I think we might need to split the barracks into 2 buildings to accommodate all the new units and techs. Otherwise it's going to be like the dock with 2 or even 3 pages (and as I have read people don't like having to switch tabs to train demos and fire ships). Also, the dock itself needs a revision, the building is overloaded. At least it should be split into civil and military docks.
I've considered similar, and I do actually have a proposal for that planned down the line, as well as a suggestion on how to make multi page buildings a lot more easy and practical to use in game. Water rebalance will be forthcoming! I just need to put more time into my design, it's a very large one.
Dock needs to be split into an "eco dock" and "war dock" Eco dock trains a renamed fishing ship that now has an attack, and serves as waters 'trash' (non-gold) unit in addition to fishing, transports, and most generic water techs (like shipwright). war dock trains galleon/fireship/demo and unique units, along with their upgrades. It can also garrison ships to heal them and gain an attack. Warships are all more expensive, being siege+ tier, so individual ships matter more. This also allows them to be more powerful in shore bombardment.
Great video going in the right direction for infantry. It gives ideas for some factions builds. Let's hope that some of them will be used by developpers to add depth to the game.
15:34 Considering that one of the reasons shields became less used near the end of the middle ages was because of how good plate became at protecting the whole body widout occupying a hand, I don't know if this classification is necessarily good. I would prefer "light armoured" or something similar.
I can see why you would think that, and I wouldn't despise that classification, but many civilizations draw their cutoffs well before that point and would still realistically be using a lot of shields in their army compositions. Plenty of soldiers in the late Middle Ages still use shields as well, so I do think that this classification would still be relevant to make sure that technology is affecting shields specifically apply to only those soldiers.
21:07 I don't like it being imune. Even with the best shield wall, some times an arrow would find a gap. I think it would be interesting if created a 90% chance of ignoring an arrow.
I like lot of these ideas. I want to think about them more, but I really like the idea of iterating on Age of Kings and making these sorts of changes to the tech trees - upgrading it to Age of Empires 2.5, essentially. I will say, though, that the current version of Shield Wall feels... unthematically strong. Shields would splinter, arrows would get through cracks etc. - complete immunity feels silly to me - even structures aren't immune to arrows! I'd be tempted to make it something like maybe +10 pierce armour or a dodge shield (which I see you've noted as a possibility in your civ doc) so you can't just sit under missile fire forever without doing something about it (though sitting under missile fire to soak it up while you prepare a response should be a good way to deal with it). But yeah... infantry need some help, they really do, and that's coming from someone who identifies as primarily a cavalry commander! :D As for the unit names, Regular feels better than Sellsword (though I could kind of see the Sellsword name, now you've mentioned it, as a separate, much stronger unit, really powerful early on but costing only gold and lots of it, basically meaning training them in any numbers is an all-in strategy that tanks your Castle time... just a quick, runaway thought based on a name!) and, I have to say... Solidarius feels a bit weird? Very, very Latin, rather than more sort of generalist, and that feels odd for a rank-and file unit that will be trained from dark age Mesoamerica to Sengoku-era Japan - Byzantium, sure, but not elsewhere. Not sure I have a better suggestion yet (maybe Serjeant would be good here and something else could be there for Imperial?), but it does feel a little off. One little question, I took a quick scan over the civ doc and, while I'm not going to be able to process all of your choices for who gets what tech (it's interesting, but that much raw data at once tends to make my mind glaze), but I'm intrigued by the fact that you gave your Roman build and the official one completely different sets of techs, as well, as giving the official Romans Warswordsmen while yours lack them entirely. Would you mind explaining your reasoning for that decision? It just stood out to me as an interesting and very conscious discrepancy between the two.
Hey Rowan! And absolute pleasure to hear from you, thank you so much for taking the time to watch and leave such a thorough review! Age of Empires 2.5, I quite like how that sounds heheheh Excellent points about Shield wall. A couple other people have said the same, but you summarize the issue really beautifully here. I think my current idea is to change it into a Dodge Shield that scales on number of nearby shielded allies. That way it will often have the same benefit but really forces you to be grouping up your guys well, which is definitely the idea! You also make some great points about names. Changing the sellsword is definitely a good idea -- my current thought is "Irregular" to represent them being far less trained early in the game, how do you like that proposal? And lastly, I can definitely see what you mean about Solidarius. I did see the term used more broadly than just the byzantines, they're admittedly it's a fairly obscure one. If you have any suggestions I'm all ears! And no worries if not, it can be something we keep an eye out for. Thanks again my friend. Really fantastic comment from you.
@@robbylava Thank you so much for the kind words, chap. :) Irregular is awesome, I think - frankly, even keeping 'Militia' could probably work, but Irregular is better for the gameplay vibe of 'on the edge of battle, hunting down trash units' you're going for. For the solidarius... I'm struggling a little. If you want a slightly more commonly used Latin root name than Solidarius, Milite could work, potentially. Going with the current name of Longswordsman would honestly be pretty solid, I think - clear, to the point, no faffing around, descriptive... although the fact that longswords were designed with both one-handed and two-handed use in mind might make for a little too much confusion/thematic crossover with the Warswordsman? Another possibility would be to make the Castle Age upgrade Serjeants and the Imperial one Man At Arms - it would be more accurate to the progression of such armies historically than Man At Arms in Feudal, certainly, it would actually fit the historical naming of such soldiers as Medieval history went on very well, but it might be hard to get used tofor people who know Men At Arms in the current game, plus the fact that Men At Arms quickly found themselves mostly fighting on horseback as a sort of non-noble knight rather than on foot where I think they started, so it could feel off there. On balance... I'd probably go with Longswordsman, though if I come up with something better I'll let you know! Finally, I really would be interested to hear about the reasons for your decision regarding the differing tech trees for your Roman civ and the official one - the reasoning for things like this is fascinating to me!
Great suggestions Rowan! Seriously, thank you so much for taking the time to think this through. Militia and man at arms are actually both names I'm planning on using for future unit builds heheheh, so I'm going to try to avoid them for now! And my concern with longswords is pretty much exactly what you brought up -- I don't think they were very often used with a shield, and even when they were I think it could be a little deceptive. I did, however, come up with a unit name progression that I think works pretty okay! Rather than doing anything fancy, my decision was to name the first unit just plain old Swordsman (accurate, clean, probably should have done it in the first place) and name the second one the Regular! After consulting my master list of ideas, I realize that the term Irregular would actually better apply to a different unit I have planned for future, and The swordsman line is meant to be somewhat Elite even if used more unconventionally. This would allow the footman to be shuffled to the castle age upgrade, which I think works okay. What do you think of this progression? As for the Romans one, that is literally just a mistake on my part! Very good catch there, any discrepancies you see or just me being a goof and I will fix it for the next recraft! Thanks so much for taking the time to hash this out with me Rowan, it's proving very productive!
Since dawn of time, infantry has served as the backbone of armies, used to control and retain areas. Nice to see that concept on your build Rob. Doing some justice to our boys on the ground!
AOE 1 has a tech that made barracks units cost 1/2 pop. Maybe bringing that to AOE2 would make some good sense and certainly make inf a viable option. And on your comments about swordsmen not being the backbone, you are correct. Spears were the most common weapon in the medieval period, either alone or with a shield. Making Spears do decent damage against inf and archers, while still having a bonus dmg against cav would make things alot more accurate.
Yep, I was basing my technology off of that! Just with a few minor adjustments to hopefully make it a better fit for the game we know now. I definitely agree with you that Spears should be a lot more than they are now! I have an interesting proposal for how to subdivide them that I'll be getting to you in far future. My main issue is that the game seems to conflate untrained peasants given a pointy stick with all pole arm units! Really hope you enjoyed the video my friend. Thank you so much for taking the time to comment!
@@robbylava Yea, Im sorry, made the comment without finishing the video first lol Im very intrigued to hear about your ideas. You have a new follower now. On a sidenote, if you are familiar with the Age of Chivalry mod for AOE2 back in the day, the mod kinda made spears somewhat an option against other inf. Some factions even had 1 range on spears allowing to work like the Inca Kamayuk and almost do spear lines. Would love to hear your thoughts on that perhaps? Thanks!
No need to apologize at all! Very glad to hear you were engaged by the design heheheh, welcome aboard! I am definitely on board with making Spears more versatile than they are now. I have a proposal for down the line on how to subdivide the current spearman into a couple of different major archetypes, much like I've done here with the swordsman! Giving certain types of pole-arm bonus range is for sure one of the best ways to go about this. Elite long pikes made up pretty huge proportions of late medieval European armies in particular, and having them represented by dinky little trash units right now is just absolutely silly in my opinion. Really cool to hear that other mods also pursued this option!
Selsword line depicts an infantry type rather than a weapon. Usually the standard for aoe2 is depicting weapon users. Why not, aesthetically replace them for macemen. I: Clubman II: Maceman III: Flailman IV: Morningstar (perhaps two handed?) Then change the Warswordsman name to Longswordman, and make him use a shield. Not the Greatswordsman, him ramains two handed. Edit: when I wrote this part I didn't knew about the shielded infantry bonus. So Longswordman would not get a shield I guess. In this way is more representative of the middle ages where there were only a few swordsmen. And you could mass the macemen without it being unhistorical. All this is only aesthetical.
