Streltsy melee damage. This has to be a bug

Streltsies have a melee attack when closed by melee. They then use their bardiche. While that is fine, their damage is not. They hit like trucks with around 50 dmg per hit on a 2 sec cooldown. They are absolute melee beasts and that can’t be right. They are insane in melee. And since hand cannoneer damage was nerfed, I think the Streltsy melee damage just was forgotten. Which would fit to the QA of Relic unfortunately.

Streltsy melee damage is NOT ok and I suspect it to be either bugged or simply massively overtuned.


They have been like this since the beginning, If you’re referring to them still having that massive melee attack after the ranged nerf. It is not cost effective to use them melee. Also Historically they were very strong with their axes


They should be able to defend themselves in melee, but that damage seems way too high. Especially after the range nerf. It should also be nerfed, even if it is not cost effective what I do not understand actually. Why is that?

I feel like 30 damage would still be high, but much more in line. Hand cannoneers and range in general should be at a disadvantage when having melee units in their face. The Streltsy simply should be better at defending himself than other units due to the bardiche, but he should not hit much harder than pure melee units. It’s too much.

1 Like

I think that the streltsy melee was supposed to be another thing that differentiated them from other archers/ranged, since before they decided to change it for whatever reason (make it more like AoE2) all ranged would switch to a melee attack on close quarters which basically rendered them useless, but since the Streltsy were known for their bardiches that made them unique to have their full dmg remain in CQC since their health is lower than normal hand cannoneers, but since all other units don’t bother switching attack types it was just a visual flair basically.
As for why it wasn’t reduced yeah just a rushed patch not bothering to look at all outcomes of changing one thing.

1 Like

That makes sense. But is their health really lower? I am pretty sure that they also have 150 health, do they not? I might be crazy, but I thought they had the same stats as hand cannoneers and also had their special abilities plus lower costs. I never really saw a trade off in that unit. Should I have missed them having less health, I wonder? I am sure they are the same stats wise, but much better in general and cheaper. I never quite understood that.

The same ideology applies to the Longbowmen, It is like any other archer but with stats enhanced, Because it is unique to the civ. In this case Streltsy is the unique unit for the RUS thus having different advantages over other cannoners. Each civ has a unique unit that is like the other from other civs but better stat wise


That wants to be true, but does not really apply to all of them. The Longbow for example is more expensive than an archer. There is a trade off. The Streltsy, however, is better and cheaper. There is no trade off. The Landsknecht as another example is incredibly weak for his costs. He is actually plain bad. He’s an expensive suicide squader, which also does not make sense as he is barely able to even reach his target. The screen must be very crowded for him to succeed, but even then he is underwhelming. The grenadier on the other hand is much too strong, but it takes a while to get there. I still see issues there and I think that this unit is overtuned as it beats everything when in a critical mass. The French knight is another streltsyesque example as he doesn’t really have a trade off. He can in fact be cheaper than other knights. Cheaper and better does not really make much sense to me. At least you can counter knights better now, but the no trade off position of the royal knight remains. The French Arbaletrier is another example. He even has high protection against melee and range and is thus only really weak to siege. He has more melee armor than MAA and knights. There is a lot of stuff that does not make final sense to me.

There are many exanples where the fine tuning just isn’t there. Mangudais, Horse archers, Elephants, Longbows, Zughe Nus (since patch) and to some extent camels all have trade offs and appear to be in a good or rather good spot. All the other units, however, feel like they are either overtuned (no trade off, only strenghts) or undertuned (high cost, little impact).

Guys pls think about it

How is a guy able to have almost double of melee DMG of a knight on a horse.

Its clearly misstake in code and DMG outpout probably doesnt recognize when switch from ranged to melee attack. (Only animation is correct)

Like seriously? Strelzy a unit without armor at all and with a huge pistol to have biggest melee DMG of all units and you keep chating about how it is unique to a civ? Really? :man_facepalming:


I’m not defending their HIGH melee damage, for all purposes their melee damage could be reduced by 5 or even 10 and it would still be 40+.

What I’m describing here is the LORE behind the unit and since aoe4 is going for historical accuracy. All they did on the unit is currently what they have and is being described.

Yeah well, that does not convince me anymore. It could if there was consistency in the game, but there is not. The Landsknecht was an elite mercenary, the core of the army, feared by his opponents (and sometimes the ones who hired them, when they couldn’t pay them). He used pikes and later also arquebuses. The Flamberg was a variation to break other pike formations like the ones from the Swiss Resiläufers.

In the game they are an expensive, auxiliary wimp unit that is not at all what history would want it to be.

And to be fair, the Streltsy was able to defend himself in melee, but he did not excel at it at highest levels. He was very versatile and sturdy, but actually started off as an archer. His prime time actually exceeds the time frame AoE IV wants to take place in. There is too much off in general unfortunately.


I got this from their website.

Also you have to understand that the Streltsy buff gives damage in % not in flat numbers. Meaning that their base is multiplied by a lot. They go from 45 ranged dps to 58+ ranged DPS with the buff alone.

So their melee damage is also increased with this buff and might seem too strong


HRE M@A is using a 2-handed gothic mace lord of the rings style. How is that historically accurate? Also could you provide historical context that shows the bardiche being able to deal more damage than lets say a billhook, or a raven-beak polarm? Damage should be based around rock-paper-scissor counters, not “it looks cool so it deals extra damage” no melee weapon in the middle ages is able to preform quite like this Rus bardiche. So historically accurate, it is not; when the melee weapon functions like a gunpowder attack(with reduced range)

Here are weapon tests showing various medieval weapon reproductions vs an armor reproduction. You can see that swords and axes do virtually no damage, until the blunt sides and ravenbeak(which busted through the armor after 2 hits), shows that the game should be based off of rock-paper-scissors mechanics and damage multipliers for the respected unit and armor types:

The Hungarian axe (similar to the rus Bardiche) didn’t preform as well as a raven-beak warhammer. So we can conclude the damage for the unit’s melee shouldn’t be super strong, at least not stronger than your average M@A.


