Fun fact: Aztec Jaguar Warriors have the same cost as a Polish Knight/Cavalier. Compare the unit stats and it’s obvious something is off. To be clear I don’t think Poles are overpowered, their units have weaknesses to keep them balanced, just Jaguars have more weaknesses, and Aztec economy isn’t far from Poles.
After Poles research a tech, and their cavalry fall off in the late game.
Poles cavalry are weak to cavalry, archers, and pikes. Jags are weak to archers and cavalry.
Aztec eco is better then Poles
Jaguar Warriors are dead due to these reasons:
-
Infantry Units overall belong to the Dark Age / Early Feudal Age(Militia momentum), and Late Imperial Age (Trash Slayers, Gold efficient unit), the expectation to see them in the mid-game is irrational, some sort of a romantic approach that will never fit AOE II mechanism.
-
It’s an awful Unique Unit design, unlike Shotel, Woad, Berserk, Condotierro, Huskarl, Serjeant, Eagle. This unit simply doesnt justify a Castle (more than just one), Countering Infantry can be done without using a direct bonus damage that Jaguars, Slingers and Handcan have. Cav Archers, Arbalesters, Champions, and Knights do it better with much less of investment, all due to some micro.
This unit lack purpose, the Anti-Infantry bonus should act as a secondary role, the unit needs another bonus, redesign to say the least. Such as extremely high bonus vs. Buildings OR 1 hit kill a villager OR 1 bonus vs. Hussars OR gain food each kill they make (just like a carnivore jaguar) OR any other hidden/direct bonus/change. -
Aztecs are simply OP, S-tier civ for such a long time, we cant allow ourselves to buff the civ indirectly by buffing its UU.
-
The current Meta is the most restrictive one we’ve ever had, why do we expect to see a Jaguar if we dont see any other UU, they’re all invisible in this meta, games are heavily structured, full walls, gold compositions (most likely double), and of course 3TC boom sometimes 4TC. (Booming is usually bad for Unique Units, eco cant be too big or else you wont be able to produce enough units, being limited by the amount of castles, mining stone delays Imp heavily, and most UU dont justify ALL-IN Castle Age, Wagons/Huskarls/Janni/Conq do however)
1 Like
Well, apparently we were heard by the developers and in the patch that just came out they buffed all the unique units of the castle era, so … Congratulations everyone! 
3 Likes
Devs buffed Longsword a lot. Firstly +1 PA, after +5 hp, after introduction of Supplies upgrade and lastly Longsword get upgrade cost reductions and +1 Melee Armor. I don’t understand why Devs are buffing LS, if they don’t want to see them in Castle Age. Existence of Longsword upgrade automatically imply that Devs want to militia-line be used in Castle Age. If they don’t want to see Militia-line in Castle Age, Longsword upgrade would be skipped and directly go to THS upgrade.
Devs want units be used in every age. Some units can be weaker depends on age like Eagles are weak in late Imperial but they are still good in raiding (they take only 1 damage from TC shots) if enemy doesn’t have defensive castles.
I totally agree with this.
Aztecs has better option than Jaguar Warrior which is Longsword and Longsword is buffed again. Now, Jaguar Warrior is buffed greatly. I think this is pertinent buff. It is buff to Aztecs but not huge.
Unfortunately, we don’t see Unique Units expect 8-10 of them (20-25%). It is also bad design. All unique units should be usable at some point of the game.
I’m not saying Longswords shouldn’t get any buff, I think they need to be viable just like every other unit, to a certain degree though, it cannot replace Knights or Xbows, due to structural infiriority, that just cant be fixed, so we have to lower our expectations.
Infantry units (slow, melee) can barely be micro-ed around, and that’s where they’ll never see a major place in pro games. Unless the game gets a little chaotic and shuffled up- which never happens these days. (full-walls boom meta)
Same about Unique Units, we indeed see only 8-10 of them as you said, mostly some sort of CA model, it’s of course a result of both the meta and the unit design/balance. Every UU deserve viability.
Regarding Jaguars, I do want them to be buffed, however unlike most UU buffs, this should be done carefully, the civ is already carcinogenic.
1 Like
It isn’t true though. Low speed isn’t obstacle towards being useful. Malians +2 PA is useful unit. Japanese LS and Samurai will be good with Skirmisher support as well. Before, Knight would stomp easily this LS+Skirmisher combo but now LS can fight back. It is viable now, it need only +1 attack buff to LS.
I totally agree.
LS cant fight back vs. Knights, damage ticks are too low (unlike Pikes) and movement speed difference is too big, which makes micro-ing so easy, you just pull back low HP Knights and heal them.
With +1 attack, it can fight back Knights somewhat cost efficiently. Japanese and Vikings definitely can beat Knights if they has 1 more attack. +2 attack would be OP against Knight, thus I proposed +1 attack.
Actually there is 1000 ways of buffing or nerfing units. Right now, Knight is OP rather than Crossbows, thus I want to strengthen LS against Knights rather than Crossbows.