I get what you're going for, but while sword and shield was not commonly used on the battlefield there are some examples of it. I would highly endorse having some sort of mace and shield unit, but I would personally want to keep it entirely separate from the sword line and give it a different niche.
i would likely just go with a less drastic change but that would work with something like this. castle age: shield bearer, a faster moving with 2 more pierce armor that the militia line, 0 melee armor, faster movement, drastically lower damage with a big bonus vs all archer units, similar hp than the equivalent militia line, cost more food and less gold, and is unlocked with the same tech that upgrades man at arms to their castle age equivalent whom i forgot what's the name. imperial age: heavy shield bearer, all stats excepts melee armor increase with an independant unit upgrade tech. i want to add an anti archer specialist that wouldn't be spamed but will be there to protect ally infantry from archers right in the middle of the swarm, so a foot soldier with a big shield is the perfect option AS LONG as they don't use spears or will be visually confused with the skirm line, this shield bearer unit will be affected by supply, gambeson, squires, infantry blacksmith upgrades BUT NO ARSON, will have the same rol as a huskarl as an infantry that can fight archers with no problem and actually resist hand canoners but won't be as powerfull against these as the actuall huskarl, i would even say that goths won't get shield bearers cause they already have the huskarl. i do not see my unit idea happening mostly cause skirmishers already exists as an anti archers specialist and infantry civs have acces to both skirms and light cavs as anti archer options but these do not get the bonus said civs have for their main line infantry
I would personally prefer to avoid that sort of hard counter unit, both because I find it very inelegant and also because historically it just wasn't really a thing beyond the occasional irregular sword flanking or skirmishing units I'm trying to capture here. Using that sort of idea for a regional thing like a huskarl could work okay, but imagine if it ended up being good! Then we would need an anti infantry Archer unit! And then an anti-cavalry one, etc etc. Might just lead to an endless conga line of hyperspecific counter units! Though, unfortunately, I think the more likely outcome would be that such a unit would be almost unusable unless it was heavily pushed like the huskarl is.
Some ideas: Maybe for the ZoC swordsmen, longswordmen and spearmen could have a +100% atk vs moving units. So if a unit passes infront of them without attacking, they get heavily damaged. This could be more in line with the code. Maybe Mustering Rolls could be renamed to Billeting, and instead of barracks costing less wood, make them able to train 2 units at the same time. And make Quartering a requeriment.
An attack bonus versus moving units is an awesome idea. I'm not 100% sure it belongs on this build, but with your permission I just might use that someday
Overall I like the idea of reforming infantry as a whole in the game. Despite recent bufffs and pushes towards infantry in recent patches they still leave much to be desired as a viable unit in the mid game especially where knights and crossbows dominate unless you’re up against a lot of cav in which case pikemen would be a decent option. On the new techs though the costs of them that might set them back a bit, cause while you get a much better unit overall, I feel like they’d be harder to mass. Feel like you’d kinda be in the position the Goths are in where you either die hard or you win hard cause that late game almost sounds broken but hey, we love to see that on this channel!
Thanks for the review man! Yeah, if the late game ended up being too crazy we could definitely tone down the numbers, but if we did so I think reducing the costs would all be a good idea to make sure they get the nice mid-game spike I'm hoping for. Really glad you enjoyed!
That’s true - they should split militia line into 3 various units. Militia should be renamed to maceman with bonus vs trash units. From feudal age we should gain access to man at arms/longswordsman with good mele and pierce armor with no bonuses vs other units. From castle age we could gain access to 2-handed swordsman with special area attack but the unit itself would have worse pierce armor since it lacks shield there would be no logic to give it high pierce armor. Also spear line could be split into spearman and pike. Spearman would be upgradeable to halberdier and pikeman would be upgradable to heavy pikeman. Spear line would fit the role of anti cav trash unit and pike line would be gold unit with high melee armor with 1 range just like kamayuk with less bonus attack vs cav.
I think this could be fixed by using your raiders unit for the nordic civilizations. You have the Militia base (sword and shield), the Spearmen base and the "Vanguard" base. Make the militia line behave like your proposed line, spearmen line as always and the vanguard as a more fast moving anti infantry unit that later on has different features per civilizations, so you keep the nordic civilizations with the raiding theme, the asian ones the anti cav theme and the central europe more elite theme.
What an interesting suggestion! You know, that's not the direction I would have thought to go at all, but I really like the idea. As you might imagine, I have quite a few more plans for unit proposals down the line! But if I were ever forced to really limit the number of units I proposed for the game, then going with an idea like what you suggest here might be a great way to consolidate things. Thanks for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts my friend!
Hey Robby, here is an idea for a future episode: when doing research for your civilization theorycrafting videos I’m sure you came across some civs that had to be discarded because they did not fit the AoE2 timeframe or would not stand a chance on the battlefield against other civs already depicted in the game. Well, what if you took some of these “discarded” civilizations and used them for an Age of Mythology based theorycrafting video instead? The fantasy setting of AoM partially lifts the historical restraints you have to deal with when theorycrafting AoE civs while still allowing you to explore unusual or lesser known cultures. Myself, I would love to see an AoM build for an Australian Aborigines based civilizations or a (non-Mesoamerican) Amerindian culture.
Thanks for the suggestions Someone! Funnily enough, I actually just posted a poll today asking people whether they'd be interested in seeing Age of Mythology on this channel at some point, and you're definitely right that it would allow a lot more flexibility on time frame and precise historical accuracy! I don't think I'll be able to get to it for a little while, but just know that it is now on my schedule and you will almost certainly see it on this channel at some point in the future! Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I hope you enjoyed this video!
Something that I would personally really appreciate is if the missile-relevant techs Ballistics and Thumb Ring were just less effective. Thumb ring making so many units 100% accurate even at max range is really the most egregious part, so make the accuracy boost weaker at the very least, and make missiles fired at max range less accurate.
Couldn't agree more! I have a video plan for some time in the future talking about what I think archers are so stupidly broken, and those two are definitely high on the list!
ok here's a wild idea the shieldman. high pierce armor, low speed (around OLD teutonic knights), low melee armor and attack. Draws 100% of just passing arrows onto himself. Pikes might have to get 1 range to get good synergy
Maybe a technology to allow arrows to deal 0.5 damage instead of 1 when the shielded unit's pierce armor completely covers the attack. I would never go down to 0
Those are both genuinely fantastic ideas. I especially like the arrow drawing effect! I'm not sure I would put it as a common unit, but as a unique or even Regional unit that could be a really great addition to the game.
Nice build! I like the distinct uses of the two, with one being a potential arrow sponge and the other a good crowd unit. And the techs look like they could make infantry a good option in all circumstances for that extra gameplay variation. So I think it accomplishes what you set out to achieve. Sweet! Just one thing to note: Shield Wall sounds very strong and with the proper micro can be really deadly. That's not a bad thing at all, but it might need to be a more expensive (maybe 500w/250g), since the Swordsman units are already quite cheap. And maybe it shouldn't apply within 1 range (hmm... where have I seen that before..?). Otherwise a group of Swordsmen could just take out a castle without suffering any damage from it. Damage could perhaps be reduced by 50% within 1 range, so the tech still has an effect there. But that is a minor issue. All in all, very cool ideas and something that'd be fun to play with. Thanks for another great video! Also, Rodeleros? Doppelsoldners? AoE3 says hi! edit: Formatting.
Thanks a lot Bjarke! I'm very glad you enjoyed, and you make some really good points about Shield wall. Some other commenters have brought up very good points about it that make me inclined to change the effect outright -- my current favorite idea would be a Dodge Shield while unmoving that scales in power on how many fellow shielded allies are nearby. But I could also see making it give Pierce armor scaling on nearby shielded allies that wasn't conditional on standing still, though I do much prefer the interesting micro options opened up by the former. Any thoughts in this regard? Regardless of which direction I go, your note about having it not apply within one range is very good!
Thanks for the reply, Robby! The scaling dodge shield sounds neat! If memory serves me right, there is a unit with a kind of group (attack) bonus in AoE3, so it isn't even alien to the series. And it would solve the issue of "immortal statues", so to speak (although I do find the image of a couple of units standing still whilst being pelted with arrows forever quite amusing). The buddy system option is also good, although it's just a sophisticated use of pierce armor, so I prefer the former in terms of mechanics.
Totally! And at least with this model the unit will only be invulnerable if the enemy has very few projectiles coming their way. A clever enemy will also be able to target units on the peripheries of the formation who aren't benefiting as much from the shield! So hopefully this will allow enough counter play to not be as oppressive
I think you've got some great ideas here. I particularly like the idea of cheaper faster and half population space. Did you consider Sheild Wall being a tech where infantry getting extra peirce armour if they are in a group over a certain size?
Thanks so much Stephen! Really glad you enjoyed it my friend! Funny you should say that about Shield wall -- a couple of commenters have brought up some really valid concerns about its current design, and my plan redesign will focus much more heavily on incremental benefits based on friendly shielded infantry nearby! You are way ahead of the curve with that suggestion -- I'm not sure I'll get to it in my next recraft, but the one after that you will definitely see it implemented!
I mostly agree on the part of sellsword and footman, maybe the solidarius ( is this the origin of the word soldier ). But maybe not the sergeant. Usually, the sergeant is a high rank soldier and those are fewer than the other two, which is easily to mass due to a great source of peasant workers and citizens. I would picture a serjeant as a captain of a grunt/peon squadron. Dawn of War 1 is a good example of this. I don't really agree on implementing the two-handed swordsman/great swordsman. They are not easy to mass. I would picture them a specialist division of infantry whose main focus is to unhorse cavalry units, hence the horsecutters ( zhanmadao ). I was going to suggest implement the recruitment of this unit through RNG, if you recruit a certain number of footman-line, you get it as a reward. But seeing how RNG further ruins the game in many many games, I figure it's a better option to use it like the sergeant via the DOW squad mechanic. I'm pretty satisfied up to the footman. Albeit a simple name change like Infantry and Heavy Infantry is suffice too. The footmen should also get different weapons. A standard sword&shield skin is fine. However, some soldiers should get axe&shield, club/mace/hammer&shield, flail&shield ( dismounted konniks , even spear&shield although that might be an addition to the spearmen-line. A nigh imbalance idea I would like to mention is to spawn infantry in groups per unit. This is again to address the non-existent infantry representation compared to the dominant range and cavalry spam. If they weren't important, then how come the "Infantry wins the day" quote exist ?
