No worries, although I’m still keeping the stance the unit is useless in post imp, it doesn’t mean that it can never be useful if a very specific situation warrants it. So I’m believing it happened, I just wanted to see for myself the circumstances of it.
Yeah, of course. If I’m not wrong, the opponent was going full pikes and eagles or something like that … So logic move was to go longswords. There’s other games where pros have used them, but always with infantey civs
1 Like
That bonus dmg vs eagles clearly op.
If it’s not on Youtube it might be on Twitch then
and bulgarians… since they’re… yanno, free.
The “The infantry problem (and a possible solution)” topic by RainbowDemon on AoE Zone suggests removing Long Swordsman and replacing it with Two-Handed Swordsman. I tried 3, then 30 Two-Handed Swordsman with 1 extra melee armor and 1 extra attack vs. 2, then 20 Bloodline Knights in the scenario editor. I have to say, the suggestion RainbowDemon and anyone else with this idea made, convinces me that Two-Handed Swordsman in Castle Age, with a +1 buff to attack and melee armor, is the simplest answer to making Swordsman usable in Castle Age. Because buffed Two-Handed Swordsman in high enough numbers win cost efficiently vs. Bloodline Knights, even without Supplies. And higher numbers are easy to make due to the 21 seconds creation time for Swordsman vs. 30 seconds for Knights. Making Swordsmen effective vs. Knights in this way, but still vulnerable to Archers, makes a nice and tidy Rock > Paper > Scissors dynamic with the game’s base gold units in Castle Age where Swordsman > Knight > Archer > Swordsman.
I didn’t try Champion vs. Cavalier yet, but I’m sure Champions would also need a buff to their base attack and melee armor to compete against Cavalier when assuming constant unit production.
Upgrade costs would need changing too. But for me, thinking about that is for another time.
2 Likes
Just giving Long Swordsman +1 melee armor would be enough. +1 attack would make them have more uses. Having a small speed buff is a must now. +1 attack is optional but we really really need +1 melee armor and small speed buff.
1 Like
You’re right. I tested it in the Scenario Editor using Teuton Long Swords and the outcome vs. Knights is similar, and for a lot less civ re-balancing than with moving Two-Handed Swordsman into Castle Age. I also think Supplies should be free for all non-Eagle warrior Infantry civs too, because a transition into Long Swordsman feels awkward for everyone other than Goths, Bulgarians, and Slavs, due to the amount of upgrade requirements. Slavs would get free Scale Mail Armor to compensate for losing exclusivity to free Supplies. Certain unique infantry with comparable combat stats to Long Swordsman would also need a +1 melee armor buff, i.e. Berserks, etc., and maybe a food cost reduction too. Otherwise there would be less reasons to use unique infantry over stronger and cheaper Long Swordsman/Two-Handed Swordsman.
1 Like
Supplies ain’t too expensive to begin with.
1 Like
Crazy idea but bear with me.
double bit costs 100f 50w gives 20% bonus
bow saw costs 150f 100w gives 20%
two man saw costs 300f 200w gives 10%
As u can see further age upgrades costs more and gives less. We can apply same thing to infantry armor.
Ideas
- Give scale mail armor give +1/+2 and plate mail +1/+1. Chain mail remains same.
- Scale mail costs 150f instead of 100f
- Supplies in castle age.
Effects
- M@a costs 60f 20g but has 3 pierce armor instead of 2 now. Balanced here.
- Long sword costs 45f 20g has 4 piece armor intead of 3. Makes it viable for all civs.
- FU champions still has 5 pierce armor. No changes here.
Problem civs(civs who dont’t have plate mail)
- Goths-Gives them viable and attractive option for feudal and castle age, but gets +1 pierce armor in imp as compared to live. (gives them buff for all ages and compensate for stagger cost reduction nerf, remove loom bonus for balance)
- Lithuanians- Halbs now gives +2/+5 which are better against ranged.
- Malians-m@a feudal has +1/+4 making them very tanky against archers serving their purpose.
- Incas- I really don’t know how to balance that lol.
- Other civs- Even though many civs don’t have very good infantry m@a now is viable to everyone and most importantly buffs m@a and long swords against archers.
Let me know ur opinion.
Tbh it doesn’t sound half bad of an idea, however knights would still be an issue I guess. Just a question: why would you move supplies to castle?
It sounds fine for the militia line, but it could easily prove too much on pikemen, and maybe some unique units.
1 Like
- Supplies is more of commitment and nobody researches them in feudal cuz it costs high and u don’t have good economy to research. In castle age u have economy to get that research. As @Dbuen said it put holds on production of m@a.
- M@a will become op if they have 3 pierce armor and also get supplies.
- Goths will get an identity of lower cost of infantry in feudal age 45f 15g and further in castle age 42f 14g which is less than 45f 20g which others civ will get with supplies
Knights costs twice the long sword with supplies ofc they should be better but long swords will fare better against archers which are the real counter and thats why people avoid making them.
- It makes infantry UU more viable since now u are getting +1 pierce armor compared to live.
- Pike already dies to archers it won’t make any difference.
The Supplies discount doesn’t start paying off until the 11th Militia, because the food reduction of the first 10 Militia goes into paying off the 150 food cost of Supplies. And 10 technically full price Militia on top of Supplies is a huge investment for Feudal Age and early Castle Age. And the additional research time puts early Militia production behind archers and cavalry. Except for Slavs by getting it for free, it doesn’t encourage heavier Feudal and Castle Age swordsmen play like it seems it should do. It really needs a big buff that should affect only Infantry civs, except Aztecs and Incas to continue encouraging going for Eagles most of the time.
I just hope devs are reading these posts, u have got some valuable points.
It was never meant to encourage feudal too much I guess, since man at arms existed before, the longswordsman was a unit that was almost never seen though. Supplies was meant to change that fact (and to also make 2h and champion more available too). Of course when the tech is in now, people might be tempted to get it in feudal in situations where it is not even needed as opposed to before DE and they think that not getting it is a complete waste and so if they can’t have it the unit is also a waste. Which is not true.
I Like the Idea. If people think its too Strong then maybe chain Mail instead of scale Mail could give +1/+2.
I Like that it buffs the UUs at the Same time, so they dont loose more relative value compared to sword Line.
I dont think that it would make civs that currently dont have Plate Mail too strong. Especially with some people proposing Goth getting Plate Mail anyway this could be a good compromise, where they have one more PA than they currently have but still have +1/+1 less than FU infantry.
I dont think Huns, Khmer and tartar(If applied to feudal Tech) having one more PA makes that much of a Difference. Their infantry becomes slightly less ■■■■ which is ok i think. Lithuanian May be a Problem but their halbes still have less melee Armor than generic so i think they still would be fine. Encourages more infantry Use as well If you are Up against them. Dont remember of the top of my head who Else is Missing Plate Mail but If you wanna make the Case for one of These civs being overpowered that way go ahead.
have you considered the effect on Slavs?
Read clearly, supplies in castle age. At that point ur eco is big enough that free supplies is less of a bonus. Tell me how will it affect slavs, maybe i missed something.