs will never make such a fundamental rock-paper-scissor change.
Iām not necessarily suggesting this change. Just giving an idea how they can be buffed as Mat canāt find any way. I donāt think TK becomes broken unless youāre goths. And all the speed buffs of TK was not that very useful imo. I think if they got the 3 PA, their speed could stay at 0.7 as it was b4 DE. Anyway, Iām happy with no change for them as well.
Instead of giving PA to teutonic knight, I wish to remove 1 PA of Obuch. Obuch is strong vs melee unit , cheap and trained dirt fast.
2 Likes
simply put, many infantry UU are good on paper compared to the counterpart (champion) and the argument here is mostrly about ElitĆØ upgrade, since castle age UU are clearly superior to longswords in many cases.
problem starts when factoring in supllies, that just makes champions more cost-effective and sustenable against everything melee, both cavalry and infantry. For example, for 10 berserker, you can get 14 viking champions. those champions will beat berkerker, while also doing better against anithing else in melee.
yeah berserker are better against archers qith 1.05 speed, but vikings champs have more HP, and against massed archers regenerations serves nothing as it will one-shot you anyway, so itās still a limited advantage.
let alone buildings and eagles
this is the example with the best infantry UU out there (imho). so others have even worse comparison.
so the advantages of infantry UU are just that they are ready to go from the castle, without any upgrade. but again that speaks more about the militia than the UU, merely that itās punishing to tech into militia in terms of cost and time. they have other situational advantages, but are not straight better than militia, while costing 40% more on average.
the cost of those UU was made back in the days where supplies wanāt even a thing. back then they abviously compare much better than militia at 60 food and 20 gold. supplies changed that a lot, but atm buffs to the UU have been pretty limited comparing for their high cost
if berserker for example are good, some of the others have it much worse, but in general the cost is problematic, only in correlation with supplies. maybe there could be an added twist to supplies where it reduces the food cost of a infantry UU by a limited margin (like 5 food), like cavalry archers get from parthian tactics. that way you would get discount only by researching supplies, which is what really makes some infantry UU ineffective compared to mere champions
No. On paper your argument looks good about champs being more cost effective. In reality they have a hard time forcing engagements and take a lot to tech into.
Except the berserkers are faster, actually able to close the gap and your argument ignores the cost of teching to champions vs the cost of techung to elite berserk.
In order for your champions to be better against otbsr stuff in melee rhey have ro avtually br able to engage them.
Keep using your paper math though, meanwhile pros and high lrvel players prefer uu to champ most the timeā¦
yes. militia take a lot to tech into, and i sayd that clearly. i also pointed out that thatās a problem in the militia line that should be somehow changed
again i sayd that, i sayd they are faster, and i also sayd the advantage of infantry UU is that you have not the tech into it. and again thatās more a problem of the militia that have to tech all the way back to dark age and require loads of times and costs, which should be addressed somehow
my paper math is simple tough. champion in much more cost effective in the long term, so if you decide to tech into them early and commit, you are doing better. you also forget that UU require a castle and are much less easier to mass because of that, so you should add the stone cost as well
and again, the change iām proposing is limited and ONLY connected to supplies, so itās not like iām here saying bersekrer are trash and need massive buff, i simply said they should get benefits from supplies since it make militia more efficient, much like bloodlines for cavarly affect UU also and not just knights.
also as others user sayd earlier the argument of āpros are using them so they are goodā itās not as simple
so if/once militia line is āsomehow changedā, they will be better than the UU you are comparing them too. currently this is not the case
age of empires is all about timings, taking ages to tech into unit A, but being able to use unit B faster, gives unit B a huge edge
2 Likes
Or maybe you can let the non militia line units enjoy thd advantage they pay for.
The fact that your argument requires you actually buffing the speed of the militia line to even acthally be a realistic argument should show why your argument is bad.
Do you really think a unit with the militia lines stats would be so cheap if it was fast enough to force engagements?
So now you want to buff militia two ways, despite in your eyes, rhem being better then infantry unique units. So how hard are you going to buff infantry uu if militia got the buffs you want rhem to have?
Except again, in reality your plan doesnt pan out because militia cant force engagements.
Except accoeding to you, youd buff the speed of militia and make them cheaper to tech into, which takes away the advantages of the non militia uu, which at that point means the militia is just going to be better, as its now faster and cheaper to tech into, on top of still being cheaper, so why use infantry uu? Youd have to buff infantry uu again.
Which just shows why your athument is bad.
The fact that you have to buff militia twice just for your atgument to be real, shows why your argument is bad and based only on papwr math with no real game application.
Except they ignoee that the champion has been unchanged for a while (basically de release) and still sees less use then infantry uu.
Exactly. The only way his argument applies is if they can force engagements. Since they cutrently struggle to do this, his atgument isnt realistic and is paper math at best. The fact he has to buff the militia line for his athument to apply shows why it is not a good argument.
Exactly. Mobility is king. And i would gladly pay more for thd woad because of it, among others
Again yhe only ones who straight up i believe need buffs are
TK
Samurai (speed, maybe pa)
Jaguar Warrior (cost)
Iād start with reducing by a big margin the elite upgrade for all the Infantry UU to compensate for Supplies tech
You still need a castle which is expensive in Castle Age and probable you will have two (maybe 3) in each game; and for the upgrade you have to be in Imperial and have a good eco to back it up
itās not like we can leave things problematic as is just becasue it would require further balance. atm, some UU are worse than militia by the sheer fact of supplies existing. even if slightly buffed (cause yeah -5 food is a slight buff), militia would still be more efficient per cost in the long run, would still be better against buildings, and eagles, so it would still have its niche.
if later something different happens, then things should be tweaked accordingly, and anyway itās not like itās gonna happen anytime soon a change like that for militia