What's up with the cavalary bias in regional units?

A unit can be made that can switch between charge (run weaker) and defend mode (walk stronger).
I have made a similar concept as Ramdao Warrior in Dharma Expansion Mod.

But this mechanism can be made a new infantry line idea or a regional infantry line for civs with weak stable.

1 Like

I’m so with you in this statement. Sorry for spam this every time I get the chance, but beyond I would make some minor changes to it, here is a topic with ideas to rework barracks to achieve in part this issue with it:

I am convinced that something like this would greatly enrich the game, not only the infantry meta

1 Like

Here’s the map I made. It has all regional units (except for Armored Elephants and Dromons), as well as Camels.


You did annoy me, but you did not waste my time. Others can still use that reply and I can refer to it, or copy it when I need to. I do not personally consider contributing to the community a waste of my time.

On the other hand, it was indeed my mistake treating you in good faith and cordiality after your behaviour in the other thread. You are nothing more than a bad-faith troll, and I will remember to treat you as such in the future.

Animals have regional distributions, thats natural. Camels and Elephants don’t live in Europe.

Beside the naturally regional Camels and Elephants there are Eagles, Steppe Lancer, Elephant archers, siege Elephants and Dromons, so one for each building.

1 Like

The camel’s spread would be even more impressive if ignoring areas out of civ territories (so cutting most of the Americas, Greenland, northern Siberia, Australia and the southern half of Africa).

Northern Africa + the Middle East + Central Asia + some civs touching these regions (Byzantines Hindustani and Chinese), it’s a large chunk of the map.

1 Like

Would be more appropriate if you take it as “why there are so more stable units than barrack units and archery units”. I do think they should make more barrack units. Also, I don’t think there is a regional unit in this game because they are literally treated as just generic units that’re available to some civs.

1 Like

This is kind of proving my point, because (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (7.) and (9.) are all terrible ideas. They’d be horrid to play with, horrid to play against, or just not worth making.

(6.) is stressing the aspect of champs of being base-destroyers at the cost of slightly reducing their effectiveness at unit-to-unit combat, which could work well.
(8.) I suggested myself too. It’s fixing an aspect of the realism of the spear line, and I really hope it makes it into the game some day.

Cavalry ruled most battlefields.

Literally don’t care if you think they are terrible. Explain why you think they are terrible, and then we can have a conversation. But also, these are just ideas I’m throwing out to brainstorm. If 1 in 10 ideas is good, that’s good enough. I can throw out 40, and we’ll have 4 good infantry regional units.
EDIT: Just looked through those ideas again, and no. Some of those are really good. An infantry that can build walls and outposts would be invaluable in feudal. I can explain why many of those would be great to use. If you think they are all terrible, you either have a bias against infantry, or no idea as to how they would play out in-game.

Wrong. Cavalry ruled for a period of time before gunpowder, and after feudal ages. If you want to be realistic, cavalry should be much less useful in imperial age, and much more expensive.

About half the civs don’t get hand cannoneer and bombard though.

Has literally nothing to do with what I said. I don’t even know why you are bringing this up. Imperial age is the time of gunpowder regardless of whether a civ gets gunpowder or not.

It has literally everything to do with what you said. You’re saying cavalry should be useless because of gunpowder units, but gunpoweder units aren’t used by half the civs in the game.

And most games never see imperial anyways. For a MEDIEVAL game cavalry ruling the battlefield makes perfect sense. They ruled the medieval battlefield, and early hand cannons didn’t make them obsolete.

EDIT: Also, during the “Imperial Age” of the late 15th and early 16th centuries only around 10% of soldiers used firearms. Guns did not yet rule the battlefield, this is not AoE3’s timeline.

1 Like

Wrong. I said they were useless by the time of gunpowder, not because of gunpowder. Gunpowder was a factor, but more important were things like the polearms which could keep cavalry at a distance and shred them. Those pole arms were like what in-game kamayuks use. Multiple rows which could attack at once. Once this became common, cavalry wasn’t as effective any more.

Crossbows and longbows were also contributors. Longbows were able to kill cavalry many times their own numbers.

But also, don’t pretend like you care about historical accuracy. Where are your posts about removing fire ships from most civs, removing plumed archers, removing paladins? None of those are historically accurate. There is no reason why camels should get bonus damage against elephant units. There are like 15 other bigger historical inaccuracies which you can’t even argue against.