Still feels weird that the gunpowder unit streltsy has higher damage melee attacking people than they do shooting people with a gun.


This one is by design, but we are always looking at how to better balance units.



I have to wonder about the design. The Streltsy is cheaper and better than common hand cannoneers and has a huge melee attack that is higher than his range attack and it feels like it was forgotten to be nerfed. The Arbaletrier is also a jack of all trades and so is the grenadier. These units have, once they are available, no real downside and can only be countered by siege, which in the case of Rus gets completely taken out thanks to their 13.5 range springalds. They got the best range anti siege and the best hand cannoneers. Where is the counter to this comp? That’s just too much. And when you take a closer look at the Arbaletrier, he ends up with more melee armor than MAA or knights and also has the pavise. They need to either have much lower armor or should be counted as heavy… How can a light unit have that much armor? It makes no sense and is also a balance problem, because it’s only siege that successfully counters them. The patch made Arbaletriers even more powerful, when they already were by far the best crossbow unit. And if you say “we don’t see the Arbaletrier that often and don’t think he’s a problem” then I would have to say “Yeah, because the French also have the best knights and actually are not required to have this powerful crossbow unit as well”. Had the french baseline knights like the HRE, boring and with no techs at all for them, then we would see masses of Arbaletriers, because they are actually insanely strong.

The units I mentioned, and also other units but not to that extent, actually beat the rock, paper, scissor idea of the game. They break the counter system and they definitely need to be looked at.

And Chinese bombards with (and without) grenadiers have no counter unless you are Mongol or Rus and build tons of springalds. Maybe then you can counter the Chinese onslaught. Or maybe not.

“Do not let civ x get to point y” is not a good balance design. There need to be answers for everything and some things are just massively overtuned. Streltsies and Arbaletriers have zero trade offs. The Chinese trade off is requiring more time and ressources to get to their lateimp comp, but once they get it, they are unstoppable (unless you are Mongol or Rus. And even that is no gurantee). These things need to be more in line. I am not saying “make everything equal”, not at all, but I am saying make things different by not overtuning them. And also try to avoid untertuning them as well, by making them expensive and weak. The Landsknecht gets a double punish for being lightly armored: Little armor, terrible hp. That’s way too much of a trade off.

So we are left with units that have no trade off (Streltsy, Arb, Chinese lategame comp once you get there), units that have a slight trade off (Longbows) and units whose trade offs are just too great (Landsknecht).

And at first it was said, you wanted to improve crossbow damage vs cav. But you improved their dmg vs heavy including infantry and that is particularly bad for MAA centered civs. The improved elite tactics is a lategame tech and does not compensate for the increase in power of the crossbows vs MAA. Maybe the crossbow damage vs them is actually okay, that needs to be seen. The Arbaletrier, however, is a bit too much, because of his ability to be strong vs somewhat everything.

similar??? in what place? it doesn’t even look like berdysh. there were at least 2 attachment points and the European halberd was an analogue. damage near horses should be similar to pikemen

Thin axe on a pole is the similarity. Sure the addition of 2 attachment points would improve the sturdiness of the weapon (granted making it heavier) however if you could provide tested or historic information in relation to a bardiche, that would be great.

In fact the Bardiche is literally a descendant of thin axe-head pole weapons. So the Bardiche is just a slightly improved version of a Norse or Hungarian two-handed axe. However all that does is bolster their similarities.

Video goes to show just how well protected an armored knight is, and I am not even thinking that helmet is spring steel or tempered at all.

1 Like

Well, what are you making up? search engines also give any information and pictures. In Russia, thousands of berdyshs are in museums from archaeological excavations. in the game itself, there is even a video about the Strelcy of Rus. you can compare Hungarian axes with SRI with their two-handed axe for infantry. Berdysh is originally a weapon with the function of protection from cavalry.


Im not? Search engines state the Bariche is a type of pole weapon which is a descendant of normal Two-Handed axe around the 14th century.

Hell to quote literally the first line of Wikipedia: A bardiche /bɑːrˈdiːʃ/, berdiche , bardische , bardeche , or berdish is a type of polearm used from the 14th to 17th centuries in Europe. Ultimately a descendant of the medieval sparth or Danish axe, the bardiche proper appears around 1400, but there are numerous medieval manuscripts that depict very similar weapons beginning c. 1250. The bardiche differs from the halberd in having neither a hook at the back nor a spear point at the top.[1]

Yes I am aware they look different, however their functionality can be used the same way. Yes pole weapons are generally useful from a distance, giving any poleweapon an advantage vs cavalry, this is true, and having enough force via the center of mass being at the top of the weapon to damage armor, is also true. However what I am saying is that the Bardiche in this game is too good at everything, when medieval weapons where designed more like specific tools for specific jobs as apposed to being the end all to warfare. Fighting cav? Bring out a billhook! Fighting knights? Bring out a poleaxe! Fighting poor, unorganized mob with bad or no armor? Bring out a sword!

I like this comment here, so basically you are saying the Bardiche should be tweaked in game for their melee to be on par with M@A when fighting infantry, but deal a bonus damage to cavalry. Im not saying the Bardiche was a terrible weapon, im saying it shouldn’t be on par with a gun. Unfortunately I cannot read (I assume) Russian, but that is indeed a pretty Bardiche. I love pole weapons, and I am glad to talk about them with you! :slightly_smiling_face: