Wtf? have you ever played the game?
Cav and Infantry are the opposite in most aspects. Cav is a frontline unit to attack the backline, fast and good in raiding, getting vision and map control, Infantry to attack the frontline, slow and somehow good in raising buiildings.
They play completely different.
And you just don’t tell the truth that the militia line is just terrible atm and has only extremely situational usage. All you just wrote is just distraction so you don’t have to admit just hating infantry.
And this is ok, but please say it like this and don’t make something up to cover your real reasons.
Wow are you even reading what I say? what is hard to understand in “move forward, bonk with sword?”
Drush and m@a are meta, champions are useful in imp, if people used them more they would be less complaining about Goths or or trash wars (like trust me if you have some relics as Turks and planned ahead Champs are going to get you out of sticky situations, bad trash or not).
Someone’s still butthurt I see. Not like I would need to go through the effort of twisting your words when you’re literally comparing how different militia lines perform against TEUTONIC KNIGHTS. Like wtf isn’t obvious it’s blatantly pointless.
In a way they should. I refer to civs that supose are Infantry civs, even well played goths, don’t have infantry as main option, look vikings, Teutons, Malians, Japanese, Bulgarians, Slavs, etc.
While cavalry and archers civs can exploit its potentials from Feudal age
Don’t agree with that. The difference of target selection and mobility is also a key in how they are played. The only thing knights and 2hs have in common is they are both melee. But as Archers, Skirms, TA, Scorpions, CA and Onagers they are played completely different. Besides they all are ranged.
This ranged variety makes it really interesting there, too. Why don’t we have that much melee variety?
Interesting point. Why do we have like 10 infantry civs, if 8 of them are played mostly cav?
question - how do you balance the game around that? Infantry beats knights beats archers beats infantry?
what about infantry civs with bad anti archer options?
what about cavalry civs with bad anti infantry options?
what about archer civs with bad anti cavalry options?
not to mention all the changes you would have to do to get the game to that point.
also what about the fact that militia wins against all trash - knights and archers have trash units that counter them, shouldn’t infantry have that option too?
Infantry has almost always been a support unit, that’s why they are SO CHEAP and FAST to train compared to archers and knights. furthermore of the infantry civs
Celts - use Infantry, Siege, and early castle use Archers/xbow.
Goths - use archers/xbow until they get their tech and then infantry.
Japanese - archers
Teutons - use cavalry and infantry/siege
Vikings - use archers and infantry.
Aztecs - use archers, monks, siege, and infantry.
Mayans - use archers and infantry.
Incas - use archers and infantry
Slavs - use cavalry and infantry and siege.
Malians - uses pretty much everything.
Bulgarians - are actually CAVALRY and INFANTRY and use both and siege.
oh my bad
i forgot Sicilians - who are a jack of all trades and make a bit of everything.
yes most the infantry is pikes, but some use unique units or eagles.
so out of 12 civs, i can say 5 of them use cavalry. whose lieing now?
I never said that I presented accurate numbers, just wanted to show how the reality of the “infantry” looks like. I also never said you would lie. Besides you now lie I would have said that.
Your post only shows another time how you “argue” here - in a way called eristic dialectic. You don’t even try to deliver good arguments, you just try to “win” by manipulating the audience. And I really dislike it, it’s really bm in my eyes.
so now your WILLFULLY spreading bad information to others. congratulations, and yet later on you say i’m not even trying to have a good argument. but here you are admitting that you don’t present accurate numbers. that’s funny.
this comment here seems like you’re calling me a liar to me.
according to you, but then again you’re the guy who literally said that infantry civs go cavalry 80% of the time, and admitted that you’re not spreading accurate numbers. you’re also the guy who calls others a liar.
Yes, same rock-paper-scissors logic that trash units (scout-skirm-pike)
Infantry should take good trade fights against Knights. Not crush them, but in equal resources LongSwordsman should win. Knights nowdays have both, movility and power…
Give me examples
Don’t care… we are talking about ideas, nobody here expect an inmediatly implementation.
Don’t think so… Main Militia’s counter is its movility and not ranged attack.
Celts Skirms are terrible as a good example of infantry civ with bad anti archer options
cavalry civs with bad anti infantry options? Persians have trash archers which is nice, but still, if you’re buffing Infantry you’re probably going to end up giving them more PA (likely) which means just crossbows isn’t going to hold up. Lithuanians also come to mind.
archer civs with bad anti cavalry options - this one isn’t as bad, but still you’d definitely have to buff Cavalry against archers because right now Archers come in earlier and we frequently see them win.
point is its a lot of work and balance would be a mess during all the changes.
but if you’re buffing it against cavalry you’re literally making it more cost effective over all, and a better unit overall, you think they get to cost effectively beat cavalry and not give up some of the advantages they currently have? so infantry’s only weakness according to you should be gold units (archers, siege), despite the fact that they would beat cavalry, trash, and monks. so what’s their weakness? archers and siege? wow. so all i have to do is camp my opponents gold and they lose.
sucks for those cavalry civs without arbs huh? oh wait. now cavalry civs are forced to play archers. isn’t that exactly why you infantry changed? so they didn’t have to rely on archers or cavalry? so now you’re being hypocritical. you’re change literally forces every civ to play at a disadvantage in a lot of matchups.
cavalry civ? get to play cav vs archers but have to play archers vs infantry.
infantry civ? get to play infantry vs cavalry but have to play cavalry or skirms vs archers.
archer civ? get to play infantry vs cavalry and archers vs infantry.
I really wish we didn’t have someone going nine months into the past forum to dig up really old threads. Someone’s gonna be arguing points they made eight months ago that they may or may not even believe anymore.
If you want to talk about something and the thread is dead, make a new one. The conversation was done. Let the people who were done with it, be done with it.
Well that’s the deal. Based on my argumentation eagles aren’t that different from militia line or cav. Based on his argumentation however saying that longswords are radically different from cavalry while claiming eagles and cavs are the same (he even said Mayan are the best cav civ among archer civs lol) is just NOT possible.