Before that, I proposed give +1/+2 armor and -2 attack to strengthen against crossbow according to Historical Accuracy but game balance wise, buffing LS against Knights more appropriate.
They should be buffed and they should get bonus damage against barracks too.
Except here’s the difference. Knights have this counter unit called the pike who work very cost effectively against them, train dirt cheap and extremely fast.
So if you want ls to cost effectively beat Knights what are you going to give knight civs to cost effectively beat militia that train dirt cheap and extremely fast?
Also historically I’m pretty sure archers wrecked infantry.
And historically elephants absolutely destroyed everything except cav archers and a massive number of pointy sticks. Even then it had to be on open terrain, in the jungles they were almost unstoppable.
Oh I agree, was just pointing out how wrong ableds argument was.
Actually even pike isn’t that much cost efficient. Knight can hunt Pikemen in game with very little casualties like 10 knight vs 8 Pike. Knight-side also can accept battle whenever he want. Now, Knight clap LS 1:2 ratio which is huge advantage. Knight simply counter LS still even with recent +1 MA buff. If Devs don’t want to buff LS against Knights, they should buff against archers (like my proposal LS/THS/Champion, 2/3 armor and 7/9/10 attack) and buff spear/pikeman. For instance, give more attack against Cavalry like +15/+22 to +20/+28 to pikeman (I don’t understand immense power gap between Pike and Halberdier while gap between Light Cavalry and Hussar is too small) if you don’t want to buff LS.
I am opening huge paragraph for this topic. No, it isn’t true, archers didn’t wreck infantries if infantries has another archer support. If they don’t have, you are kind of right if archer side have also infantry support.
For instance, in Battle of Agincourt, French has low number of arbalesters which is bad against Longbowmen, therefore they lost arbalests vs Longbowmen duel in beginning of the battle. After that French man-at-arms (heavy cavalry but it is much more mounted infantry because they dismount in battlefield in order to fight against pikemen. I think Paladins could dismount in battles just like real history) performed cavalry charge against English, English longbowmen killed French horses (in game, in reverse archers are weak against cavalries) and French man-at-arms dismounted for this reason. French man-at-arms (like strong version of game Serjeant) charged again, English longbowmen inflicted very small casualties to French man-at-arms but tired and demoralized French man-at-arms. In close battle, English 1.000 man at arms + 5.000 Longbowmen repelled French man-at-arms charge in melee fighting not with arrow shooting.
In conclusion, if your armor is good (plate armor is best but chain and lamellar armor is cheaper to produce and more practical). Reinvention of plate armor by Europeans (Romans and Greeks invented plate armor before but it is forgotten because it wasn’t useful in battles because in this age, armies don’t have strong bows like crossbow, composite bow and longbow extensively. After Romans encountered chain mail, they favoured chain mail over plate mail for this reason. For same reason, Romans leave open their legs and arms. If enemy don’t have strong bows, chain mail is better than plate mail).
1 Like
Hey guys I’m gonna give all the advantages to knights and then say pikes aren’t cost effective.
10 knights 300 second production time and 1350 total resources.
8 pikes cost 480 resources, 176 second production time and even available earlier.
Depends on the longsword in quest. Teuton, Burmese, vikings, and Japanese all say no.
Why? The longsword line is not supposed to compete with archers or knights. And pikes do fine vs knights.
Except that wasn’t your fucking claim. Your claim was infantry historically beat archers. Now you’re moving the goal posts to infantry with archer support beats pure archer. Which means you’re being dishonest.
Except most infantry didn’t have plate or even chain mail armor. Most infantry was basically peasants armed with leather at best.
In history, Infantries had gambeson, chain mail, lamellar armor and plate mail. Leather armor isn’t common in Europa. They have shields when they have no armor. In conclusion, they had always a thing against archers. Armors are affordable in historical period, armor is too expensive thing isn’t true. Man-at-arms and Gendarmes had full plate armor. Using peasants in Battles isn’t common because peasants die like militia vs Knight. Of course peasants used in battles but they are used for labor or castle defense. Medieval weapons need profession unlike modern rifles, thus bowmen started to train from young age. Medieval armies tend to be very small for this reason. For same reason, soldiers consisted separate group in society unlike now.
I am sorry but in the past, armies had infantry+archer+cavalry army compositions not solely archer vs infantry battle because they aren’t idiot, and yes in archer vs heavy infantry fight, heavy infantry beat archers. That is known fact. Longbow had short sword for melee fighting instead of spear because their main counter is heavy infantry and they counter them with short sword or small needle-like swords to target gap of plate armor. If they feared heavy cavalry more than heavy infantry, they would use spear as side weapon instead of short sword. Longbowmen armies also took measures against cavalry which ditches and stakes. This is also big problem of cavalry armies. Ditch, stake, rough terrain, castles take their all advantage.
