Why knights and long swordsmans are trained faster than eagles?

Knights are superior to Eagle Warrior in every stat. Plus Eagle Warrior still needs to pay for the upgrade.

Why they are trained slower than knights? I mean they are trained even slower than long swordsman.

1 Like

I think it is because of their low food cost. Food is slower than gold to gathering.
Because of the speed training bonus, AZtec’s eagle flood is already very strong


Eagles also have greater resistance to conversion, are cheaper and have a ton of bonus damages to their advantage.


They only perfom well against archer, even with their bonus against archer they can still be over-microed by them.

I dunno, I don’t see any reason why eagles takes so long to be trained.

1 Like

And Siege, and Buildings, and Monks, and Scout line units…

Eagles are actually one of the strongest units in the game. Every civ with a decent amount of Infantry techs and bonii, would love to have Eagle Warriors, even if they already have Knights.

1 Like

You can always build multiple barracks to speed up production.

Slow training speed only affects early game eagle rush. Late game flood is achievable.


Scouts perform as well as Eagles against the units that u mentioned.

and guess what? They are trained faster than Eagles as well. How bizarre.

1 Like

Nope, and Scouts get massacred by Spearmen, which Eagles crush.

In every way, the Eagle Scout is better than the Scout.
You can even spam EWs in the Castle Age, faster than Knights or Light Cavalry, because they mostly cost Gold, which is a HUGE advantage.


Yeah, the Elite Eagle Warrior is trained so fast 20 secs each. Why the Eagle Warrior is trained so slowly?
I fail to see a reasonable reason for that.

I never said that Scouts are better than Eagle Scout…
I said that in those specific scenarios mentioned Scouts perform as well as Eagles.

The thing is they take too long to be trained in comparison with other units - even better ones like knights - and I still fail to see a reason why.

No, they do not, at all.
Scouts significantly delay Castle Age, while Eagles do not. There is tons of Gold in the Feudal and Castle Ages, while you cannot stockpile Food easily during those Ages.

Knights are countered by a Trash unit, Eagles are not.

Pikemen eat Knights, for Eagles you need Longswordsmen, at least.

I acknownledge all of the pros of playing as eagles. But eagles are still easily beaten by a mass of cross and knights.
Do you think that is reasonable that the Eagle Scout takes longer time than a knight to be trained? A mass of knights does much more damage than a mass of eagles. Again, I still think that eagles are awesome, but taking more time to amass than them knights is unreasonable.

I’m a fan of Eagles just like everyone, but 35 secs trainning time is ridiculous high for a unit that can be easily beaten by a couple of knights or outmicroed by archer/CA

Eagles eat Crossbows (3 Pierce armour, without any upgrades), and are more spammable than Knights. Both Knights and Crossbows have a Trash counter, while Eagles do not.

Eagles do not even do bad against Knights, since they have a bonus damage score against Cavalry.

Also, contrary to Knights, Eagles are great at killing Cav Archers.

As a personal opinion, I would always rather have Eagles than Knights.
Give the Goths, Vikings, Japanese and Celts some Eagles, and they will never even build a Stables.

If you give eagles less TT you can easly maintain pressure by harass at the same time you are booming or running to imperial age and even can deal with Enemy knights if you mix with some pikes…
Plus, When you go Crossbows or Knights you have to invest in a barrack and the 2 specific buildings. If you go Eagles with less TT, saves a building’s wood, so you can use this wood for farms or even a fourth TC

1 Like

Scouts suck against other cavalry, spears and eat up food which is very important

1 Like

In short: because they are a different unit than knights.

Eagles are slower to produce than knights, they are slower walkers, they cost relatively more gold, and they have an upgrade cost. But they also have lower cost overall, do more kinds of bonus damage, take less bonus damage from other units, can be produced in feudal age and don’t require you to have a stable, just a barracks a knight player would also need. They have disadvantages compared to knights, but also advantages. They are different, and they have been tweaked and tweaked until the civilizations felt somewhat balanced. Could they have worked with a shorter training time but more or less of something else? Yeah, I’d say so. They seem to work like this too.

Actually, the reasoning might have been that for fast castle knights you need a barracks and two stables, so fast castle eagles you pay for three barracks and at least that part of the equation is sort of even. Same for one stable scout rush/one range archers vs enough eagles to kill them.


Eagles train so slowly in general because there’s not a direct counter that’s readily available until Long swordsman is clicked off in Castle age. Prior to castle age, there is essentially no counter for the Eagle scout, with it’s high pierce armor, (relatively) high damage and movement speed. That’s why in Feudal age, eagle scouts take 60 (!) seconds apiece to train.

If they were fast to train they’d run roughshod over games.


You can Fast Castle and train Eagles as “Pseudo-Knights” since the moment you click up to Castle Age (or even before that) and you already have an army while you can’t do the same with Long Swords and Knights, for obvious reasons.

1 Like

When I see a Vikings player build a stables is when I know I can outpost rush him.

i thought same thing. I want a buff for them to get same training time with knights. it is really hard to transition to them when oppenent spam skirms, archer or siege

1 Like