For the history/realism guys - archers literally fall under the definition of infantry. Why does a FU cataphract literally almost shred a champion faster than a ratan archer, thanks to champions being infantry(+18 dam vs inf), and rattans not…
If archers were listed as infantry as well as their usual groupings it would make them slightly more susceptible to more things, it indirectly buffs infantry (aoe term for infantry used here)
Would it make such a game breaking difference? Shouldnt jaguars and cataphracts be able to shred any foot soldiers regardless of whether they carry a melee weapon or not…
Why does a samurai kills a huskarl twice as fast as it kills champions ?
Why do Teutonic Knights armor can withstand heavy axes thrown at them but suddenly becomes useless against arrows ?
yes… yes it would. AOE revolves around 3 major pillars of units. infantry, Calvary and archers with 2 supporting types with siege and monks (also ships for water but yeah). they are supposed to create a rock/paper/scissors against each other but theres exceptions with certain units (mainly UU) being different such huskarls absorbing archer fire which is normally where infantry is weak against. However these are the points of UU to be different and give their civ a interesting take.
if you assign all foot archers as infantry as well as archers it messes with everything… .suddenly infantry bonuses now trigger for two unit types…while now they have another armor class to take bonus damage against. it throws everything out of wack. either it super buffs a infantry civ because now they can have archers with the bonus’s their infantry have while nerfing others because it makes them weaker to more things.
jaguars already get a bonus to rattan for being a UU unit and cataphracts are SUPPOSED to be weaker against ranged units unless they are massed.
In a word, balance.
You’re thinking samurai homie
You mean samurais get a bonus against rattans, the jaguar does not.
And to the OP, yes it would break the game. Archers are the counter to cataphracts, which is normally not the case in a archer vs cavalry situation, ie. archer vs paladin. Cataphracts counter infantry, even halberdiers because catas have a bonus armor against bonus damage to cavalry. So genoese crossbowmen, pikes, camels etc. do less bonus damage to cataphracts, some are even nullified completely I think. So their natural counters become not so effective against them and their unnatural counter becomes effectice against them.
fair enough got them mixed but still point stands
This would have been valid in vanilla AoE, but even then there was the need to separate these units so that they aren’t affected by the same upgrades (even tho all the foot soldiers could be abusively called “infantry”). Then, archers proved to be too strong and the only viable rush option in Tool age, so in RoR they introduced slingers to counter them. They wanted to create a unit triangle, so axemen had to counter slingers, and thus had to be truely separated from archers. The slinger have a bonus against archers, have pierce armor right from the start, which allow them to counter archers, while they don’t benefit from any melee armor upgrade and have only 25 hp, which on top of their weak base attack make them (theoretically) useless against even axemen. In practice they will eventually beat them if massed, but at least they coste stone so it’s harder to do so. When working on AoK, ES reused the anti-archer concept of the slingers for skirmishers, so the division was still relevant. Also, if the archer class didn’t exist, cav archers and cavalry would benefit from the same armor upgrades (same problem as archer/infantry armor), and there would likely be more problems with upgrades in general.
If all foot archers and melee infantry were all infantries, doesn’t that mean that like, champions would suffer extra damage from skirmishers? that would definitely nerf melee infantry IMO
Game balance and gameplay > realism.
yes guys… of course we should all be obtuse to prove me wrong, i bow before your greatness
i never said archers should lose their own category, i said they should be added to the infantry category, so things like jaguars, and catas, would gain bonus damage to them
where you guys sucked anything else out of is beyond me, like literally making things up to make me more wrong…
archers keep their own archer armour upgrades etc, literally just add “infantry” to their armour class, just like how an elephant archer has : Cavalry archer Archer Cavalry War elephant Unique unit
literally the only person who took me seriously was @ReTuRnOfpRaCtIs
I mean I literally said the issue of giving them the infantry class ■■■ well as armor class. Even if you don’t grant them infantry bonus that come from getting granted that class and JUST do it for armor you’re skewing the balance of units by giving archers another host of weaknesses and messing with the counters for catas as that’s supposed to be their weakness.
I don’t see anyone here assuming you meant they should loose their own category just telling you it would skew the balance of things if they were treated as infantry
again overall…balance over realism. if it makes you feel any better about the name view ‘infantry’ as melee and archers as ranged…its just a game term.
I did not confuse your intention in my post so I’m baffled why you are including me in. I clearly stated why what you exactly proposed is a bad thing. Did you even read it or am I just wasting my time? Catas and jaguars already have great attack power and archer units have lower hp than other infantry, you want to make them be completely useless when you are able reach them? Thats not the style of this game. You aren’t even giving a gameplay balancing reason to this at all. Care to explain what this change in your opinion would achieve that would be GOOD_FOR__BALANCE?
Atleast, I’m trying to argue why for balance reason what you suggest is a bad thing. You didn’t argue nothing, for balance reasons, you were just arguing for it to be there cause that’s how’d you like it.