Militia-line is perpetually roasted

Goths aren’t actually that good though. Their infantry is only truly good in Imp, which is because the Champion is kind of the only truly good militia line unit after early Feudal Age. They can do stuff with Longswords and Pikes in Castle Age, but it’s not amazing.

1 Like

Goths are a special case. I mean, they are the only civ without walls. This shows that they were given a very specific profile. Cheaper and really fast-produced infantry is what makes it viable, and it’s unique unit, with subverts the natural weakness to archers, seals the deal.

No, no, I didn’t feel like you were attacking me or my opinions at all. I only felt like a worm because I will never be as good as players like you.

Don’t worry man. I’m not too good either. I remember that I also struggled a lot vs the back then hard AI like 7 years ago getting my butt handed over to it. I slowly improved, but I’m by no means a great player (~1400 ELO sometimes 1500 in a good day). If you put dedication, you can easily surpass that ELO. If you want to be top 1%, that requires a lot more effort and arguably talent, but I feel like obsessing over getting better without having fun is not healthy. I would say that you don’t need to stress about it, just play what you enjoy the most which imo is the important part about playing a game.

Yep. That’s what some users have told me and I agree; unfortunately I can’t get over it. I also tried “playing what I enjoy the most” like you say. I had some playstyles to which I tried to adhere to feel like I was doing my own thing, carefree, just for fun. A single defeat was able to bring down that card castle.

Also, 1400 ELO seems like Heaven in my standpoint.

Archers cost you more APM and have much worse stats (attack, health, armor).

Except we’re or atleast I are not talking about Infantry as a whole, but a specific subset with Militia. Spears and Huskarls are great units that excel in their own right. I believe for Goth Iate-game infantry spam tactics you’re better off just completely ignoring Militia, investing purely into Huskarls and Spears, then spend what you would have on the Miltia instead on the good Gothic Gunpowder, Hussars and Trebuchets to round out your Army.

I don’t want to make a massive table of stat comparisons, but in short in exchange for being slightly more expensive to upgrade, 50% more expensive for each unit (for every 2 Huskarls, you would get 3 Champions) and having a Castle long enough to get Elite and Anarchy.

You get a unit that is 16% faster than Militia (Squires gives 10% boost), Has a massive +5/7 extra Pierce Armour and same health as equivalent Militia, Destroys Archer units rather than gets destroyed by, takes roughly a quarter of the time to tech into (Anarchy + Elite versus M@A all the way to Champion), have immediate Longsword/THS tier stats for no upfront cost, is quicker to train, has better anti-building Bonus damage.

Champions in comparison don’t specialise into anything that Huskarls already don’t like trading decently into all Trash, they also don’t get massive game changing traits like the massive Pierce Armour like Huskarls do. Champions also do not do massively better at things like trading into Trash compared to Huskarls, the same way that other options Goths get such as Spears and HCs do for Cav and Infantry respectively.

1 Like

Military units in aoe are a resource investment. You need to see your expected return on investment. When you invest 60 food and 20 gold into each militia, would you be able to get damage proportional to it?

People have explained how it’s not going to do so.

Where its good for? Late game against trash army, especially if you’re an archer civ up against skirms or you’re a cavalry civ against eagle-halbs.

.

Not sure if you are trying to be comical but just learn the modern DE build orders. Scouts into knights or scouts into xbows are solid builds against AI. Don’t force yourself to use something that wasn’t designed to work at that stage of the game.

1 Like

You literally flipped the argument completely.
Militia line weakness, is speed. And since speed / range are king it means militia line are countered by EVERYTHING in the practical sense.

1- if we calculate raw power, paladins do beat champions straight up. In a test of 40 militia-line vs 20 paladins. 20 paladins are more likely to win or at least it is a close call for both.
Arbalests will also win in a 40 vs 40 if we take into account how both units function.
Heavy cav archers will also win in a 20-40 or even 20 -80 with micro" ofc we will count micro for cav archers other wise why would we make them"
Elephants eat militia for dinner
Siege onagers eat militia for dinner
Even scorpion masses eat militia for dinner
Hussars will probably lose but even then they will come close, and that’s not taking into account that hussars have too many bonuses in too many civs. So mongol hussars might win “not tested”
Winged hussars might win
Poles winged hussars WILL WIN
Bulgarian hussars will win
Malians light cavs might win "14 dmg more health vs 17 dmg, but champions will cost maybe 10 times the tech cost of malian light cavs so it is not far in terms of stats.
Magyar huszar wins
Magyars stable hussar wins
Gunpoweder ofc will win too.
Most unique units will win too.
So with all that said we’ve established that EVERYTHING in the game beats militia except halbs and skirms
Now to kill skirms it is more efficient to make hussars / cavs/ skirms ANYWAY because skirms are cheap and cavs can raid.
And to beat halbs it is better to make skirms/ archers because they can kill halbs from a safe distant.
Now even if we are talking about specific militia that beats everything “like japanese oe goth” or if militia were buffed to beat everything they will still lose to everything, how?

