Why do Legionaries get +4 bonus damage against infantry?

Let me introduce you to … THE BOHEMIANS. This civ has the most powerful siege weapon in the game, supported by monks that only cost food. Forget about using hussars, their halbs are extra spicy. Thinking of infantry? They have hand cannoneers which are super fast. Archers? Did I mention that houfnice have a large splash damage? If you are going full archers, they also have their otherwise garbage UU. There is literally no counter to this civ if they reach endgame with a good eco.

There are also a few other civs with insane end-game deathball comps like Byzantines, Ethiopians, Portuguese, and Koreans. With infinite resources, Khmer, Persians, and Turks have those as well.

No, the opponent needs 3 good shots, one for each monk. You won’t get that before the BBC gets converted.

That is why I said preliminary numbers. Single civ matchups aren’t as important as matchups against groups of civs. Like the infantry group I indicated.
But they do seem alright otherwise.

The reason can also be a legacy issue as Legionary was introduced as a redesigned Elite Jaguar Warrior in The Forgotten (2013). They used to share a lot of stats which didn’t change in the official version after 10 years.


It needs just one shot, then retreat, then another shot and so on and on…

It’s just about micro and luck at that point, a monk can convert a BBC instantly, or a BBC can micro back and forward on and on.

No chance. 3 monks means he can micro his monks too. You won’t even get that one monk if he does it properly. Every time you push, 3 monks try per bombard cannon. You try to snipe one monk, he moves that one monk, you get nothing, and your bombard cannon gets converted. Of course, what I’m saying is only possible with perfect micro. But the point is, the monks will always win with perfect micro.

To be clear, I think this is an issue with monks. They are far too powerful, even at intermediate levels. Monks do need a bit of a revamp.

I’ve found something pretty annoying about this bonus. So, you know that Romans are going to make scorpions. What is the counter? Siege Onagers. What is their counter? Centurions. What is your counter? Halbs. That’s where the issue is. Legionaries absolutely chew through halbs, and one Siege Onager can only withstand about 4 scorpion shots.

I’ve found the amount of micro needed on closed maps against Scorpion-Centurion-Legionary combo to be just impossible. You need almost perfect control over siege onagers so that Centurions don’t snipe them, and simultaneously, you don’t get legionaries get close. But also, you can’t let their scorpions (usually in spread formation) snipe your onagers.

Let me repeat this, Siege Onagers are surprisingly vulnerable to Scorpions in spread formation. I honestly think that Siege Onagers should get something to guard them from scorpions, because they don’t currently work as a counter.

1 Like

Unbeliverpool. Do you have a replay for a happy reference?

So, you need to remember the 51% rule (as I like to call it). This means that a counter unit should cost 51% in resources, or should save that many resources by surviving. For a comparison, if you have 30 archers, you need 16-17 skirmishers to counter that. Similarly, if you counter knights with pikes, you’ll have roughly 50% resource saved by the surviving pikes.

Now, let’s take roman scorpions. They cost 75 wood, and 30 gold. That’s 105 resources. A generic siege onager costs 295 resources. I’ll approximate it and say that you can buy 3 scorpions for one onager. Note that the siege onager upgrade is ridiculously expensive at around 2000 resources. I’m ignoring that here.

According to our rule, then, one onager should counter 5 scorpions to be considered a counter. Here’s the test:

<a #################################################### GIPHY

Even in the best case scenario for onagers, 1 scorpion survived. This means that Onagers are not a counter here.

Oh, and before people say that mass onagers will do it, no. You can test it out in a real game yourself, if you want, under the pressure of other units.

EDIT: Sorry mate, this is just not letting me post the gifs here. Not sure how to get around it.

I’ll figure it out later. For the record, 1-2 scorpions died on average, when I just let it play out without micro. This was Aztec SO vs Roman Scorpions, post-imp.

1 Like

it is not an issue in 1v1 and high elo team games because nobody use infantry to fight Legionaries, and the game usually end before roman can spam Legionaries.

In low elo games , there are indeed a lot of units are overpowered and hard to counter. There is no way to balance them, you know, low elo players can boom into anything and they dont play meta

Can you give me any examples? I’m talking about closed maps here. Black forest, for example, where you can’t do that.

1 Like

What kind of example do you need

High Elo games you’ve seen where Siege onager-halb combo is used to counter Romans. Or, if you are high elo, your recording. Or even a link to someone else’s recording. When I looked it up, I could only find cavalry and BBC dealing with them for the most part.

1 Like

Although, you need 8 scorpions shots to kill a siege onager, while a siege onagers needs just one shot to kill a scorps or potentially more.

True, but if you pick a 3 unit composition it’s hard for anything to find a counter.

Turks can have a combo or janissaries, BBC and hussars, italians archers, BBC and hussars, teutons can have halbs, cavaliers and onagers, and so on…

When you take 3 different units it’s quite easy to have units that cover each other weaknesses, and the roman composition is super expensive, hard to reach and hard to maintain and is weak towards monks that can convert centurions.

Ok I can’t see the GIF, but I think I understand what you mean, and you basically created the perfect condition to prove your theory.

As you can’t be in the position to maximize the use of your unit, neither the opponent should be considered to be in the optimal situation, and with mass scorpions against mass onagers, it’s not easy for the roman player to have them in perfectly staggered formation, or to caught some other units in the shots.

Besides, probably onagers and light cav works better against romans than onagers and halbs.


I would agree with you there, except considering how expensive that initial investment for Siege Onagers is.
Let’s say the roman player gets 20 scorpions by early-mid imperial. The heavy upgrade is 800 food, and 900 wood. Each unit then costs 75 wood and 30 gold.

So, the total is 600 gold, and 3200 in wood and food.

Now, consider the onager player. You need a 1:3 ratio. So, 7 siege onagers. The Onager upgrade is 800 food and 500 gold, and then siege onager costs 1450 food and 1000 gold, and after that, each mangonel costs 160 wood and 135 gold.

That’s 3370 in wood and food, but, 2445 in gold.

To summarize, the onager player needs to spend 5815 resources, including a whooping 2445 gold to match 3800 resources of the roman player. And, that roman player only would’ve spent 600 gold. Considering how valuable gold is in 1v1, that is almost never worth it.

That’s the thing, though, the game wants you to just go cav. I don’t want to go cav. I want a solution from the barracks or the archery range.

There are so many solutions where the game just wants you to use cavalry, or heavy siege. Siege can’t be countered by anything except other siege, or cavalry, and I’m tired of it. Especially in cases like scorpions where even other siege isn’t good enough(specifically in closed map cases), and you HAVE to go just cavalry.

Not just any cavalry, because scorpions have bonus damage against elephants for some fucking reason, and camels have zero pierce armour. So, you need to use horse cavalry.

#### man, I think I’m done playing closed map games. But wait, you are never going to get the eco to build up elephants in open maps.

I’m just venting at this point, but can someone mod out all the horse cavalry bullshit? I’ll buy that mod. If you make a kickstarter, I’ll chime in, and if you have a patreon, I’ll become a patron. I want to enjoy this game without the dominance of cavalry.

True, fielding heavy scorps is less expensive than onagers especially with roman (although you should factor in their UT as well) but the rest of the roman composition is way more expensive, especially the centurions, so you can still expend more on onagers but less on halbs or hussars.

Well, that’s not the game fault…

Anyway gunpowder too works well, halbs+HC+BBC should counter roman composition, while also being cheaper (except for the BBC, but they don’t need an upgrade like scorps, just chemistry).

1 Like

This has to be one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this forum.

I can’t believe someone has put this much effort into trying to disprove something?

Because that’s how we balance the game?

There must be a term for this. You define false parameters and then define your false conclusion based on this.


Can you actually say what is wrong then, instead of being passive aggressive?

Tell me what the false parameters are.

No, because I can’t micro both sides at once in a simulation.

