I ever though that archer and crossbow should be different unit-lines.
It would requiere a lot of balance changes, of course, but, freely dreaming, if I would design the game from scratch I surely would split archer-line.
The potential es huge, making possible give archers civs more differentiation and character.
2 Likes
I dont disagree that splitting the two lines would be too big of a change but I disagree with your point of view of him just being oposed to change for change sake. Once he brings in the “muh childhood” argument I have to disagree.
Either way I think the guy has been very nice in thiscforum so I dont want to antagonize him because I like him but hes too close minded in this aspect imo
2 Likes
Why? I think skirms can counter both. probably to different degree but i see no reason why the new xbows should be able to withstand skirm fire.
I even think both lines can exist completely differentiated from each other where the (light) archer/bowman line would have the main purpose of countering infantry. Pretty much like slingers but even more specialised. And tehy could be trash units aswell, as they would be specialised enough for that specification.
Not sure, when done as described above the new anti-infatnry archers would only requitre some minor general buffs to infantry as compensiation, but not massive changes otherwise. I think it would perfectly fit into the general game design.
Agree. And one reason for that is definitely the lack of a trash counter for infantry. This leads to a heavy restriction on how strong infantry can be in the midgame as it needs to be “weak eough” in the lategame to still can be countered. Especially by civs that don’t get HC.
Interesting. I would like to see what they initially had in mind with archers. Maybe they actually had something in mind that was pretty nice.
For the reasoning questions some people asked. It’s maybe a bit complicated, but how the current archer line is designed it doesn’t really allow for a strong infantry “power unit” in the midgame. We will basically always have the issue that Infnatry either get’s completely crushed by Archers or the other way around. To top that it’s also even very dependent on the skill level as top players with very good archer skills can micro a lot without losing too much on other ends. And finally, an Infantry that crushes xbows in the midgame will also crush arbs in the lategame. Leaving a lot of archer civs with basiaclly no answers once they face this stuff. You see it with units like Ghulam or Huskarls that often just completely break any archer civs once they are out.
Having an alternative unit that is specialised against Infantry would finally allow to design some Infantry that in general can withstand a lot of Xbwo fire but would still be countered by the light archer line.
This would allow for the xbows to basically stay as they are (maybe some minor general buffs), staying competitive while buffing infantry with higher resistance against their fire (like with gambesons) as the archer civs would still hav the ligh archer line to deal with the infantry.
In my own topic about how to make a new power Infantry unit I finally come to the conclusion to make this happen it would require to have a trash counter against Infantry. And I thought that this would be best done by adding a lightbowman with some bonus damage against them.
Ad the archer line in general could actually use some small general buffs imo. Especially at lower elos it would make sense to jsut give them a bit higher HP, so it would be a bit more “forgiving” to make smaller mistakes with them. At higher elos more HP on ranged units doesn’t matter much.
The result would be a more “generalist” xbow line and an anti-infnatry (quasi) trash light archer line that takes over the current anti-infantry role from the xbow line that is honestly a bit weird when the unit is actually one of the 2 most “generalist” units in the game. I don’t think a generalist unit should also have that kind of specialisation at the same time,
And gameplaywise I can see a lot of interesting interacitons already. Lie even with Knight civs you probably want to add the new anti-infatry light archer line agains all kind of infantry you face. This would then force the opponent to add either his own cavalry, xbows or siege to deal with them. All of which are quite subotimal agaisnt your cavalry.
As Archer civ you would also add them when you open eiter archers or skirms and face heavy armored infnatry. Then the opponent is probably forced to add siege or skirm.
And if it’s a trash unit it would finally solve the issue for Infantry having no trash counter and units like obuch feeling very unfair in these super lategame sitiuation where gold is scarce.
2 Likes
I came up with something similar in a concept for an AoE2 clone themed around Avatar, with archers and benders being separate lines good at different things. One is long range with low damage, the other is short range with high damage. They have different counters.
While it works well for a separate game, I think the way it works in AoE2 now is fine. It’s been like this for 20+ years, and there’s no reason to change it at all.
2 Likes
I was just quoting him on that.
I don’t know, I think wanting AoE2 to remain in some sense the same game as it was in 1999 is totally reasonable. Obviously it’s had a lot added to it since then, but I don’t think there’s ever been such a major change to the base tech tree as this. Given that @FloosWorld gave no real reason for the change, a strong argument against it isn’t needed here.
There are a couple of alpha versions available online, and distinct archer and crossbow lines appears in one of them (from July 1998). I think you’ll be underwhelmed by the implementation:
- Archers: available in Feudal Age; cost 50 food 20 wood, 5 attack, 5 range, 0/0 armour.
- Composite Archer: Castle Age upgrade to Archer; 7 attack, 6 range, 0/0 armour.
- Crossbowman: available in Castle Age; cost 60 wood 40 gold, 8 attack, 7 range, 0/0 armour.