Heavy cavalry also beat cavalry archers vide Byzantines vs Bulgarians (before heavy cavalry, Bulgarians destroyed Byzantines and Khan Krum made drinking cup from Byzantine’s Emperor skull. After Byzantines started to use Cataphracts, then Byzantines won battles), Byzantines vs Pecheneks, Magyars (same as Bulgarians), Byzantines vs Seljuks (Seljuks firstly won battles but after Byzantines started to win battles for same reason. In conclusion, Archer is only supportive unit in every army, they are skirmisher of the real history).
Light cavalry actually can fight back against heavy cavalry unlike cavalry archer. In close melee fights, Ottoman light cavalries (they used bows as well but they knew bow is almost ineffective against heavy cavalry) beat Magyars fully armored + barding, Heavy Cavalries with spears and blunt weapons like mace. Heavy Cavalry still have advantage over Light Cavalry though but Light Cavalry isn’t as hopeless as cavalry archers. In Battle of Mohacs, Magyars had 10.000 heavy infantry and 16.000 heavy cavalry while Ottomans had more number which is 40.000 sipahi (light or medium cavalry) and Ottoman sipahis used old feigned retreat, firstly retreating from enemy after flanking heavy cavalry with lurking other cavalries and they annihilate Magyars Heavy Cavalries. Ottoman also had 7.000 Janissary musketeers, 300 guns (gun fire became inaccurate though) and Janissaries also inflicted heavy casualties to Magyars Heavy Cavalry.
No player can create 20 pikeman against 10 Knight (pretty much same cost) because pikeman is useless against every units expect Knight. Pike heavily countered by archers, skirmishers, LS, scorpions in short every unit other than Knight. Pike upgrades isn’t cheaper than Knight as well. In a lot of pro games, Knight-side continue to create Knights after seeing big number of pike production. Because they know that pike is not cheap unit, Knights can damage enemy eco while running from pikemen.
For instance, why is Halberdier much better than Pikeman? I am asking this question because trash units is supposed be weak in late game in terms of power because in late, after gold run out, trash units suddenly became too cheap comparing to gold units. Halberdier should be weaker than pikeman. However, it get huge bonus in late game, +4 attack and +10 attack against cavalry. With +4 attack, Halberdier can kill villagers while pike can’t do this. Paladin’s +60 hp comparing to Knight become neutral against Halberdier extra bonus. Pike kill Knight in 5 hits, Halberdier also kill Paladin in 5 hits. Paladin kill Halberdier faster which is 4 hits comparing to Pike’s 6 hits from Knights but it still isn’t enough because halberdier production is much more affordable than pikeman production due to larger eco in late game, thus being possible to afford 10 Barrack production. I didn’t mention even that Paladin upgrade is too expensive (1650 food 1050 gold) and time-consuming (270 seconds) comparing to Halberdier upgrade (300 food 600 gold and 50 seconds). On the other hand, Pikeman is who need upgrade. Knight need no upgrade to be used.
1 Like
Funny. I see people make pikes against knights all the dang time.
I’m just gonna put you on ignore because no matter how many people tell you you’re wrong you keep spewing wrong stuff
Of course, people create pikeman against Knight because it is only option against Knight with monks and camels (however, only like 40% of the civ have camels). Knights are dominating the game now. Even players create Knights against Japanese who has best pikeman. For instance, even generic Halberdier can stop enemy’s Paladin production or at least Paladin side need supportive units to repel halberdiers but Knights don’t need supports in a lot of situations. If Halberdiers (even Imperial Age pikeman is very strong due to being trash) weren’t that strong, we would see Paladins no matter how much expensive is Paladin upgrade.
I am asking same questions: why Halberdier is stronger upgrade among trash units. Skirmisher doesn’t have upgrade in Imperial Age, Hussar upgrade only give +15 (+20%) hp. On the other hand, Halberdier upgrade give +5 hp (+9% hp), +2 attack (50% attack is huge), +10 bonus attack (overcome Cavalier’s +20 hp and neutralize Paladin’s extra +60 hp). It is clear that Halberdier had strongest upgrade among trash units. Even then, Halberdier isn’t best trash unit. Hussar is still best trash unit which shows that pikeman is bad unit.
You are saying I am not admitting my mistakes but guys who argue with me, can’t put forward reasonable arguments against me. I have a personality that don’t accept anything if opposing side can’t give reasonable arguments even if opposing side is whole World. To be anecdot, 100 scientists opposed Albert Einstein’s relativity theory, " Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact".
1 Like
Difference is, Einstein knew what he was talking about. You have proven time and time again you don’t
You proved this when you made the comment about cav archer range.
You proved this when you said pikes don’t beat Knights cost effectively.
You proved this when you make blanket statements and rhen move your goalposts.
So don’t even pull that crap
Of course, I know I am not Einstein. I am just gving one meaningful anecdot. You seems very angry. It is just a game, it is for entertainment and we are discussing just for same reason entertainment. Have a good day.
1 Like