A lot to go over here, I don't even know where to start. Suffice to say that I very much respect your opinion, and I feel like there might be ways to accommodate a lot of what you are suggesting.
if I was to make big sweeping changes to crossbows, it would be: - Bodkin no longer adds 1 range - A new castle age tech "Diagonal draw" for 100f 50g adds 1 range to archers, CA, towers, and castles - Thumbring requires Diagonal draw and costs 50f 50g less - Elite Skirmishers have 6 base range instead of 5 This would let skirmishers counter archers more effectively by no longer requiring both Bodkin and armor to be effective. It would also slow down archer rushes that want to get both the range and attack. - Archer/Xbow/Arb deal +1/+2/+3 damage to Spearmen instead of +3 - Skirm/Eskirm deal +4 damage to Spearmen instead of +3 This would give players more options for defending against the Archer+Scout opening in teamgames, helping the meta diversify. My changes to infantry might be less sweeping. I kind of like the idea of just keeping it at - Supplies costs 75w75g instead of 75f75g - First armor upgrade costs 75f, second costs 150f 75g - M@a and up deal +3 to spears instead of +0 - M@a deal +3 to Eagles instead of +2, and if that's not enough maybe moving Squires to Feudal
ooooh replacing Supplies with a dark age installment to unlock Militia in the first place? And then making Militia a lot cheaper? I like that! Right now you need 280f 100g for a 3 m@a rush. With this, even if they're say 40f 15g, you'd need 295f 135g, and more frontloaded. I heavily prefer that installment requirement over giving them weaker stats
Quartering has to cost Wood instead of Food. One because buildings cost Wood, the other cause infantry is very Food-heavy and that makes it hard to afford with a Feudal age or even early Castle age economy (scouts can make up for that with speed and power). But yeah, with that tech, a base cost of 50f 15g would make sense
@@robbylava it's when you draw the bow in such a way that the arrow is pointing diagonally upwards. I imagine it would take some effort to get used to, especially on higher poundage bows
Glad you like the installation idea Iwer! I was pretty pleased with that change myself. And your point about quartering costing wood makes a lot of sense -- I was trying to have it follow with tradition by matching the cost of current supplies, but your reasoning is totally on point.
My concern with making the militia line something that needs to be installed is that one of the values of the current militia line is as an answer to a rush, which players may not have available if they haven't installed it in Dark Age. This applies especially when one player is just slower and hasn't left dark age before a frush hits. Hopefully that's not too common an occurrence, but it bears thinking about. I recall feeling like the addition of the backbone Footman (to be renamed) already did a lot to reinvigorate infantry as a concept, filling the historical importance of spears, as well as the backbone of heavy infantry that made up most armies, while also being an effective counter to the most popular units, and being countered by the sword. That said, breaking out the sword into more varieties isn't terrible, and your research has yielded more or less what my understanding of the sword's presence on battlefields was. I like the separation of sword and board from twohanding, and the emphasis on shields as anti-pierce. I love Enarmes and Quartering. I am initially tentative about the healing portion of Marching Drills, but ultimately, I think I agree that it helps them fill the role of an endurance troop. It also falls off in value in most late game fights as fighting tends to become near constant towards the end, but it definitely helps maintain their value as a defensive troop, as they recover value after fighting off an attack. Also, it works as a reference to how infantry were the backbone because they were the easiest role in the army to fill, making recovering from losses easier. Question, because I don't remember and am feeling lazy about going back to the old build: does Shield Wall apply when standing still and attacking? Muster Rolls feels solid to me in Imperial. Any earlier I would have problems with it, but that late, yeah, let infantry civs play. I have no unique insights on Retrobannum. Is vera stronk.
And a vote for calling the Sellsword Irregular instead. Also, a Zone of Control mechanic could be tied to the Shield Wall in some way, increasing the units' occupied space such that they're just a physical obstacle? Might cause some issues with creating weird range effects on melee units though, if a footman occupies the same space as an elephant, for instance, or might end up needing extra micro if it's just a sideways line sort of effect. I definitely think a dodge shield version of Shield Wall would be more palatable to the current game, but I must repeat: I'm bad at micro so it scares me lol.
Really excellent thoughts my friend! I agree largely with everything you've said here -- to clarify, Shield wall IS supposed to apply while you're attacking, but as another commenter pointed out I do need to add the clarification but it doesn't work against things within 1 range The zone of control effect going on Shield wall would make a lot of sense if I could find a way to make it work. I'm really nervous about how many passing problems it would likely bring it back! My goal of course would be to make it so that units can't just push through your guys, so maybe there's another way to represent that... Here's a thought, what if it allowed infantry to emit a very short-range slowing aura to gum up enemies that are right on top of them? Do you think that would do the trick? Really appreciate you taking the time to watch and share your thoughts!
@@robbylava I do like the slowing aura idea; that would then also make it harder to retreat from infantry, which I am uncertain as to how that would affect things. I considered a source of extra damage, like an aura that deals damage when a unit (probably just a targeted unit?) tries to leave the aura, or some sort of conditional bonus damage, but it feels less viable than a move speed penalty aura.
Great Video. Hope you do more on splitting current units. Really liked the idea that they are good versus trash units. Big fan of the Rodelero idea. Just PERFECT. The only thing is that I like the Condottiero being in the game. I like the concept of it being available to allies. I would like to see more units being added that become availbale to allies. What baout adding HP regen of Msrvhing Drills to Quartering? Really liked Muster Rolls. Though I think can be more useful if its available earlier. The reason is since the way to improve infantry is make them cheaper so you can field more of them and making them take less population earlier on will help with this so that u dont have to decide between Villagers and infantry. But the effect is Great. Deffinetly wouldnt be broken. Infantry need some support and this is one way. Great addition with Retrobannum. Though I think it should only apply to Barracks infantry. Another option would be to give Retrobannum and Muster roll Effects as part of inherited Barracks infantry. That would definetly give infnatry the support they need. And if too powerful, they could tweek the numbers. And to protect against rushes they could kick in at attack when going from Dark Age to Feudal Age. like Castle Age. Similar to how Scout Cavalry gets more tThese changes are what infnatry need in my opinion. What about adding Doppelsoldner in the game?
Really appreciate you saying so my friend! And these are some fantastic suggestions. HP region on quartering I worry would be a little too much, especially because it will probably matter more in early ages when HP pools are lower. And you aren't the first person to suggest that muster rolls should be available earlier, I think I'm likely to make that change in the next recraft! I definitely agree with you that infantry training faster should be a universal. It's something I want to do more of in future with other infantry units I intend on adding, but since both of these guys are more Elite type soldiers I didn't want to push the envelope too much just yet. Really glad you enjoyed my friend! Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts.
Hey! Really appreciate you saying so Steven, that's very kind of you! Very much hope you're enjoying the content. Here's hoping what you say comes true!
Would love to see what your full building options look like when you propose unit crafts like this. That mocked up visual could be really compelling and help outline what's staying, changing, or going in your theory crafts. Also is man at arms dead?!
Are you talking about like a build card for the barracks? Cuz I definitely could see doing that, especially down the line! There are a few more additions I want to make heheheh Man at arms will be returning at some point! But he will be looking very different when he does Hope you enjoyed the build Harpo!
I really appreciate you saying so, that genuinely means a lot! With some luck that won't be a complete impossibility -- some cool progress is even being made in that regard right now!
For me, the barracks units for me it should be had the: swordman (same like your sells sword idea), great swd/ two handed Swd, Spear/pikeman, Halberdier Yes for me halberdier should not being part of spearman upgrade but as it's own unit line! So all civ have sword n shield, and spear units, meanwhile great sword and halberdier available for some civ and fully upgraded in few of em I can see many civ have fully upgraded Sword man, spear and halberdier but didn't get great swordman Meanwhile Teuton have barracks all units available and fully upgraded
Totally agree with you that the spear and halberd should be split! That will be another project for me down the line, though I have plenty more infantry units to propose in the meanwhile! Hope you enjoyed the vid my friend.
Why does the sellsword looks so sad in his icon? :( More seriously though, I really enjoyed this unit theorycraft. The only things I would personally change, to make this new build more palatable and maybe slightly more likely to happen, would be to keep the militia, man at arms and long swordsman for the first three ages on the one handed weapon side (albeit updated version of them, in terms of stats, gameplay and related technologies), and then having the serjeant/rodelero as an upgrade for the Imperial Age. And also keeping the original names of the units in the two handed side of the build, and just update their stats, related technologies and adjust their models (as you suggested). Another theorycraft I would personally like to see is one for a potential spearwielding cavalry unit. They seem to have been a staple in so many armies during both Antiquity and the Middle Ages that I find it weird at best that they're only represented by a few unique units within AoE 2. P. S.: I'm sorry for having been so silent as of late. However, while I was mostly "backsitting", I was enjoying your theorycraft videos nonetheless. :)
No need to apologize at all Lif! It's great to hear your thoughts. I think that if such a change were to be implemented it's very likely that the devs would go in your proposed direction and keep the current names and models. HOWEVER, this being me and all, you better believe that I'm going to go out of my way to propose something over the top and nitpickingly accurate! Definitely a very pragmatic suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't cry if that were the case. Unlike the sellsword lolol, I can't unsee it now that you've pointed it out Also a great point about spear cavalry! As I've now done with infantry and archers I definitely want to do an initial split/rework video for cavalry at some point, and you better believe that a spear cavalry is going to be one of the major focuses of that!
You can tweak infantry as much as you want, the ''Pros'' (Apart from the more imaginative ones like Viper) will still always gravitate towards Cav+Archers. Why? Because those units provide them with the most direct control. The mind of a ''Pro'' competitive AoE player is completely different to the mind of a general or King. Battle tactics and strategy is far removed from the sports arena that ''Pro'' 1v1 esports AoE precipitates. It is already very easy to mass an infantry army (Even without a dedicated bonus) and supplies have reinforced this even more so. I love using a strong defence to provide me with time to train a large professional infantry army and it had brought me many a victory in the past, but, because of this mindset...I am a Mid ELO candidate and always will be. Our minds are structured around realism, history and logic, where the ''Pros'' minds are structured around efficiency and immediate ,direct control. Unfortunately these mindsets are anathema to one another.
I think there's some truth to this, but it's definitely possible in my opinion to make the game a little bit more in line with reality without completely compromising it's competitive elements. That's much of what this build was trying to accomplish! Giving infantry a specific competitive niche that could give them more realism while also simultaneously making them more viable. Whether I succeeded or not is another story! I think only actual gameplay will be able to tell whether I succeeded here, so hopefully a modder decides to take it upon themselves to implement this stuff so we can see how it actually works!
@@robbylava yeah no, all our Civ crafting elements will make the game much more enjoyable to play for us basic commoners, but the "pros" unfortunately have to much of a 2D mindset.
I understand the reasons for the changes you propose, but isn't the shieldwall unhistorical ? I mean at the optimal distance an arrow or a javelin pierces a shield or armour.
I later changed the effect in a recraft to instead reduce incoming arrow damage to 1, effectively making it a very big Pierce armor boost that can still be bypassed by bonus damage and similar. You're entirely right in your assessment!
18:24 About the straps being an improvement to shields, from experience, I disagree. Strapped shields and center grip shields both have advantages and disadvantages.
You know, this is a really good point. I think that the Enarmes technology, in retrospect, wasn't a great addition. I have also used both types of shields in the past and personally found strapped ones to be much more comfortable and effective, but historically speaking I don't think that's a universal truth
@@robbylava, I personally prefer center grip most of the time for fighting. Strapped shields were a lot better for cavalry and if you needed to carry something on you other hand.
The only problem i have with this video is that you seem to forget or be unaware of a lot of the techs already in the game. Like removing arson but giving every infantry +1 to buildings when the militia line gets +1 to buildings every time you upgrade them already. So with arson, infantry does +6 against buildings already and removing arson would make infantry worse against buildings with -1 total damage. Then i have my own opinions about techs like shieldwall which can be abused to kingdom come by just force canceling movement to block ranged attacks. Being able to just select some units to hold position and become damage sponges is not a good idea whatsoever and will just make the game nigh unplayable for range factions, you can choose when you want to lose units by simply not moving. I mean think about it this way, siege rams are already really strong against range factions, and if you made them invulnerable against archers, which would be way more accurate than infantry being invulnerable, would make archer factions extremely weak. So being able to mass infantry against archers without the risk of them ever being in danger until you can overwhelm the archers is not fun gameplay. "Oh no he pushed my base, better just stand still until i have enough units!" Or "Oh no i'm losing the fight, better just stand still until my reinforcements come!" Are two scenarios that are going to become the norm. I think the important thing to remember is that infantry isn't as bad as we say they are, in fact they're pretty close to being fully viable so giving them way too powerful techs will swing it way too hard in infantry's direction. Infantry factions can use and win with infantry, so making them way too powerful will just put them at the top with little counterplay. Granted, every faction in the game can do cavalry rushes and most can do archer rushes and win the game while only infantry civs can use infantry and win. But is that really that bad that only specialised factions can bring infantry to the table? And when it comes to using techs that use the formations, we had this in Age of Empires 3 with sweden and it turned out too strong. If one player is capable and able to abuse formation bonuses and the other isn't, there will be a massive advantage over the other. Like moving an army with marching drills, you'd just spawn Z+X to gain a silly permanent boost in speed, and the player that's better at abusing this will be able to have their infantry move at cavalry speed even mid combat. I think when we talk about these kinds of additions to the game, it's important to consider that this is a game about beating your opponent by any 'legal' means. That includes abusing mechanics. So if there is a way to use it in an unintended way, people will. And that's just the way it is. So i'd rather shelf an idea that has abuse potential than to risk it and hope people just wont be assholes about it. They had to change sweden in AoE3 for this very reason, people got too good at abusing their unique mechanic.
Some Fair points here and some stuff I really disagree with. First off, nerfing infantry damage against buildings was absolutely the intention of that tabled idea -- I felt like if I was going to be giving infantry all of these buffs then I may as well commit to giving them their own niche and remove the analogies to Siege in their ability to threaten the base, at least in part. Are there any other specific discrepancies you noticed? Moreover, while I agree that infantry are getting closer and closer to being viable, it's being done in a way that I don't find personally very compelling or satisfying. A big part of this video was trying to give infantry their own, unique niche that was, most importantly, at least somewhat historically justified! The way I see infantry being made viable right now is to just make them well priced stat sticks, and that to me is quite a boring solution. Similarly, I would actually say that yes it is a bad thing if infantry is only viable in the hands of specialists. At least as bad as it can be considering the relatively trivial scope of what we're talking about here! They are an entire third of the core balance triangle present in the game and were historically by far and away the most common troops on the battlefield, having them be niche feels very incorrect! Plus, as many people before me have said, the crossbow and knight meta we have been stuck in for well over a decade now is getting more than a little stale. What better way to break the mold than with infantry? That all being said, I definitely agree it can be taken too far. My hope would be that by giving infantry more of a unique fundamental niche we would be able to adjust things like stats to change power without completely removing viability, much like how crossbows have been able to weather a couple of nerfs over the years while still remaining viable. I just think it would be much more healthy for the overall longevity and health of the game! But if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts!
@@robbylava My original comment was way longer but i edited away a chunk of it because i found myself only weakly agreeing with what i said, that's why you felt a lack of other discrepancies pointed out by me, i removed them. I actually happen to think that infantry's niche that they serve extremely well IS being the middleground between the monster stats of cav and the base destruction of siege. I've played a lot of games recently where i've gone infantry and the sheer level of threat they bring is insane. I don't need to go siege because the second i can't do damage, i just turn on the buildings instead. I don't think the units need to be changed to make infantry interesting, but maybe there should be a new unit introduced that's either regional or straight up a new addition. I heard people mention you came up with a raider unit. Something that might be better against archers, possibly a bonus vs villagers. EDIT: I don't think a complete infantry overhaul would be a good thing for the game, neither for returning old players or those still grinding high level play. And i think you might not reach a satisfying conclusion to solving this infantry riddle if you keep trying to force a full on overhaul. Additions and tweaks is where i think the solution is at. Take the stable in Conq compared to today as an example. It's hardly even recognizeable and much more fun to experiment with. Honestly, i'm surprised the barracks haven't gotten an expansion like that.
We'll have to agree to disagree then! From what I've seen the only thing that has made infantry at all viable recently has been a slew of buffs that just give them stats without actually establishing a new identity. But I am certainly a fan of more dramatic designs, and my biases and preferences certainly shouldn't define the game! Though I will say that I've seen an awful lot of commenters expressing similar misgivings about infantry as a whole. That being said, even if the developers didn't go nearly as far as I propose here, I think Regional expansions are an absolute must. I've tabled one already myself! And I certainly plan on doing more in future. Maybe you'll be able to find some stuff you agree with there, or at least proposals that achieve more of a common ground between our two design philosophies!
Good question! I do intend on subdividing that unit down the line, much like I have done here, but I do think all members of that subdivision will retain at least some anti-cavalry focus and at least one will definitely remain a cheap, spammable trash unit. That's my current plan at least!
I don't think the swordsman line being a GOLD anti trash unit makes sense, because the trash units already counter each other better and it'd be a bad decision to make a gold unit to counter trash in that case. scout line counters skirms, skims counter spears and spears counter hussars, no need for making a gold unit. In fact the hussar fulfils its raiding potential better as well. I'd suggest making them another trash unit or reduce their gold cost significantly.
Reducing gold cost significantly I can get behind, but I do think that an antitrash specialist costing a little gold could make sense if they are actually really good at their job. One of the issues with the sword right now is that they don't counter hussars particularly well, if they did I think they would be substantially scarier, but there are many other issues holding them back beyond that too.
Now that I've had some time to look it all over, this is a very much needed update to fixing most of the major problems with infantry currently. I agree with some of the other commenters that Shield Wall should probably be nerfed somewhat. Other than that, this is a fantastic build, as always, and gives some much needed love to the common foot sloggers.
Thanks so much for saying so Johannes! Yeah, I definitely agree with Shield wall needing a touch up, but fortunately I think I have a good idea of how to do so!
I think we might need to split the barracks into 2 buildings to accommodate all the new units and techs. Otherwise it's going to be like the dock with 2 or even 3 pages (and as I have read people don't like having to switch tabs to train demos and fire ships).
Also, the dock itself needs a revision, the building is overloaded. At least it should be split into civil and military docks.
I've considered similar, and I do actually have a proposal for that planned down the line, as well as a suggestion on how to make multi page buildings a lot more easy and practical to use in game.
Water rebalance will be forthcoming! I just need to put more time into my design, it's a very large one.
Dock needs to be split into an "eco dock" and "war dock"
Eco dock trains a renamed fishing ship that now has an attack, and serves as waters 'trash' (non-gold) unit in addition to fishing, transports, and most generic water techs (like shipwright).
war dock trains galleon/fireship/demo and unique units, along with their upgrades. It can also garrison ships to heal them and gain an attack.
Warships are all more expensive, being siege+ tier, so individual ships matter more. This also allows them to be more powerful in shore bombardment.
I like how you are trying to re-work infantry and especially swordsmen. It is much needed in the current game.
Thanks a lot for saying so bud! Really hope you enjoyed the build.
Great video going in the right direction for infantry. It gives ideas for some factions builds. Let's hope that some of them will be used by developpers to add depth to the game.