Simply cavalery will circle around them and kill your eco or important strategic points.
Archers will hit and run
And other stuff like siege will be used in combination with other things.

All of that does not rven highlight the biggest problems of militia.
Which is even considering all the previous issues.
We have the 2 biggest problems.

1- although useless for the most part, expensive to tech in, in feudal and castle.
2- they very rare fit in any army composition.

So if you have arbs and want a meat shield. You go hussars or halbs, why go militia? They cost gold and they die almost as fast as hussars. And it is not easy to sustain double gold combos.

Completely incorrect. Skirms + knights don’t lose to longswords because it was nevwr about a face to face combat. Skirms can srill wilt the longswords down even if slowly and knights can still raid and return.
The longswords have no agency in this scenario, as in they can force some quickwalls but you already invested 600+ rss to get them upgraded pnly for the enemy knights to end up running around them killing your villagers and even having time to return and respond to you.

A lot of players don’t like infantry because they’re used to spamming single units like archers/crossbow or scouts/knights. But the true power of the militia line is how they synergise with other units. E.g. Longswords + mangonel vs. crossbow. Or the same comp + pikes vs knights. You can also put the Longswords in rams.

No, I’m not trying to be comical. I cannot follow the build orders. Whenever I look at them, I think, “what is this; I don’t understand any of it”.

Exactly. This is how Dravidians are designed, I believe. Their cheaper mangonles and fastest-firing skirmishers are meant to provide coverage for Militia-line.

And yet they turned out being bad in open maps because od their dependency on infantry. There is a theme here where many of the heavily/infantry specific civs have low win rates. Includinf celts and funny enough they rely on wood bonus to kill you wirh archers in feudal/castle age most of the times. But once you are in imperial and stuck with your infantry-only their win rate drops low.

Dravidians in any land map suffer this same infantry curse.

Bulgarians rely on their cavalery.
Slavs on their monks but slavs are struggling with their win rates.

Goths late game are saved by their fast marching huskarl which id less countered by gunpoweder unlike woads from celts. Huskarl does everything woods can do but better.

Goths are also saved in the earlier ages by their very cheap infanrry rushes, very decent scouts/ knights. Very decent archers / skirms
Goths are also saved by their gunpoweder units.

Japanese are saved by their halbs and archers/cav archers/ flexibility in general.

Malians are saved by their flexibility and sometimes gbetos.

Aztecs are saved by their amazing eagles, monks and siege. Eagles are for the most part scouts alternatives

Romans, the only really strong castle and feudal militia. But even then in feudal they lode by their slowness.
Romans imp is saved by their cavs or cavs aura. And romans are a proof of militia line problem; why?

Well, to be viable, it only took romans militia line a total of 20% ish movment speed “so celts bonus+ barracks tech”
Japanese 35% attack speed
And jaguars bonus dmg to infantry.
and even then, imp romans inf are still competive at best with other units.
If it takes all of those buffs to make inf competitive, do you still think militia line is good?

1 Like

Skirms really can’t. Not anymore, not since gambesons. Trust me, I’ve tried; even in ideal situations, longswords with gambesons and squires can chase them down and kill them.

Adding skirms to knights just makes the knights weaker. Yes, they can raid the dickens out of you, but so can you, and you have more than twice the building destroying capacity.

Militia are rarely the optimum choice, but against knight skirm is one of the rare cases where I do believe it’s actually ideal.

Low win rates doesn’t necessarily mean bad civ. It really depends on ELO level. Classic example being Chinese who are actually an amazing civ when you learn them, but their win rate is shit.