Maybe it was rude to call them terrible ideas without saying why. So fine:

  1. units having a shield, and the shield direction mattering messes with the elegance of AOE. Not only that, but most of the time if the shield faces the wrong direction it would feel frustrating because there’s no good reason for the shield to ever face the wrong direction other that attention or clicks-per-minute.
  2. we’ve seen this mechanic in the Hussite wagon. It’s not a fun mechanic. It hardly gets used, hussite wagon ended up being a kind of bad organ gun.
  3. It’s an aura. The Roman civ could prove me wrong, but it doesn’t look like this is a positive feature in a civ.
  4. not worth making. Like would you make spears against meso civs? Are Spanish supremacy vills a legitimate choice for the meat shield? When they are worth making they’ll lead to frustration with the opponent about pathing. It would have a very hard time being at least as useful as Hussar/light cav.
  5. not worth making under most conditions. It could maybe work for a civ that doesn’t have scouts or eagles.
  6. It’s a status effect. Status effects might be acceptable if they’re inflicted by a UU, but even that’s iffy. It makes the game too complicated, which takes attention away from the strategy of the game.
  7. Won’t be worth making most of the time, because reducing a building to 75% hp isn’t much easier than reducing it to 0% hp. Finicky conditions like this lead to tedium and frustration.
1 Like

So, let’s get a couple of things out of the way. First, you’ve said things like “messes with the elegence”, or “status effect” or “aura”. None of those things make a unit not worth making. Don’t get me wrong, I’m literally the person who made this post. However, by spreading out the mechanics across civs as a regional unit, it works.

What I mean is, I find criticisms 1, 3, and 6 totally subjective. Those boils down to “I don’t like them”. That’s fine, but not relevant to the argument here.

3.In particular, is one of the best ideas. That’s because you can’t raid of split up these units. You need to keep them packed for that bonus to apply, and therefore, need constant micro. It’s a high skill-high reward unit.

2.There is a reason why it sucks with hussite wagons. Those units are slow, made from a castle, and expensive. These units are easily produced from barracks, and will mostly be used to protect siege, monks, and vils. They are not an all-situation unit like the knights, they intend to serve a specific purpose. These units will also do what a ram does in archer vs archer fights.

4.Spanish supremacy vils are not good meat shields because 1. you need tcs to produce them 2. they take 25 seconds to produce and 3. you cannot set stances, and have to manually attack. This particular unit isn’t great for open maps, but they are great for closed maps where holding your opponent’s army for 3 minutes at a place can decide if you win or lose

5.Idk what you are talking about, mate. This is a top tier infantry unit. As I said already, they can scout the maps for you, better than scouts, and permanently through outposts. I’ll make an even stronger statement. If this unit is ever implemented, I’ll completely change the meta. This is a unit that can wall in all neutral gold, and relics. If anything, you’ll have tone down their construction speed to balance them. Ask any of the pros about their opinion on such a thing if you can, and they’ll tell you how wrong you are.

7.I suspect you are talking about 9 here. 7 has nothing to do with 75% HP. Reducing a building to 75% isn’t much easier than reducing it to 0%? wtf are you even talking about? with the same military, it’ll take 4 times as much time. It’s the difference between 10 seconds and 40 seconds. That’s the difference between getting your vils to repair that building to keep your opponent’s army out, and completely failing to do so and getting destroyed. You also cannot quickwall out this unit because those buildings are under 75% too. At this point, I have to suspect if you really know the game. Just ask like 5 people who really know the game. You know, people you respect. Show them my post, and your reply, and ask them what they think.

I was wondering, why are the asians civs not getting a ninja as a barracks regional ?

1 Like

Ninja are too specific to Japan

Something like Grenaduer, fire lancer or something like that would be better

1 Like

Longbowmen are easily countered by heavy cavalry. Bow is ineffective against heavy cavalry in Battle of Patay (1429) or Batte of Verneuil (1424).

" …the 2,000 Milanese heavy cavalry charged the English front line They brushed aside the English wooden stakes that could not be secured in ground baked hard by the summer sun. English arrows proved ineffective against the Italian mercenaries’ superior armor. The shock effect of the Milanese charge terrified the English, with men-at-arms and archers knocked over, and gaps torn in the English ranks as they tried to avoid the onrushing horsemen and others throwing themselves to the ground and being ridden over by the cavalry."

In 17th century, cavalry consisted of 40-60% of armies in musket and gun era and cavalry charge is still most common tactic which won tens of battles between 16-18th century. Polearm is one of the best defense against cavalry but they don’t stop cavalry charge, Pikeman vs Cavalry is balanced engagement moderately better than Swordman vs Cavalry.

Site censors link I am sharing. Google this in order to reach link: Death or glory: Famous cavalry charges - Google Search

I would love to see a mongolian ninja. :rofl: