Militia-Line Underpowered and Need a Buff?

[Nico71203]

@MatCauthon3

i am all for increasing their speed slightly, and lowering the cost of LS and Supplies, but much more then that would neccesitate changes to the game that would drastically alter balance.

@MatCauthon3

my concern with this is civs like Malians, whose infantry could in theory counter archers, Japanese, whose infantry attack insanely fast, and of course the Goth Flood.

Totally agree

@ApplaudedPoppy2

So, even if xbows/knights are dominant in open land maps castle age gameplay, I am fairly certain that the game doesn’t lack variety in the current state. Pushing different units outside their actual intended use might only risk to overcomplicate an already hard to learn game.

For sure the game doesn’t lack variety atm, there are plenty strats already like you pointed out (otherwise ppl wouldn’t play it for 20 years ). It’s not a reason to not reconsider some underused units position in the game

I don’t think a small buff for this particular unit will make things more complicated or change the entire meta to be honest. With a small speed bonus, or some teching discount, the existing strats wherein they’re involved will just gain more use and legitimacy, without changing their identity but by reinforcing certain aspects.

[Gaturro7777]

@MatCauthon3

my concern with this is civs like Malians, whose infantry could in theory counter archers, Japanese, whose infantry attack insanely fast, and of course the Goth Flood.

Well first of all, if anyone use this solution of really spammable trash militias, they should be nerfed`… and the nerf will depends in the spam capability of the militia line.

But I think that most of your concern (of your quote) are problems with the civs bonus. As militias are very rare in normal matches those bonus are no big deal, but if you try to make them militia a more common unit, those bonus should be tuned down

[FoughtBird1976]

They aren’t underpowered in any way whatsoever, although I am not a fan of the two-handed swordsmen and I would prefer it if all the civilisations have access to champion, at least make it as common as the onager upgrade.

[CactusSteak2171]

In all honesty champions are already insanely widespread. Only 8 civs lack them, which is way less than the number of civs that lack stuff like arb, siege ram or hand cannoneer.

[Temudschinn]

Not to mention that 2 of those 8 lack champions because their militialine gets strong buffs and Champs would be OP for them. So its only really 6 that miss them.

[Nico71203]

Well people are not arguing about champions, champions are ok if you can get to there, or perhaps if you start post-imp. The problem is through all the game, especially their lack of viability in Castle Age and some techs cost.

Out of the 27 Champions Civs, are you seeing them that often in late game anyway ? It depends of the situations obviously, but it enlighten the problem as well.

[phoenix1089]

@CactusSteak2171

In all honesty champions are already insanely widespread.

Like clockwork… Adding nothing to the discussion except one upmanship…

@Nico71203

(1.1 → 1.35 without squires)

Exactly… Priest uses a warped comparison of speed to justify not buffing militia speed.

@ApplaudedPoppy2

Well I would not say that knights are a micro-heavy

I mean really guys ffs this thread is full of people presenting warped comparisons to justify their own agendas…

Knights are a ton more micro CAPABLE than militia are. And that was the point. Knights and archers can gain a lot more from micro than militia ever could.

@GroupGorgon896

severely skew the meta

Unfortunately as has been mentioned a number of times on this forum. The issue isn’t specific stats, it’s actually contesting the issue that certain people don’t want to change the game, irregardless of what that change might be.

Ive literally just proved it here how many people have already used warped points or exaggerated opposing views to support their agenda which is to keep the game exactly as it is…

I mean ffs look at how much hate was generated by devs adding the things they did which turned out fine in the end (auto scout, flaming camel, new civs) but after enough time it becomes acceptable… Like these guys are just resisting for the sake of not wanting change…

[phoenix1089]

@MatCauthon3

Malians, whose infantry could in theory counter archers

Pikes which are absolutely horrible against opposing halberdiers nevermind swords. And champs that similarly get rekt by opposing champs. ie the opponent would have other options for dealing with their “OP” infantry…

@MatCauthon3

Hand cannons is their accuracy + low attack speed, Scorpions are terrible when infantry get close up, and cav archers

Hand cannons would have more of their intended targets to actually fight as opposed to archer and knight extreme dominance.

Same for scorps

And i mean really man… CA are a ton more effective vs infantry than they are vs archers or mega knights…

@MatCauthon3

450 food and 205 gold.