So because infantry plays are not meta and their build orders nowhere near as well known or common, they’re not practised nearly as often, so people don’t give them enough of a chance before assuming it’s just shit and weak. It’s always helpful to try different strategies outside your comfort zone and you should be losing many many games in a row in the process of learning.
E.g. if you’re a passive booming player and you win most of your games via better macro with more eco / more vils, quicker up times etc., it’s useful to learn some all in, hyper aggressive, no eco strategies because doing so makes you better at defending against them. Equally, a super aggressive bad economy / bad macro player will learn a lot from trying to play defensively and learning how to boom. The fear of losing stops people wanting to really master different strats but the recent YouPudding saga on T90’s channel has shown that even relatively low ELO players of 1200 can reach 2k with an unusual strategy involving infantry with one of the worst civs in the game (Sicilians).

Basically if you’re not a high level player (which I’m not), it’s almost never the civ, the unit or the strategy choice at fault, it’s your skill level and lack of relentless practice with that strategy.

The level of APM required for Archers to completely clown on Militia or Spears isn’t really that high, as it’s just a matter of a control group then using your far superior mobility to just scoot and shoot. Compare this to against Cav which can catch up to your Archers, or other Ranged units.

Archers having lower health, etc is more than made up for by a base 4-5 Range boosted up to 8. If you can micro manage Units at all, you’ll get massively more use than compared to a Militia

1 Like

No lol, Spearmen, Eagles and some UUs are commonly seen and used throughout the entire game. When people are complaining about Infantry it is near exclusively about the Militia, and some UUs that are just Militia+ like Samurai.

They don’t really, Militia do not excel against any common unit type (Only 3 Civs have Eagles) and thus don’t really compensate for the weaknesses of other units as well like Spearmen do for Siege for instance, are more effectively expensive than Archers even post Supplies, whilst also being one of the least mobile non-Siege/Monk units in the game even after Squires.

All those unit comps you mentioned you could remove the Militia, still counter the mentioned unit. Then just use something with much more effective mobility, power and survivability like the Archer or Knight as replacement for the Militia, and the thing is saying that the Militia requires support to perform with some semblance of effectiveness in the first place is indicating how it’s bad rather than good lol. Because Archers and Knights whilst benefiting from it, are intrinsically strong enough to not require a gajillion different support units to perform well at their basic function.

This isn’t even bringing up other issues like how Militia is more expensive to tech into than those two units.

4 Likes

So… the Militia-line is trash and it can’t be helped?

I thought about this a while ago. In AoE 4, the Men at Arms line (which is the Militia equivalent there) is viable because the game differentiates between light and heavy infantry, so while Feudal Age archers are useless against them, Crossbows in Castle Age (as those two units are separated in AoE 4) are their hard counter.

A solution in AoE 2 could be to add a new armor class for Heavy infantry, much like it was the case for Camels with the African Kingdoms DLC for HD Edition (as Camels used to have the Ship armor class) and at the same time making sure that the game still stays balanced.

This sounds very good. Now I’m tempted to buy AOE4 hehehe. I kept thinking about this issue. If the Milita-line are so dreadful, they are the unit for me. Why do I insist on this? Because every other strategy, including build orders, are meant for people who can play. I don’t know what other tech/stat change/civ with insane bonus can be added to make this type of unit viable; I will have to wait patiently.

I am reasonably convinced that there is no way to adjust the attack or armor or speed of militia in such a way that they are simultaneously balanced at higher skill levels and not completely overpowered at lower ones.

Because when you get right down to it, those aren’t their problems. They can already beat pretty much anything else in the game if you can get close and take a reasonable fight. That’s not their problem.

The problem is that their skill cap is much too low. All you can really do in most cases it’s just throw them at your enemy and hope you have enough to break through. And that won’t change by giving them more speed, armor, or attack.

The civilizations that really make infantry work effectively tend to do so by basically making them into pseudo cavalry or pseudo archers. The ones that double down on the concept of the infantry, which is to say, slow, relatively cheap, and relatively durable, tend to be very effective at lower ELO’s but become ineffective at higher ones.

Personally, I think infantry as a whole need to have some additional purpose added to them. Something that increases their skill cap.

A while ago, I suggested allowing Teutonic knights to build towers. I have also suggested allowing militia to build Palisades. Or maybe give them some sort of new ability, like to turn themselves into a temporary wall of some sort, allowing them to effectively protect the units behind them. Basically, anything that requires more skill than just throwing them at the enemy and pray they die before you do.