Let's talk about infantry civs

Infantry has been slightly improved with Gambeson, but it must be qualified:

New civilizations (recent DLC), with the exception of Romans (that have cheap scorpions), Poles and Sicilians, have access to either hand- cannoneers or ranged infantry units that melt away any infantry. Sometime both like Gurjars (HC + Shakrams).

Infantry civilizations still defend well in 1V1. But when it comes to 4V4, things start to get very complicated. Especially on closed maps.

When you get Aztecs on Black Forest, there’s a good chance you’ll end up with a last score.

Is anything planned to see more infantry in team games on closed maps? Boost pierce armor? Increase the capacity of rams? Improve the Militia line? Better bonus on walls/buildings on early game ?

I don’t know exactly what to suggest, but it’s a shame that infantry is so bad.

2 Likes

Aztecs are not even bad on BF…it has siege engineer, siege onager, eagles, super monks…they are quite good

3 Likes

On 1V1 yes. Still one of the top tiers civ.

Apart from eagles and huskarls, infantry does badly on team games because at least one enemy player will always have arbalest or similar high DPS units. You can’t really balance that without making ranged units useless or infantry OP.

3 Likes

Before Infantry did the job because they were less civs with counter. Now when you play random and you get an infantry civ, there is more probability to play againt a civs with counter.

Would be good if new DLC would offer news civs with less infantry counter.

Aztecs aren’t top tier on BF due to being a Meso civ, but probably out of all Meso civs are the best, having Siege Onager with Siege Engineers and a very strong smush definitely gives them options and use throughout the game.

IDK about closed map 1v1s, but in team games you do see Champions pretty often. Gambesons makes them relatively resistant so you can flood Infantry in, and generally you have your own Siege behind it to counter enemy ranged units with.

Can you list your “infantry civilizations”. I think nearly every civ with strong infantry also has strong archers or strong cavalry (except for Celts and Goths).

  • archers: Dravidians, Japanese, Vikings, Aztecs, Incas, Sicilians
  • cavarly: Malians, Slavs, Teutons, Bulgarians, Sicilians

I do not list civs like Malays and Burmese because officially they are not

You say that infantry civs defend well in 1v1, but actually, they only defend well because they use cavalry or archers, not because of going LS into 2HS.

In 4v4, it is probably the same. It is archers+knights for open land maps and siege+knights+monks+UU

We arent devs, we dont know. But if I had to guess, probably nothing is planned for champions in team games. AFAIK the devs havent reworked any unit yet, and the description of Champions states “strong against buildings and trash units”. And trash units in team games arent a thing…

i am not a BF expert, but since Aztecs got SO+SE and 95hp monks and eagles (for raids), they shouldnt be that bad, as long as your teammate complements you. 4 Aztecs may be bad, but 1 Aztecs + 3 non meso should not be bad against 4 average non meso civs (average = you are not against Celts+Mongols+Turks+Bohemians)

2 Likes

Incas say hello.

20 characters.

1 Like

Incas aren’t that strong on BF - and I say this as a die-hard Incas fan - because they die too hard to enemy Siege or gunpowder. Which is generally what you tend to see very often on BF.

Your monk play also gets shut down by any civ with Atonement, and Kamayuks are a nice power unit, but also die to strong Infantry (Teutons, Bulgarians f.e.) with Siege.

1 Like

Oh, I didn’t realize you were talking about BF. My bad.

I think the Incas are generally the better civ, especially on open maps, but yeah, the Aztecs are definitely better in closed maps.

2 Likes

I love how the topic has been totally derailed. Let’s argue which American civ is better on acropolis instead :rofl:

1 Like

Only LS is underused while champion+m@a can be seen frequent enough. I think it is time to buff infantry UU.

2 Likes

When I say infantry civilizations, I mean civilizations with very strong infantry (melee) and few alternatives against HC, infantry that shoots from a distance, BBC. Aztecs is the best example, but Incas and Sicilians are also suffering a lot. Goths do better because of their easy spamable UU with massive pierce armor.

On a close map, especially on Michi (which is a ranked map you get even after banning it) or BF, the archers of Aztecs and Sicilians are crap (as opponents have full upgraded better archers mass skirms + cavalry).

You will tell me to make siege onager. But they get snipe by BBC

In a closed map, there’s really no open. On black forest, players loom + 2-3 villagers to wall off 2 houses. It’s all about late game with full trade and ressources.

Yeah all 3 meso civ are super good on open map. Especially early game as you can get eagles before the opponent get scoots. And they also do well vs scoots.

I see post-Dark Age Infantry in the form of Pikes as a situational counter and or Halb + SIege in Imp being used frequently, Eagles are useful. It’s mainly just Militia and nearly all “Is Militia but slightly stronger” UUs like samurai, Berserks. That #### ###

If you talk about 1v1 black forest then they might be kinda bad but definitely not bottom. But team game they are good, they do their job, and teammate can make cav and archer and bbcs.

I also agree im also inca fan. But somehow in aoestats.io it says inca is no.1 winrate on team black forest 1200+

The eternal AoE2 discussion about make the Infantry (and Elephant) units relevant to the game
Really difficult to accomplish, even more if you put Team Games into the equation and try to balance accordantly

All land units are doing well both in 1V1 and team games except infantry. All = Cavalry, Archers, HC, Infantry.

I exclude pike line and range infantries.

So why not infantry ?

To stay in the topic, I am still referring to close maps because it goes till late game.

I think late game is where infantry shines. They can be massed and easily spammed. They don’t need constant micro just patrol them into enemy eco or army as meat shield or raid unit, they also kill buildings fast. Early game cav or archers are better, they are less usable in late game. Cav will face a sea of halbs in imperial and archer has to face powerful siege weapons. Infantry siege is the main force here at least in closed map late game.