If I recall correctly, AoK devs wanted to insert in the game some formations for infantry like this, then they changed their mind. I support this idea
Yeah I was thinking it could have a similar utility as rams in a pinch as far as soaking up arrow fire. Though you still would be better off putting infantry in rams for the extra attack against buildings, faster movement, and less damage taken by infantry.
Interesting! I don’t think I knew that.
We don’t see Serjeants because Sicilians suck. Not because of Serjeants. Especially with the new buffs. It’s one of the best infantry units in the game.
I think they come close to beating Elite Berserks, while having slightly above average speed and bonkers pierce armor.
um no. how is .90 baseline slightly above average speed?
That sounds incredibly weak. You would still be vulnerable to hit and run anyway and the archer dude just has to add cav or siege to kill your army while it’s in shield formation. And rams are better in the slow but impervious to arrow role because they are much more threatening, since they can both tank and do something.
No way, the shield wall is too active, save it for AOEIV.
And why DOES the militia line need more relevancy? It already has a niche as the fastest early game rush and late game death balls. Why does it need to be a midgame unit like scouts and archers too?
I see it the same way. Back in AoK and AoC times there was not really such possibility to micro units like nowadays. I think this is what needs to be tackled. Maybe a limit to how frequently military units will/can take commands, not sure.
Yeah lets kill the game outright, brilliant
Go play a turn based strategy game.
Yes, but now the player going archers just needs archers. I dont want it to be a super powerful buff, archers would still be a viable counter to militia line, they just wouldnt outright shred them immediately like they do now.
It doesn’t necessarily, I’m ok with the current meta personally, but a lot of people want a change so they suggest major stat buffs, my idea here is add something to give them more viability/utility without making them OP, if a change has to happen. It’s really just a thought experiment for fun
Having a formation that makes your unit both slow and unable to attack sounds tedious af anyway. And l still don’t get what utility it adds since it’s worse than rams.
Tbh I don’t think most people realise civs as different as Berbers, Incas or Britons get fully upgraded champions. People love to present longswords being bad and champs being situational as some sort of major design flaw when really it’s about just one unit line, and trying to change it a lot isn’t worth remaking the majority of the civs.
Rams need to be trained at a siege shop for a cost. Whereas this formation would be free if you have militia line units on the field. So that’s the added utility. Honestly I was afraid people would argue its OP so I’m glad that most see it as weak.
Agreed, that’s why I’d say let’s approach their concern differently. A flat buff to militia line would be game breaking. A change that makes them more micro-friendly but as you said,
Wouldn’t be game breaking, but could add more situational utility to the unit line.
It seems that promoting the use of swordsman in Castle age is not possible. Swordsmen have a cost of high food: gold ratio and food is scarce due to Castle age booming. Unless you change the cost of LS to be less food-dependent, LS can be more prevalent. Like producing LS at other military buildings (e.g. stable) cost same amount of resource but 40 gold and 40 food instead (with supplies, costing 25 food).
Improving swordsman through allowing micro seems good. I suggest a tech allowing swordsman to work better with skirmisher. When swordsman and skirmisher are ordered to attack move against archers, skirmisher will always move ahead of swordsman until 3-4 tiles away from archers. I prefer to let skirmisher be the ‘shield wall’ instead.
Or directly halve the cost of siege towers to help swordsman fight archers.
This idea breaks core game mechanics and is probably not really implementable given the current engine code base (unless you turn the unit into a convertible unit like the treb). I wouldn’t oppose to the unit conversion idea for some unique infantry unit, but generally applying it to infantry or to the militia line sounds too game breaking.
As for the militia line being underused, that’s just not as true anymore. They have their obvious niche and you can catch people off guard with infantry if they go trash to counter what they expect you to make (halbs vs cavalry or skirms vs archers). They counter eagles, they destroy buildings more cost efficiently than other melee units, they are not as gold intensive as archers or knights which means they serve as a semi-trash unit. Some civs have obvious bonuses for militia line.
What you’re asking for already exists in the game to a meaningful extent: rams. You put infantry in rams and they’re protected from archers. I think perhaps an idea would to add a unit that can be garrisoned in only by infantry - it has no attack, costs no pop and has miniscule speed unless garrisoned but high pierce armor (though negative melee armor) and serves as a vehicle to transport only militia line units (and maybe other non-halb infantry). Perhaps the unit can be made from the barracks itself and only a select civs have them.
You almost describe the siege tower
siege towers are expensive, fast when garrisoned and have no particular armor stats - plus of course they enable you to leap over walls with units and accept every foot unit, not just militia.
what I’m thinking of is a cheap vehicle that costs no pop and has space only for let’s say 5 militia line unit, made from barracks from feudal age, moves slowly and its redeeming value is being able to tank arrow fire.
Yeah its possible it’s not really something that can be implemented haha. I’m actually ok with the current role of Militia, so I agree with you. I’m more offering this suggestion as an idea for the people who are always clamoring for a change to the line, would this fit the bill of what they’re looking for, without simultaneously breaking the balance of the whole game? haha.
I think flat stat buffs are a bad idea, and with this idea Militia are still countered by knights and archers, but would have a way to avoid damage better like knights and archers can.
Yeah because the game was instantly dead as soon as it came out. /s
The biggest problems in my opinion with militia line are the cost for supplies, squires and Long Swordsman upgrade to make them viable and their bad abilty to catch stop-shoot-microed archers. Stacking of archers on few tiles is also a problem.
Solutions to that:
- don’t let archers stack so close to each other so that there is some “surface” for infantry and cav to attack
- reduce price of supplies and Long Swordsman Upgrade and maybe slightly reduce Squires cost.
- more frame delay for archers to make them less good at kiting. This would have to include unique unit archers
- Man-at-Arms now has a base speed of 0.95 (can’t catch archers but can scare them a lot more) and Long Swordsman/Two-Handed Swordsman/Champion have 1.0 base speed.
Maybe Celts +15% speed has to get staggered to +10% speed in feudal, +15% Castle Age+ to not make them OP in feudal age.
Also look at other slow infantry units if they need a speed buff to not fall behind militia line
That way in dark age there is no change balance wise but in feudal age onwards the militia line is suddenly more viable and archers don’t hardcounter them as much any more.
Castle Age + with squires the Militia Line is now far better with 1.1 speed with squires which means they are far more viable against archers even though probably still not cost efficient which is fine.
sure all of that would work, any buff is good, i dont care about specifics