I think the best way to buff infantry is to distinguish the attack types of castle, TC, and tower from the attack types of long-range troops, and then strengthen the infantry’s armor against castles and other buildings. This method will not make significant adjustments to balance either.
1 Like
With the latest patch, I think it is possible. A certain type of unit takes less bonus damage drom defensive buildings will make the unit better at raiding.
1 Like
Don’t think this is necessary or likely after Gambesons. Swordsman-line with relevant upgrades trivialize TC damage, and (generic) towers definitely don’t need any kind of nerf. Castles are stronk vs. generic infantry, but appropriately so.
The trend of threads proposing more buffs to things that have just been buffed continues.
6 Likes
With Gambesons, infantry is ok from the castle age onwards.
The lack is in the feudal age, where infantry can hardly be a “standalone” option (maybe only with Celts or Malians), while scout or archery range units can.
Militia line should be split into two categories. militia to long-swordsmen as is now and then to shielded swordsmen next in imperial as shielded unit with good ap, and then you would get two handed swordsman line separate in imperial as trash killer unit. so you won’t need to upgrade from militia if you decide to transition into infantry.
Nah, that would make castles without murder holes too vulnerable. TC’s already go down fast with all the blacksmith upgrades + arson + gambesons.
1 Like
I think the TO has a point of that some types of units are just not capable of dealing good eco damage to the opponent.
But I also want to mention certain issues with just adding more pierce armor or resistance to TC fires to units.
Some time ago I saw a game of Hera with sicilians against Ethiopians. And Hera tried to use the Serjeants for raidng. Splittet them up and herassed several eco spots like you would do with cavalry.
His opponent just made a seizable army of Shotels and run down each of his raiding parties, killed them one by one. Hera still won the game I think, but the move he tried with the serjeant just didn’t worked out cause his opponent could use the mobiltiy of his units very effecitvely.
What I try to say is that this kind of stuff is very compliated when even serjeants with their 4 pierce armor can’t really effectively raid.
I much rather would like to see some special utilities for a new “power infantry” line rather than trying to force something with stat buffing. Stat monsters make games only weird and unfun cause at some point they jsut crush through everything without any skill involved. Whilst if units have different utility you would still be required to cover the weaknesses to convert an advantage to a victory.
TBH I don’t think this change to the militia line will make them more viable in the midgame (except against mesos). And in the lategame I am also not a real fan of it cause the estra PA does a lot against Archers and CA which are often used as backline units, but very little against HC. Putting Archer and CA civs in a disadvantage in the very lategame cause they would need way bigger mass to deal with that Champ switch. Whilst many HC civs (which are in the most case cav civs) don’t have any more inconvenience.
At the same time Infantry is also not performing any better against Scorpions or Onagers, which is another major wekness of them.
And in low elo I expect a wave of dumb militia spamming cause with no micro involed they basically crush everything now. Which is also stupid imo.
I don’t understand why we don’t make interesting stuff like “pillaging” or so, which would give ressources for destroying/attacking enemy buildings. Forcing the opponent to actually react when pressured with infantry instead of just buying time with walls etc. Something that gives the unit an interesting role, an alternative way to create an economic advantage.