Hell yeah Divicos! Appreciate you saying so brother
Would enjoy hearing you discuss an armenian civ and its bonuses.
Thanks for the suggestion my friend! I'm very pleased to report that such a video may be happening very soon...
It's out now go watch! :D
@@afz902k Thank you!
15:34
Considering that one of the reasons shields became less used near the end of the middle ages was because of how good plate became at protecting the whole body widout occupying a hand, I don't know if this classification is necessarily good.
I would prefer "light armoured" or something similar.
I can see why you would think that, and I wouldn't despise that classification, but many civilizations draw their cutoffs well before that point and would still realistically be using a lot of shields in their army compositions. Plenty of soldiers in the late Middle Ages still use shields as well, so I do think that this classification would still be relevant to make sure that technology is affecting shields specifically apply to only those soldiers.
I don't know how i got this recommended to me but it was nice to watch. Your ability to expose your ideas is very good!
I thank you so much for saying so Alex! Really great to have you my friend, hope you enjoy the content going forward!
21:07
I don't like it being imune.
Even with the best shield wall, some times an arrow would find a gap.
I think it would be interesting if created a 90% chance of ignoring an arrow.
I like lot of these ideas. I want to think about them more, but I really like the idea of iterating on Age of Kings and making these sorts of changes to the tech trees - upgrading it to Age of Empires 2.5, essentially. I will say, though, that the current version of Shield Wall feels... unthematically strong. Shields would splinter, arrows would get through cracks etc. - complete immunity feels silly to me - even structures aren't immune to arrows! I'd be tempted to make it something like maybe +10 pierce armour or a dodge shield (which I see you've noted as a possibility in your civ doc) so you can't just sit under missile fire forever without doing something about it (though sitting under missile fire to soak it up while you prepare a response should be a good way to deal with it). But yeah... infantry need some help, they really do, and that's coming from someone who identifies as primarily a cavalry commander! :D
As for the unit names, Regular feels better than Sellsword (though I could kind of see the Sellsword name, now you've mentioned it, as a separate, much stronger unit, really powerful early on but costing only gold and lots of it, basically meaning training them in any numbers is an all-in strategy that tanks your Castle time... just a quick, runaway thought based on a name!) and, I have to say... Solidarius feels a bit weird? Very, very Latin, rather than more sort of generalist, and that feels odd for a rank-and file unit that will be trained from dark age Mesoamerica to Sengoku-era Japan - Byzantium, sure, but not elsewhere. Not sure I have a better suggestion yet (maybe Serjeant would be good here and something else could be there for Imperial?), but it does feel a little off.
One little question, I took a quick scan over the civ doc and, while I'm not going to be able to process all of your choices for who gets what tech (it's interesting, but that much raw data at once tends to make my mind glaze), but I'm intrigued by the fact that you gave your Roman build and the official one completely different sets of techs, as well, as giving the official Romans Warswordsmen while yours lack them entirely. Would you mind explaining your reasoning for that decision? It just stood out to me as an interesting and very conscious discrepancy between the two.
Hey Rowan! And absolute pleasure to hear from you, thank you so much for taking the time to watch and leave such a thorough review! Age of Empires 2.5, I quite like how that sounds heheheh
Excellent points about Shield wall. A couple other people have said the same, but you summarize the issue really beautifully here. I think my current idea is to change it into a Dodge Shield that scales on number of nearby shielded allies. That way it will often have the same benefit but really forces you to be grouping up your guys well, which is definitely the idea!
You also make some great points about names. Changing the sellsword is definitely a good idea -- my current thought is "Irregular" to represent them being far less trained early in the game, how do you like that proposal?
And lastly, I can definitely see what you mean about Solidarius. I did see the term used more broadly than just the byzantines, they're admittedly it's a fairly obscure one. If you have any suggestions I'm all ears! And no worries if not, it can be something we keep an eye out for.
Thanks again my friend. Really fantastic comment from you.
@@robbylava Thank you so much for the kind words, chap. :) Irregular is awesome, I think - frankly, even keeping 'Militia' could probably work, but Irregular is better for the gameplay vibe of 'on the edge of battle, hunting down trash units' you're going for.
For the solidarius... I'm struggling a little. If you want a slightly more commonly used Latin root name than Solidarius, Milite could work, potentially. Going with the current name of Longswordsman would honestly be pretty solid, I think - clear, to the point, no faffing around, descriptive... although the fact that longswords were designed with both one-handed and two-handed use in mind might make for a little too much confusion/thematic crossover with the Warswordsman? Another possibility would be to make the Castle Age upgrade Serjeants and the Imperial one Man At Arms - it would be more accurate to the progression of such armies historically than Man At Arms in Feudal, certainly, it would actually fit the historical naming of such soldiers as Medieval history went on very well, but it might be hard to get used tofor people who know Men At Arms in the current game, plus the fact that Men At Arms quickly found themselves mostly fighting on horseback as a sort of non-noble knight rather than on foot where I think they started, so it could feel off there. On balance... I'd probably go with Longswordsman, though if I come up with something better I'll let you know!
Finally, I really would be interested to hear about the reasons for your decision regarding the differing tech trees for your Roman civ and the official one - the reasoning for things like this is fascinating to me!
Great suggestions Rowan! Seriously, thank you so much for taking the time to think this through.
Militia and man at arms are actually both names I'm planning on using for future unit builds heheheh, so I'm going to try to avoid them for now! And my concern with longswords is pretty much exactly what you brought up -- I don't think they were very often used with a shield, and even when they were I think it could be a little deceptive.
I did, however, come up with a unit name progression that I think works pretty okay! Rather than doing anything fancy, my decision was to name the first unit just plain old Swordsman (accurate, clean, probably should have done it in the first place) and name the second one the Regular! After consulting my master list of ideas, I realize that the term Irregular would actually better apply to a different unit I have planned for future, and The swordsman line is meant to be somewhat Elite even if used more unconventionally.
This would allow the footman to be shuffled to the castle age upgrade, which I think works okay. What do you think of this progression?
As for the Romans one, that is literally just a mistake on my part! Very good catch there, any discrepancies you see or just me being a goof and I will fix it for the next recraft!
Thanks so much for taking the time to hash this out with me Rowan, it's proving very productive!
Since dawn of time, infantry has served as the backbone of armies, used to control and retain areas.
Nice to see that concept on your build Rob. Doing some justice to our boys on the ground!
Thanks a lot for saying so Diego! Really appreciate it my friend
Good way to enter the weekend after a long week. Feel like I haven’t been here in ages lol. Now to watch the video 😃
HEY! Great to see you again Daniel! Hope you ended up enjoying it!
Pretty cool. I had many ideas similar to yours, like splitting the line, making it anti-trash and adding rodeleros as an upgrade to longswrodsman.
Oh yeah! A couple of other people have told me likewise -- I hope you enjoyed my particular incarnation of the idea!
AOE 1 has a tech that made barracks units cost 1/2 pop.
Maybe bringing that to AOE2 would make some good sense and certainly make inf a viable option.
And on your comments about swordsmen not being the backbone, you are correct. Spears were the most common weapon in the medieval period, either alone or with a shield.
Making Spears do decent damage against inf and archers, while still having a bonus dmg against cav would make things alot more accurate.
Yep, I was basing my technology off of that! Just with a few minor adjustments to hopefully make it a better fit for the game we know now.
I definitely agree with you that Spears should be a lot more than they are now! I have an interesting proposal for how to subdivide them that I'll be getting to you in far future. My main issue is that the game seems to conflate untrained peasants given a pointy stick with all pole arm units!
Really hope you enjoyed the video my friend. Thank you so much for taking the time to comment!
@@robbylava Yea, Im sorry, made the comment without finishing the video first lol
Im very intrigued to hear about your ideas. You have a new follower now.
On a sidenote, if you are familiar with the Age of Chivalry mod for AOE2 back in the day, the mod kinda made spears somewhat an option against other inf. Some factions even had 1 range on spears allowing to work like the Inca Kamayuk and almost do spear lines. Would love to hear your thoughts on that perhaps? Thanks!
No need to apologize at all! Very glad to hear you were engaged by the design heheheh, welcome aboard!
I am definitely on board with making Spears more versatile than they are now. I have a proposal for down the line on how to subdivide the current spearman into a couple of different major archetypes, much like I've done here with the swordsman!
Giving certain types of pole-arm bonus range is for sure one of the best ways to go about this. Elite long pikes made up pretty huge proportions of late medieval European armies in particular, and having them represented by dinky little trash units right now is just absolutely silly in my opinion.
Really cool to hear that other mods also pursued this option!
Selsword line depicts an infantry type rather than a weapon. Usually the standard for aoe2 is depicting weapon users.
Why not, aesthetically replace them for macemen.
I: Clubman
II: Maceman
III: Flailman
IV: Morningstar (perhaps two handed?)
Then change the Warswordsman name to Longswordman, and make him use a shield. Not the Greatswordsman, him ramains two handed. Edit: when I wrote this part I didn't knew about the shielded infantry bonus. So Longswordman would not get a shield I guess.
In this way is more representative of the middle ages where there were only a few swordsmen. And you could mass the macemen without it being unhistorical.
All this is only aesthetical.
I get what you're going for, but while sword and shield was not commonly used on the battlefield there are some examples of it.