- Heavy Crossbowman: Imperial Age upgrade to Crossbowman; 10 attack, 7 range, 1/0 armour.
They share the same upgrades. As far as I can tell, no bonus damage to anything. So basically, Crossbowmen are better than Archers, but more expensive.
This sounds more appealing to me since it’s more like adding an extra unit, rather than splitting an existing unit. It would still nerf crossbows against infantry – I guess they might need improving against cavalry to make up for it.
Infantry being resistant to crossbows but weak against normal bows feels weird to me though. Maybe the infantry counter should be a slinger, with the existing Inca slinger renamed to something Inca-specific.
Shame it was only a concept, I’d love an Avatar-based AoE2 (assuming you mean The Last Airbender, which I guess you do since you mentioned benders).
As said, I didn’t suggest anything, I just asked a question, some seem to have misunderstood me.
In AoE 3 happens too…the archer and pikeman lines are divided: you have the archer (British Longbowman, Japanese Yumi and Natives and African civs),the crossbowman (Italian Pavisier), the pikeman, the halberdier, the musketeer type unit (Ottoman Janissary and Maltese Centinel) and the rifle skirmisher (British Ranger and Italian Bersagliere)…
The archers, crossbowmen and the skirmishers are light infantry and counters the heavy infantry…
The pikemen, halberdiers and the musketeers are heavy infantry and counters cavaly…
Fair enough, but if that’s the case, I find your wording very odd. You didn’t just ask something like “why do archers upgrade to crossbowmen, rather than being two separate unit lines?” You asked whether they should be split – you’re asking about a change, rather than about why the design is the way it is.
Asking whether a certain change should be made is, in my view, a way of suggesting that change. Add to that the fact that in the title you ask “should we split the archer-line” and that you’re tagged as “Dev Agent No 1”, and it looks like this is genuinely being considered by the devs.
The dev agent thing is an in joke by us moderators, so there’s nothing serious to read into this 
1 Like
Yes, I remember the incident. It wasn’t funny. It’s misleading and you should change it.
That is indeed what I’m referring to. Maybe I should draft a concept and pitch it to Forgotten Empires and Nickelodeon. It would be easy to develop, being on the same engine and having the same base mechanics and all.
Yeah, but Avatar didn’t get to have early 20th century technology in the Legend of Korra?..
I haven’t seen Korra, and I heard it’s not very good anyway. Besides, the setting of the first show is way more interesting for an AoE2-type game, and would lead to more immediate parallel units.
Yes, in The Last Airbender the world has a medieval air, but in The Legend of Korra the world takes on a steampunk air from the beginning of the 20th century (the first cars and tanks appear)…
Apparently Aang is supposed to reflect mid to late 19th century as the Fire Nation is using steam for various reasons (e.g. the super large drill during at Ba Sing Se
AtlA already has steampunk elements, the fire nation uses steam engines for its early tanks, airships, boats, etc.
And Korra is past the steam era, the world now uses electricity and piston engine powered by oil rather than coal (though bending is also used as a source of energy) so if anything it would be dieselpunk rather than steampunk.
(no, I’m not making this up, those are real cathegories)
to take this thread completely off-topic:
one more thing to note about avatar is that atla is mostly set in rural areas, wheras korra is mostly in republic city. when we see the countryside in korra it’s still pretty backwards (even ba sing se is way behind republic city in tech)
I’d recommend watching Korra. It is in the difficult position where it has to be compared to the masterpiece that is Atla. It does some things worse, but also some are better (especially the main villians are way less one-dimensional)
Wow, I really set this thread in a weird direction. Sorry about that.
It’s cool though.
I would like to make some polls here:
Do you would like to have a more anti-infantry specialised option in the Archery Range?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
How should it be implemented?
- Each civ get one of the two options to upgrade from archers
- Each civ gets both options, but needs to decide wich to take
- It should be a completely different unit line to the current archer line
0 voters
What about the cost for the new line (when chosen the last option in the question above)?
- Basically the same as current archers
- Less gold intenisve to account for being less “generalist”
- Make them trash (and therefore also basicallly only good against infantry and nothing else)
0 voters
What about the interaction with the Militia line with the “new” archer type?
- The Militia line should be Hard-Countered
- The Militia line should be Hard-Countered but in retaliation buffed and/or get new utility
- The Militia line should be initially Hard-Countered but that’s reduced by Gambesons
- Militia line should only be soft-countered
- Militia line shouldn’t be countered to maintain it’s status as “generalist trash counter”. Only other Infantry
0 voters
What about the interaction with the Militia line with the current archer type?
- The Militia line should soft-counter the current archers (better than Knights)
- The Militia line should be basically even (with micro involved)
- The Militia line should be/stay soft-countered by them
0 voters
On the horizon about Infantry
- Nothing, just add that infantry counter.
- Buff the curently available Infantry to become generally stronger
- Add new, more interesting Infantry options to play with
0 voters