I dare say that isn’t because of the cost effectiveness, but rather the fact that Rodeleros have an absurd melee resistance of 40 % whilest macemen have no resist to melee. Rodeleros are evil insofar as they are closet shockinfantry, aka don’t count as shock infantry but behave basically that way. Further the Macemen has a slower attackspeed, it hits only 2 times whilest a rod or normal melee infantry hits 3 times. Indeed Rods are one of the few melee infantry units that are actually worth fielding and in this matchup are basically a hard counter.
Infact arguably Rods are only minesculy more price benefitial with regards to pop consideirng their 65 f 35 g cost. It’s a combination of 40% resist to melee and lower attack speed that makes the macemen loose.
However that get’s put on its head, when fighting a normal unit as in musket or skirm, in which booth these units start to perform worse. With the macemen especially loosing to skirms, which the rod can catch and kill still but the musketeer beating the rodelero due to the initial salvo and the melee resist and high HP pool of it.
Which only shows further that the rodelero is a wierd closet shockinfantry. The clearly corresponding unit to the macemen is probably the samurai, Doppel and Halberds. In which it comfortably outperforms them on siege but looses out on Damage due to rof issues.
1 Like
If you give it to the nizam fusilier and make it 2 pop then it might work.
The unit is already restricted in build limit anyway
1 Like
Yeah I was thinking about something like that. I was almost thinking of flipping it where Normal Janissaries become a build limit and the nizam have no limit.
1 Like
Nizam with no build limit would be completely busted.
back when they did bonus against all infantry even guard nizams effectively counter skirms
even now they kill all muskets and can competenly fight skirms at 20 range
1 Like
I like the idea of Grenadiers (who are kinda trash) being able to build buildings. Humbaracis are too strong atm imo, and I don’t believe they need to be able to build anything (and Ottoman probably doesn’t need any buffs atm anyway).
Grenadiers being able to build buildings helps them catch up and be useful, maybe even comparable to Humbaracis
2 Likes
An spammable unit with high range resistance and HP capable of building, not thanks, that is a horrible idea.
And I dont want began about russian ones…
2 Likes
I agree about the building aspect - it’s not intuitive and takes away from the Grenadier (heck that’s why my Sapper was a melee and utility unit - being build military buildings).
I’d much prefer it be a very expensive (i.e not spammable) elite, assault heavy Infantry unit. Give him a musket (not as powerful as a standard Musketeer) and make him a little more of a threat. If it’s still spammable then give Grenadiers build limits - they certainly were not pumped out in real life like the rest of the rank and file.
1 Like
Line grenadiers or in general grenadier companies within a regiment were a thing and about as rare as light infantry funily enough. Infact the nade throwing would have to stop after the player reaches Age 3.
Which makes the whole solely reliant on light infantry european civs pretty off. BTW.
Also i still find it hillarious that landwehr is a skirm.
1 Like
Disagree for three reasons.
- Gameplay-wise, Age 2 military units should not build things by default (unless a special card is sent). Otherwise being able to build a forward base without risking villagers or losing villager seconds can make a civ potentially unbalanced.
- History-wise, grenadiers did not build anything in the field. Battlefield construction were generally relegated to military engineers/sappers/pioneers or locals/camp-followers (depending on the complexity of what is being built).
- Personally, having Grenadiers being able to build stuff feels like a cop-out from doing actual unit balancing. Grenadiers are first and foremost a military unit. It needs a proper role in combat, something that it can do better than other units.
I sort of like what the devs did with Humbaraci by giving them siege resistance. The biggest issue with Grenadiers is that they are a 2-pop infantry that gets one-shotted by Falconets. I think a minor but good step to making Grenadiers useful is to give them siege resistance, so that they can survive an artillery shot. Afterwards, we can discuss whether they should have a musket or changed in other ways.
A more historically accurate infantry roster would have 5 different classes in Age 3:
- Line Infantry: Standard 12-range infantry.
- Light Infantry: 14 to 16-range range-resistant skirmisher. (Out-shoots Line Infantry, Bad against melee cavalry.)
- Grenadier: High-HP fast moving 12-range infantry, may throw grenade. (Can melee Line Infantry, otherwise acts as a damage sponge. Has small siege resistance. Mediocre against melee cavalry.)
- Sharpshooter: 20+ range slow firing-rate skirmisher. (High damage, but loses in a direct shoot-out due to low firing rate.)
- Sapper: Anti-building specialist. Can build walls, outposts, etc. (Melee only. Has high siege resistance.)
Any archaic infantry in Age 2 would be upgraded into one of the first 3 classes (i.e. Pikeman->Line Infantry, Crossbowman->Light Infantry, Doppelsoldner (or Age 2 Halberdier equivalent) → Grenadier). This would solve the issue of melee infantry being under-used past Age 2.
But this would require a redesign of the whole game (and the cavalry roster as well), which is probably not feasible.
1 Like