Lool omg so split hairs but don’t actually admit he has a point. Not only does militia need more expensive tech, but they have worse fighting potential AND are less mobile…

With that adjustment they would still be more expensive to tech, still be more food intensive and thus reducing aging, and still be a ton less mobile and still be much less pop efficient.

All so that in a 2v1 match up one of them could survive with 6 mofo hp… Like really now??

Do you guys ever concede a point?

[HeardColt799738]

considering how powerful man at arms to archers build order is, the only buff i would say they could get is in castle age and that is it.

[MatCauthon3]

@phoenix1089

Pikes which are absolutely horrible against opposing halberdiers nevermind swords. And champs that similarly get rekt by opposing champs. ie the opponent would have other options for dealing with their “OP” infantry…

Except youre talking imperial age. What if I start flooding malian infantry in castle age? That missing attack doesn’t mean anything.

@phoenix1089

Hand cannons would have more of their intended targets to actually fight as opposed to archer and knight extreme dominance.

And yet hand cannons still miss a lot. And again you still can’t make them until imp where infantry is in the game much earlier.

@phoenix1089

Same for scorps

And i mean really man… CA are a ton more effective vs infantry than they are vs archers or mega knights…

Oh man someone’s got some serious salt about game design. Your complaints again have nothing to do with balance and are all design. So like I said. Go redesign thd game in a balance mod and prove it works.

@phoenix1089

Not only does militia need more expensive tech, but they have worse fighting potential AND are less mobile

We already proved explained why its expensive and you still whine. It’s because having longswords in dark age would be beyond busted. Thus it’s only fair to throttle their power behind upgrades. Stop complaining about something that makes sense.

@phoenix1089

All so that in a 2v1 match up one of them could survive with 6 mofo hp… Like really now??

Do you guys ever concede a point?

Depends if the point is valid. Youre still complaining about how its more expensive to tech to ls but ignore that having 9 attack units in dark age would be busted.

[CactusSteak2171]

@phoenix1089

Like clockwork… Adding nothing to the discussion except one upmanship…

I was just answering to the person who wanted to make them more widespread, it was related to the discussion.

@phoenix1089

Knights and archers can gain a lot more from micro than militia ever could.

And don’t you think this has something to do with longswords not being produced enough to the taste of the “plz buff” crowd?

@phoenix1089

I mean ffs look at how much hate was generated by devs adding the things they did which turned out fine in the end (auto scout, flaming camel, new civs)

1111 is there anyone who ever said adding flaming camels is a bad thing 11
As of the other points, not everyone has been opposed to auto scout (which has nothing to do with game balance anyway) nor to new civs either, and the discussion around them isn’t limited to balance only either.

You like to accuse people to disagree of opposing change for the sake of opposing it, but just look at what your changes are: some less upgrades costs and one tiny bit of speed. If this happen you know what will happen next? Buff demands for longswords will keep popping all the time because people still won’t dare use them. Think about it, there are several civilizations that do buff longswords in different ways, and they still favour other options, just because longswords aren’t suited to castle age.

If you really insist on making longswords a castle age unit on Arabia, try to think about what you want them to do.

Be fast? That’s what cav and eagles are for.
Tank arrows? It’s not their general purpose, and knights, skirms, and siege are all better for it.
Raze buildings? Knights do it just fine, and siege does it vastly better too.
Be cost efficient against knights? Pikemen, camels and even monks are already there.
Raiding? Knights, light cav, CA, and heck even camels are there.

If you want any of these points to change, just think about the immense buffs they would need in order to no longer be outclassed by something else.

You also need to not care about other maps, and, and to not be like this guy

@phoenix1089

most games do take lower skill levels into consideration as they form the vast majority

and not care about ELOs were straight japanese m@a spam works lol

@phoenix1089

CA are a ton more effective vs infantry than they are vs archers or mega knights…

Sounds like the right time to remind y’all that if people chose to play HUNS wars and not GOTHS wars it’s for a good reason.

@phoenix1089

Hand cannons would have more of their intended targets to actually fight as opposed to archer and knight extreme dominance.

HC do counter halbs ya know.

[timecloud5713]

@phoenix1089

Exactly… Priest uses a warped comparison of speed to justify not buffing militia speed.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I also am FOR a buff. I even started the Fixing the Militia line thread. I was just trying to offer a thought on why the devs seem to think otherwise. I believe they have tested a few things already and must have come to the conclusion that they do not want to change them. The Supplies thech was a nice idea but it didn’t really help.