I would highly endorse having some sort of mace and shield unit, but I would personally want to keep it entirely separate from the sword line and give it a different niche.
i would likely just go with a less drastic change but that would work with something like this.
castle age: shield bearer, a faster moving with 2 more pierce armor that the militia line, 0 melee armor, faster movement, drastically lower damage with a big bonus vs all archer units, similar hp than the equivalent militia line, cost more food and less gold, and is unlocked with the same tech that upgrades man at arms to their castle age equivalent whom i forgot what's the name.
imperial age: heavy shield bearer, all stats excepts melee armor increase with an independant unit upgrade tech.
i want to add an anti archer specialist that wouldn't be spamed but will be there to protect ally infantry from archers right in the middle of the swarm, so a foot soldier with a big shield is the perfect option AS LONG as they don't use spears or will be visually confused with the skirm line, this shield bearer unit will be affected by supply, gambeson, squires, infantry blacksmith upgrades BUT NO ARSON, will have the same rol as a huskarl as an infantry that can fight archers with no problem and actually resist hand canoners but won't be as powerfull against these as the actuall huskarl, i would even say that goths won't get shield bearers cause they already have the huskarl.
i do not see my unit idea happening mostly cause skirmishers already exists as an anti archers specialist and infantry civs have acces to both skirms and light cavs as anti archer options but these do not get the bonus said civs have for their main line infantry
I would personally prefer to avoid that sort of hard counter unit, both because I find it very inelegant and also because historically it just wasn't really a thing beyond the occasional irregular sword flanking or skirmishing units I'm trying to capture here. Using that sort of idea for a regional thing like a huskarl could work okay, but imagine if it ended up being good! Then we would need an anti infantry Archer unit! And then an anti-cavalry one, etc etc. Might just lead to an endless conga line of hyperspecific counter units! Though, unfortunately, I think the more likely outcome would be that such a unit would be almost unusable unless it was heavily pushed like the huskarl is.
Some ideas:
Maybe for the ZoC swordsmen, longswordmen and spearmen could have a +100% atk vs moving units. So if a unit passes infront of them without attacking, they get heavily damaged. This could be more in line with the code.
Maybe Mustering Rolls could be renamed to Billeting, and instead of barracks costing less wood, make them able to train 2 units at the same time. And make Quartering a requeriment.
An attack bonus versus moving units is an awesome idea. I'm not 100% sure it belongs on this build, but with your permission I just might use that someday
@@robbylava use whatever You want
Overall I like the idea of reforming infantry as a whole in the game. Despite recent bufffs and pushes towards infantry in recent patches they still leave much to be desired as a viable unit in the mid game especially where knights and crossbows dominate unless you’re up against a lot of cav in which case pikemen would be a decent option. On the new techs though the costs of them that might set them back a bit, cause while you get a much better unit overall, I feel like they’d be harder to mass. Feel like you’d kinda be in the position the Goths are in where you either die hard or you win hard cause that late game almost sounds broken but hey, we love to see that on this channel!
Thanks for the review man! Yeah, if the late game ended up being too crazy we could definitely tone down the numbers, but if we did so I think reducing the costs would all be a good idea to make sure they get the nice mid-game spike I'm hoping for.
Really glad you enjoyed!
That’s true - they should split militia line into 3 various units. Militia should be renamed to maceman with bonus vs trash units. From feudal age we should gain access to man at arms/longswordsman with good mele and pierce armor with no bonuses vs other units. From castle age we could gain access to 2-handed swordsman with special area attack but the unit itself would have worse pierce armor since it lacks shield there would be no logic to give it high pierce armor. Also spear line could be split into spearman and pike. Spearman would be upgradeable to halberdier and pikeman would be upgradable to heavy pikeman. Spear line would fit the role of anti cav trash unit and pike line would be gold unit with high melee armor with 1 range just like kamayuk with less bonus attack vs cav.
I share a lot of your ideas QuaintSerpent! You can definitely expect to see many similar proposals on this channel in the future.
I think this could be fixed by using your raiders unit for the nordic civilizations. You have the Militia base (sword and shield), the Spearmen base and the "Vanguard" base. Make the militia line behave like your proposed line, spearmen line as always and the vanguard as a more fast moving anti infantry unit that later on has different features per civilizations, so you keep the nordic civilizations with the raiding theme, the asian ones the anti cav theme and the central europe more elite theme.
What an interesting suggestion! You know, that's not the direction I would have thought to go at all, but I really like the idea.
As you might imagine, I have quite a few more plans for unit proposals down the line! But if I were ever forced to really limit the number of units I proposed for the game, then going with an idea like what you suggest here might be a great way to consolidate things.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts my friend!
This needs more views!!
Thanks bud! If nothing else I'm very glad you're one of them
Hey Robby, here is an idea for a future episode: when doing research for your civilization theorycrafting videos I’m sure you came across some civs that had to be discarded because they did not fit the AoE2 timeframe or would not stand a chance on the battlefield against other civs already depicted in the game.
Well, what if you took some of these “discarded” civilizations and used them for an Age of Mythology based theorycrafting video instead? The fantasy setting of AoM partially lifts the historical restraints you have to deal with when theorycrafting AoE civs while still allowing you to explore unusual or lesser known cultures.
Myself, I would love to see an AoM build for an Australian Aborigines based civilizations or a (non-Mesoamerican) Amerindian culture.
Thanks for the suggestions Someone! Funnily enough, I actually just posted a poll today asking people whether they'd be interested in seeing Age of Mythology on this channel at some point, and you're definitely right that it would allow a lot more flexibility on time frame and precise historical accuracy!
I don't think I'll be able to get to it for a little while, but just know that it is now on my schedule and you will almost certainly see it on this channel at some point in the future!
Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I hope you enjoyed this video!
Something that I would personally really appreciate is if the missile-relevant techs Ballistics and Thumb Ring were just less effective. Thumb ring making so many units 100% accurate even at max range is really the most egregious part, so make the accuracy boost weaker at the very least, and make missiles fired at max range less accurate.
Couldn't agree more! I have a video plan for some time in the future talking about what I think archers are so stupidly broken, and those two are definitely high on the list!
ok here's a wild idea
the shieldman. high pierce armor, low speed (around OLD teutonic knights), low melee armor and attack. Draws 100% of just passing arrows onto himself. Pikes might have to get 1 range to get good synergy
Maybe a technology to allow arrows to deal 0.5 damage instead of 1 when the shielded unit's pierce armor completely covers the attack. I would never go down to 0
Those are both genuinely fantastic ideas. I especially like the arrow drawing effect! I'm not sure I would put it as a common unit, but as a unique or even Regional unit that could be a really great addition to the game.
This video rocks. I love it
Nice build! I like the distinct uses of the two, with one being a potential arrow sponge and the other a good crowd unit. And the techs look like they could make infantry a good option in all circumstances for that extra gameplay variation. So I think it accomplishes what you set out to achieve. Sweet!
Just one thing to note:
Shield Wall sounds very strong and with the proper micro can be really deadly. That's not a bad thing at all, but it might need to be a more expensive (maybe 500w/250g), since the Swordsman units are already quite cheap.
And maybe it shouldn't apply within 1 range (hmm... where have I seen that before..?). Otherwise a group of Swordsmen could just take out a castle without suffering any damage from it. Damage could perhaps be reduced by 50% within 1 range, so the tech still has an effect there.
But that is a minor issue. All in all, very cool ideas and something that'd be fun to play with. Thanks for another great video!
Also, Rodeleros? Doppelsoldners? AoE3 says hi!
edit: Formatting.
Thanks a lot Bjarke! I'm very glad you enjoyed, and you make some really good points about Shield wall. Some other commenters have brought up very good points about it that make me inclined to change the effect outright -- my current favorite idea would be a Dodge Shield while unmoving that scales in power on how many fellow shielded allies are nearby. But I could also see making it give Pierce armor scaling on nearby shielded allies that wasn't conditional on standing still, though I do much prefer the interesting micro options opened up by the former.
Any thoughts in this regard? Regardless of which direction I go, your note about having it not apply within one range is very good!
Thanks for the reply, Robby!
The scaling dodge shield sounds neat! If memory serves me right, there is a unit with a kind of group (attack) bonus in AoE3, so it isn't even alien to the series. And it would solve the issue of "immortal statues", so to speak (although I do find the image of a couple of units standing still whilst being pelted with arrows forever quite amusing).
The buddy system option is also good, although it's just a sophisticated use of pierce armor, so I prefer the former in terms of mechanics.
Totally! And at least with this model the unit will only be invulnerable if the enemy has very few projectiles coming their way. A clever enemy will also be able to target units on the peripheries of the formation who aren't benefiting as much from the shield! So hopefully this will allow enough counter play to not be as oppressive
I think you've got some great ideas here. I particularly like the idea of cheaper faster and half population space.
Did you consider Sheild Wall being a tech where infantry getting extra peirce armour if they are in a group over a certain size?
Thanks so much Stephen! Really glad you enjoyed it my friend!
Funny you should say that about Shield wall -- a couple of commenters have brought up some really valid concerns about its current design, and my plan redesign will focus much more heavily on incremental benefits based on friendly shielded infantry nearby! You are way ahead of the curve with that suggestion -- I'm not sure I'll get to it in my next recraft, but the one after that you will definitely see it implemented!
I mostly agree on the part of sellsword and footman, maybe the solidarius ( is this the origin of the word soldier ). But maybe not the sergeant. Usually, the sergeant is a high rank soldier and those are fewer than the other two, which is easily to mass due to a great source of peasant workers and citizens. I would picture a serjeant as a captain of a grunt/peon squadron. Dawn of War 1 is a good example of this. I don't really agree on implementing the two-handed swordsman/great swordsman. They are not easy to mass. I would picture them a specialist division of infantry whose main focus is to unhorse cavalry units, hence the horsecutters ( zhanmadao ). I was going to suggest implement the recruitment of this unit through RNG, if you recruit a certain number of footman-line, you get it as a reward. But seeing how RNG further ruins the game in many many games, I figure it's a better option to use it like the sergeant via the DOW squad mechanic. I'm pretty satisfied up to the footman. Albeit a simple name change like Infantry and Heavy Infantry is suffice too. The footmen should also get different weapons. A standard sword&shield skin is fine. However, some soldiers should get axe&shield, club/mace/hammer&shield, flail&shield ( dismounted konniks , even spear&shield although that might be an addition to the spearmen-line. A nigh imbalance idea I would like to mention is to spawn infantry in groups per unit. This is again to address the non-existent infantry representation compared to the dominant range and cavalry spam. If they weren't important, then how come the "Infantry wins the day" quote exist ?
A lot to go over here, I don't even know where to start.
Suffice to say that I very much respect your opinion, and I feel like there might be ways to accommodate a lot of what you are suggesting.
if I was to make big sweeping changes to crossbows, it would be:
- Bodkin no longer adds 1 range
- A new castle age tech "Diagonal draw" for 100f 50g adds 1 range to archers, CA, towers, and castles
- Thumbring requires Diagonal draw and costs 50f 50g less
- Elite Skirmishers have 6 base range instead of 5
This would let skirmishers counter archers more effectively by no longer requiring both Bodkin and armor to be effective. It would also slow down archer rushes that want to get both the range and attack.
- Archer/Xbow/Arb deal +1/+2/+3 damage to Spearmen instead of +3
- Skirm/Eskirm deal +4 damage to Spearmen instead of +3
This would give players more options for defending against the Archer+Scout opening in teamgames, helping the meta diversify.
My changes to infantry might be less sweeping. I kind of like the idea of just keeping it at
- Supplies costs 75w75g instead of 75f75g
- First armor upgrade costs 75f, second costs 150f 75g
- M@a and up deal +3 to spears instead of +0
- M@a deal +3 to Eagles instead of +2,
and if that's not enough maybe moving Squires to Feudal
Definitely much more conservative changes! But certainly quite cool. What is a diagonal draw? I've never heard that term before
ooooh replacing Supplies with a dark age installment to unlock Militia in the first place? And then making Militia a lot cheaper? I like that!
Right now you need 280f 100g for a 3 m@a rush. With this, even if they're say 40f 15g, you'd need 295f 135g, and more frontloaded. I heavily prefer that installment requirement over giving them weaker stats
Quartering has to cost Wood instead of Food. One because buildings cost Wood, the other cause infantry is very Food-heavy and that makes it hard to afford with a Feudal age or even early Castle age economy (scouts can make up for that with speed and power). But yeah, with that tech, a base cost of 50f 15g would make sense
@@robbylava it's when you draw the bow in such a way that the arrow is pointing diagonally upwards. I imagine it would take some effort to get used to, especially on higher poundage bows
Glad you like the installation idea Iwer! I was pretty pleased with that change myself. And your point about quartering costing wood makes a lot of sense -- I was trying to have it follow with tradition by matching the cost of current supplies, but your reasoning is totally on point.
My concern with making the militia line something that needs to be installed is that one of the values of the current militia line is as an answer to a rush, which players may not have available if they haven't installed it in Dark Age. This applies especially when one player is just slower and hasn't left dark age before a frush hits. Hopefully that's not too common an occurrence, but it bears thinking about.
I recall feeling like the addition of the backbone Footman (to be renamed) already did a lot to reinvigorate infantry as a concept, filling the historical importance of spears, as well as the backbone of heavy infantry that made up most armies, while also being an effective counter to the most popular units, and being countered by the sword. That said, breaking out the sword into more varieties isn't terrible, and your research has yielded more or less what my understanding of the sword's presence on battlefields was.
I like the separation of sword and board from twohanding, and the emphasis on shields as anti-pierce. I love Enarmes and Quartering. I am initially tentative about the healing portion of Marching Drills, but ultimately, I think I agree that it helps them fill the role of an endurance troop. It also falls off in value in most late game fights as fighting tends to become near constant towards the end, but it definitely helps maintain their value as a defensive troop, as they recover value after fighting off an attack. Also, it works as a reference to how infantry were the backbone because they were the easiest role in the army to fill, making recovering from losses easier.
Question, because I don't remember and am feeling lazy about going back to the old build: does Shield Wall apply when standing still and attacking?
Muster Rolls feels solid to me in Imperial. Any earlier I would have problems with it, but that late, yeah, let infantry civs play. I have no unique insights on Retrobannum. Is vera stronk.
And a vote for calling the Sellsword Irregular instead.
Also, a Zone of Control mechanic could be tied to the Shield Wall in some way, increasing the units' occupied space such that they're just a physical obstacle? Might cause some issues with creating weird range effects on melee units though, if a footman occupies the same space as an elephant, for instance, or might end up needing extra micro if it's just a sideways line sort of effect.
I definitely think a dodge shield version of Shield Wall would be more palatable to the current game, but I must repeat: I'm bad at micro so it scares me lol.
Really excellent thoughts my friend! I agree largely with everything you've said here -- to clarify, Shield wall IS supposed to apply while you're attacking, but as another commenter pointed out I do need to add the clarification but it doesn't work against things within 1 range
The zone of control effect going on Shield wall would make a lot of sense if I could find a way to make it work. I'm really nervous about how many passing problems it would likely bring it back! My goal of course would be to make it so that units can't just push through your guys, so maybe there's another way to represent that... Here's a thought, what if it allowed infantry to emit a very short-range slowing aura to gum up enemies that are right on top of them? Do you think that would do the trick?
Really appreciate you taking the time to watch and share your thoughts!
@@robbylava I do like the slowing aura idea; that would then also make it harder to retreat from infantry, which I am uncertain as to how that would affect things. I considered a source of extra damage, like an aura that deals damage when a unit (probably just a targeted unit?) tries to leave the aura, or some sort of conditional bonus damage, but it feels less viable than a move speed penalty aura.
Nice! I'll go in that direction then. Thanks so much for the input my friend!
Great Video. Hope you do more on splitting current units.
Really liked the idea that they are good versus trash units.
Big fan of the Rodelero idea. Just PERFECT. The only thing is that I like the Condottiero being in the game. I like the concept of it being available to allies. I would like to see more units being added that become availbale to allies.
What baout adding HP regen of Msrvhing Drills to Quartering?
Really liked Muster Rolls. Though I think can be more useful if its available earlier. The reason is since the way to improve infantry is make them cheaper so you can field more of them and making them take less population earlier on will help with this so that u dont have to decide between Villagers and infantry. But the effect is Great. Deffinetly wouldnt be broken. Infantry need some support and this is one way.
Great addition with Retrobannum. Though I think it should only apply to Barracks infantry. Another option would be to give Retrobannum and Muster roll Effects as part of inherited Barracks infantry. That would definetly give infnatry the support they need. And if too powerful, they could tweek the numbers. And to protect against rushes they could kick in at attack when going from Dark Age to Feudal Age. like Castle Age. Similar to how Scout Cavalry gets more tThese changes are what infnatry need in my opinion.
What about adding Doppelsoldner in the game?
Really appreciate you saying so my friend! And these are some fantastic suggestions.
HP region on quartering I worry would be a little too much, especially because it will probably matter more in early ages when HP pools are lower. And you aren't the first person to suggest that muster rolls should be available earlier, I think I'm likely to make that change in the next recraft!
I definitely agree with you that infantry training faster should be a universal. It's something I want to do more of in future with other infantry units I intend on adding, but since both of these guys are more Elite type soldiers I didn't want to push the envelope too much just yet.
Really glad you enjoyed my friend! Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts.
Nice content bro. Keep going and you get big
Hey! Really appreciate you saying so Steven, that's very kind of you!
Very much hope you're enjoying the content. Here's hoping what you say comes true!
AOE2 Is superior game, but AOE1 has diverse armies, which i like in RTS games
A time that buildings had progression connection, a time that infantry and scorpions/ballistas still poses a threat.
Love the vid. Good job mate :D
Appreciate you saying so bud! Glad you enjoyed
Would love to see what your full building options look like when you propose unit crafts like this. That mocked up visual could be really compelling and help outline what's staying, changing, or going in your theory crafts. Also is man at arms dead?!
Are you talking about like a build card for the barracks? Cuz I definitely could see doing that, especially down the line! There are a few more additions I want to make heheheh
Man at arms will be returning at some point! But he will be looking very different when he does
Hope you enjoyed the build Harpo!
@@robbylava yeah man, a build card for the barracks! I did enjoy it, good stuff!
27:53
I like this idea.
Ohhhh, loving this!
EYY thanks buddy! Really glad to hear it!
I would so love to play a mod with all your civs and units
I really appreciate you saying so, that genuinely means a lot! With some luck that won't be a complete impossibility -- some cool progress is even being made in that regard right now!
For me, the barracks units for me it should be had the: swordman (same like your sells sword idea), great swd/ two handed Swd, Spear/pikeman, Halberdier
Yes for me halberdier should not being part of spearman upgrade but as it's own unit line!
So all civ have sword n shield, and spear units, meanwhile great sword and halberdier available for some civ and fully upgraded in few of em
I can see many civ have fully upgraded Sword man, spear and halberdier but didn't get great swordman
Meanwhile Teuton have barracks all units available and fully upgraded
Totally agree with you that the spear and halberd should be split! That will be another project for me down the line, though I have plenty more infantry units to propose in the meanwhile!
Hope you enjoyed the vid my friend.
Oooh, I like the option of a line (or more) of units specialized in pole-arms
Why does the sellsword looks so sad in his icon? :(
More seriously though, I really enjoyed this unit theorycraft. The only things I would personally change, to make this new build more palatable and maybe slightly more likely to happen, would be to keep the militia, man at arms and long swordsman for the first three ages on the one handed weapon side (albeit updated version of them, in terms of stats, gameplay and related technologies), and then having the serjeant/rodelero as an upgrade for the Imperial Age. And also keeping the original names of the units in the two handed side of the build, and just update their stats, related technologies and adjust their models (as you suggested).
Another theorycraft I would personally like to see is one for a potential spearwielding cavalry unit. They seem to have been a staple in so many armies during both Antiquity and the Middle Ages that I find it weird at best that they're only represented by a few unique units within AoE 2.