Something wrong with putting in effort?

It obviously is. The game is the thing forcing me to go cav when I don’t want to. What do you mean?

Eh, yes and no. During castle age, I agree with you, roman comp is more expensive. By imperial, on closed maps/team games, you are pop capped. Centurions require next to no upgrade if you just want them to buff legionaries.

But also, look at closed maps. Roman army is actually quite cheap in terms of gold, which is the limiting factor in 1v1s. You get 2 legionaries and 1 scorpion at the price of 1 knight. 1 Scorpion and 1 legionary costs almost the same gold as 1 archer.

The expense is food, which shouldn’t be an issue by mid-imperial age. I would be suprised if Romans weren’t in the top 7 closed map civs, especially once you limit it to high elos and games that go beyond early imperial age.

1 Like

First of all, I am not arguing against you. I will be happy to see Romans get nerfed, because I didn’t buy ROR and I usually spam infantry to conquer low elo ( 1400 and below) games.

As an infantry user, I clearly know the advantage and weakness of infantry. Legionaries don’t have advantage over Viking and Aztec champions when they are fighting against other civs. Vikings champion usually don’t need pike line to fight against horsemen and they are harder to counter with foot archers and HC without UT. Aztec champion can 2 hits villagers and kill buildings faster so that nobody can ignore them and do base trade.

On the closed map Black Forest as you mentioned. High elo players will break trees at multiple points with onager as soon as they hit imperial age. The horse civ can attack or defend anywhere anytime , but it’s hard for Romans to respond shortly with Legionaries.

1 Like

The game is not forcing you do anything, there are civ that are countered by cavalry and civ that are countered by archers or infantry. Try play against Italians and tell me again that the game “force” you to use cav.

Some civs are weak to some type of units more then others, that’s just variety for the civs. You don’t like to be matched against romans, that’s perfectly fine, but it’s that variety of civilizations and different weakness and mechanics that make so that you can enjoy other civs.

I don’t like playing against gujaras, but I have never complained once for the shiravamsha became despite if I like it or not, it add variety to the game, which is always good (when its balanced of course).

Against romans you need to field light cav, gunpowder, onagers and monks, that’s it.

But then you’ll have just some of them, and very weak for imperial age, so it won’t be a problem for your onagers.

True, but it’s still a 2/3 gold unit composition, and if you add centurions is even more expensive.

I guess we will see.

I think some small Romans nerf should have been applied in the recent patch. Now we need to wait for another month or even more for next balance change.

1 Like

There are units that are countered by infantry, cavalry or archers. If aa civ is countered by one of these, that’s bad game design. There are very few civs which are just countered by cavalry, infantry or archers. Burmese, Gurjaras and Hindustanis during specific ages are the only ones I can think of.

Not sure why you are saying this. This has nothing to do with anything.

Firstly, I don’t think variety is not always good. In fact, I made an entire thread explaining why it is not. LINK.

Two, if you don’t like shrivamshas and you didn’t complain, that’s cool. But that says nothing broadly. People might like it or entirely reject it. Others don’t have to share that attitude.

I assume that you are talking about Centurions here. This is extremely dependent on the situation. If we are playing closed maps, I’ll go for a scorpion-centurion combo early, and add in legionaries later. I’ll ignore centurion armour upgrades if you have halbs. There are like 4 plays here usually, in my experience. Not going to write all of those now. But the point is, you don’t need many blacksmith upgades. None for archers, only 2 for infantry armour and 3 for melee attack.

I don’t get what you are saying here. So what if it’s 2/3 gold? Your composition as a different civ could be 1/3 gold comp, but you spend 3 times as much as gold.

Hypothetically, there could be a civ which has 3 unit lines all of which cost 5 gold per unit. This civ could now do full gold comps, and last longer than you fielding just one gold unit.

Heck, Portuguese with their feitorias can last forever fielding all gold units if the opponent plays badly enough.

It’s about income and expense, not what fraction costs gold.