P. S.: I'm sorry for having been so silent as of late. However, while I was mostly "backsitting", I was enjoying your theorycraft videos nonetheless. :)
No need to apologize at all Lif! It's great to hear your thoughts.
I think that if such a change were to be implemented it's very likely that the devs would go in your proposed direction and keep the current names and models. HOWEVER, this being me and all, you better believe that I'm going to go out of my way to propose something over the top and nitpickingly accurate! Definitely a very pragmatic suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't cry if that were the case.
Unlike the sellsword lolol, I can't unsee it now that you've pointed it out
Also a great point about spear cavalry! As I've now done with infantry and archers I definitely want to do an initial split/rework video for cavalry at some point, and you better believe that a spear cavalry is going to be one of the major focuses of that!
You can tweak infantry as much as you want, the ''Pros'' (Apart from the more imaginative ones like Viper) will still always gravitate towards Cav+Archers. Why? Because those units provide them with the most direct control.
The mind of a ''Pro'' competitive AoE player is completely different to the mind of a general or King.
Battle tactics and strategy is far removed from the sports arena that ''Pro'' 1v1 esports AoE precipitates.
It is already very easy to mass an infantry army (Even without a dedicated bonus) and supplies have reinforced this even more so.
I love using a strong defence to provide me with time to train a large professional infantry army and it had brought me many a victory in the past, but, because of this mindset...I am a Mid ELO candidate and always will be.
Our minds are structured around realism, history and logic, where the ''Pros'' minds are structured around efficiency and immediate ,direct control.
Unfortunately these mindsets are anathema to one another.
I think there's some truth to this, but it's definitely possible in my opinion to make the game a little bit more in line with reality without completely compromising it's competitive elements. That's much of what this build was trying to accomplish! Giving infantry a specific competitive niche that could give them more realism while also simultaneously making them more viable.
Whether I succeeded or not is another story! I think only actual gameplay will be able to tell whether I succeeded here, so hopefully a modder decides to take it upon themselves to implement this stuff so we can see how it actually works!
@@robbylava yeah no, all our Civ crafting elements will make the game much more enjoyable to play for us basic commoners, but the "pros" unfortunately have to much of a 2D mindset.
I understand the reasons for the changes you propose, but isn't the shieldwall unhistorical ? I mean at the optimal distance an arrow or a javelin pierces a shield or armour.
I later changed the effect in a recraft to instead reduce incoming arrow damage to 1, effectively making it a very big Pierce armor boost that can still be bypassed by bonus damage and similar.
You're entirely right in your assessment!
16:28
They sound very similar to the HRE exclusive unit from AoE4.
18:24
About the straps being an improvement to shields, from experience, I disagree.
Strapped shields and center grip shields both have advantages and disadvantages.
You know, this is a really good point. I think that the Enarmes technology, in retrospect, wasn't a great addition. I have also used both types of shields in the past and personally found strapped ones to be much more comfortable and effective, but historically speaking I don't think that's a universal truth
@@robbylava, I personally prefer center grip most of the time for fighting.
Strapped shields were a lot better for cavalry and if you needed to carry something on you other hand.
The only problem i have with this video is that you seem to forget or be unaware of a lot of the techs already in the game. Like removing arson but giving every infantry +1 to buildings when the militia line gets +1 to buildings every time you upgrade them already. So with arson, infantry does +6 against buildings already and removing arson would make infantry worse against buildings with -1 total damage.
Then i have my own opinions about techs like shieldwall which can be abused to kingdom come by just force canceling movement to block ranged attacks. Being able to just select some units to hold position and become damage sponges is not a good idea whatsoever and will just make the game nigh unplayable for range factions, you can choose when you want to lose units by simply not moving. I mean think about it this way, siege rams are already really strong against range factions, and if you made them invulnerable against archers, which would be way more accurate than infantry being invulnerable, would make archer factions extremely weak. So being able to mass infantry against archers without the risk of them ever being in danger until you can overwhelm the archers is not fun gameplay. "Oh no he pushed my base, better just stand still until i have enough units!" Or "Oh no i'm losing the fight, better just stand still until my reinforcements come!" Are two scenarios that are going to become the norm.
I think the important thing to remember is that infantry isn't as bad as we say they are, in fact they're pretty close to being fully viable so giving them way too powerful techs will swing it way too hard in infantry's direction. Infantry factions can use and win with infantry, so making them way too powerful will just put them at the top with little counterplay. Granted, every faction in the game can do cavalry rushes and most can do archer rushes and win the game while only infantry civs can use infantry and win. But is that really that bad that only specialised factions can bring infantry to the table?
And when it comes to using techs that use the formations, we had this in Age of Empires 3 with sweden and it turned out too strong. If one player is capable and able to abuse formation bonuses and the other isn't, there will be a massive advantage over the other. Like moving an army with marching drills, you'd just spawn Z+X to gain a silly permanent boost in speed, and the player that's better at abusing this will be able to have their infantry move at cavalry speed even mid combat. I think when we talk about these kinds of additions to the game, it's important to consider that this is a game about beating your opponent by any 'legal' means. That includes abusing mechanics. So if there is a way to use it in an unintended way, people will. And that's just the way it is. So i'd rather shelf an idea that has abuse potential than to risk it and hope people just wont be assholes about it. They had to change sweden in AoE3 for this very reason, people got too good at abusing their unique mechanic.
Some Fair points here and some stuff I really disagree with. First off, nerfing infantry damage against buildings was absolutely the intention of that tabled idea -- I felt like if I was going to be giving infantry all of these buffs then I may as well commit to giving them their own niche and remove the analogies to Siege in their ability to threaten the base, at least in part.
Are there any other specific discrepancies you noticed?
Moreover, while I agree that infantry are getting closer and closer to being viable, it's being done in a way that I don't find personally very compelling or satisfying. A big part of this video was trying to give infantry their own, unique niche that was, most importantly, at least somewhat historically justified! The way I see infantry being made viable right now is to just make them well priced stat sticks, and that to me is quite a boring solution.
Similarly, I would actually say that yes it is a bad thing if infantry is only viable in the hands of specialists. At least as bad as it can be considering the relatively trivial scope of what we're talking about here! They are an entire third of the core balance triangle present in the game and were historically by far and away the most common troops on the battlefield, having them be niche feels very incorrect! Plus, as many people before me have said, the crossbow and knight meta we have been stuck in for well over a decade now is getting more than a little stale. What better way to break the mold than with infantry?
That all being said, I definitely agree it can be taken too far. My hope would be that by giving infantry more of a unique fundamental niche we would be able to adjust things like stats to change power without completely removing viability, much like how crossbows have been able to weather a couple of nerfs over the years while still remaining viable. I just think it would be much more healthy for the overall longevity and health of the game! But if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and share your thoughts!
@@robbylava My original comment was way longer but i edited away a chunk of it because i found myself only weakly agreeing with what i said, that's why you felt a lack of other discrepancies pointed out by me, i removed them.
I actually happen to think that infantry's niche that they serve extremely well IS being the middleground between the monster stats of cav and the base destruction of siege. I've played a lot of games recently where i've gone infantry and the sheer level of threat they bring is insane. I don't need to go siege because the second i can't do damage, i just turn on the buildings instead. I don't think the units need to be changed to make infantry interesting, but maybe there should be a new unit introduced that's either regional or straight up a new addition. I heard people mention you came up with a raider unit. Something that might be better against archers, possibly a bonus vs villagers.
EDIT: I don't think a complete infantry overhaul would be a good thing for the game, neither for returning old players or those still grinding high level play. And i think you might not reach a satisfying conclusion to solving this infantry riddle if you keep trying to force a full on overhaul. Additions and tweaks is where i think the solution is at. Take the stable in Conq compared to today as an example. It's hardly even recognizeable and much more fun to experiment with. Honestly, i'm surprised the barracks haven't gotten an expansion like that.
We'll have to agree to disagree then! From what I've seen the only thing that has made infantry at all viable recently has been a slew of buffs that just give them stats without actually establishing a new identity. But I am certainly a fan of more dramatic designs, and my biases and preferences certainly shouldn't define the game! Though I will say that I've seen an awful lot of commenters expressing similar misgivings about infantry as a whole.
That being said, even if the developers didn't go nearly as far as I propose here, I think Regional expansions are an absolute must. I've tabled one already myself! And I certainly plan on doing more in future. Maybe you'll be able to find some stuff you agree with there, or at least proposals that achieve more of a common ground between our two design philosophies!
What about Spearmen, will they keep their currrent rol?
Good question! I do intend on subdividing that unit down the line, much like I have done here, but I do think all members of that subdivision will retain at least some anti-cavalry focus and at least one will definitely remain a cheap, spammable trash unit. That's my current plan at least!
I don't think the swordsman line being a GOLD anti trash unit makes sense, because the trash units already counter each other better and it'd be a bad decision to make a gold unit to counter trash in that case. scout line counters skirms, skims counter spears and spears counter hussars, no need for making a gold unit. In fact the hussar fulfils its raiding potential better as well. I'd suggest making them another trash unit or reduce their gold cost significantly.
Reducing gold cost significantly I can get behind, but I do think that an antitrash specialist costing a little gold could make sense if they are actually really good at their job. One of the issues with the sword right now is that they don't counter hussars particularly well, if they did I think they would be substantially scarier, but there are many other issues holding them back beyond that too.
Woo! First!
Now that I've had some time to look it all over, this is a very much needed update to fixing most of the major problems with infantry currently. I agree with some of the other commenters that Shield Wall should probably be nerfed somewhat. Other than that, this is a fantastic build, as always, and gives some much needed love to the common foot sloggers.
Thanks so much for saying so Johannes! Yeah, I definitely agree with Shield wall needing a touch up, but fortunately I think I have a good idea of how to do so!
First!
wrong
they were the backbone in most battles