AOE-II DE Infantry Balance Changes

[xThomas]

I feel like a shieldwall defensive stance where they take barely any range hits but move suuuper slow could be helpful

That's historical. The Franks dismounted and form a shieldwall at the battle of tours. Although I don't know if it was more for defending against moorish archery or their light cavalry.
most swords were a sidearm IRL. aoe2 has primary weapons and secondary weapons now, but it shouldn't be managed by the player like ratha, automatic choosing which to use by the computer is better for this. But it costs a lot to make different sprites for unit switching to a sword though and gameplay changes too, so we can't do that.

my point earlier was that viable castle age longswordsmen won't add anything interesting to the game, it would make the game more boring.
Give them 100 HP. The super swordsman is still limited by speed. It's hard to retreat, if you send 2 swordsmen and they meet a knight, they are dead, so split up army is big risk. It's hard to micro, it's less interesting to watch. They can't pursue an enemy. They can be massed on the way to Castle Age... well, I think archers being able to be upgraded to crossbowmen is a mistake anyway and m@a look cooler.
can you think of any new interesting way that having swordsmen be super buffed would make the gameplay better? Having a giant death ball of swordsmen isn't interesting to watch. I'd rather watch knights played.
I might be wrong about a big swarm of swordsmen being the safe way to play them if they were buffed but I imagine the super swordsman as a shitty teutonic knight

 

[Sextilidan]

I think Militia line already have a well defined role in the game and do not require any overhauls.
Their anti-building damage bonus makes them really good at forcing "stand your ground and fight me" decisive pushes.
You can retreat from Knights or Archers and leave your buildings behind knowing they won't waste time clearing them, but a wave of LS/2H/Champions is able to quickly sweep any building in its path and slowly pressure you off the map.

 

[Lokalo]

I think Militia line already have a well defined role in the game and do not require any overhauls.
Their anti-building damage bonus makes them really good at forcing "stand your ground and fight me" decisive pushes.
You can retreat from Knights or Archers and leave your buildings behind knowing they won't waste time clearing them, but a wave of LS/2H/Champions is able to quickly sweep any building in its path and slowly pressure you off the map.

If that was truth there wouldn't be this discussion.

 

[deadmeatnoob]

The infantry line should be defined as
- Cheap, weak but in huge numbers
- Counter to mounted units (who can run away from them if needed)
- easily delt with archers.
- can destroy buildings faster than cav and archer.

So I suggest the following:
1) increase barracks production speed by 10-15%
2) give all infantry units +1 attack bonus agasint cav units per age. It will help FU long swords counter FU knights slightly more effectively. feudal +1, castle +2, imp +3. we can adjust viking UT cost and bonus damage accordingly. We can also make this NOT applicable to eagles or other units which are countered by knights.
3) all infantry take +1 attack bonus against arrows. Spear could take +3 as it currently stands. Huskarls and ghulam are excluded as they are archer counters.

None of these are game breaking. These will make infantry spam a viable but not OP option.
Obviously, as Nili indicated, There is already a balance change incoming which will make infantry slightly better. So This whole discussion is pointless.

 

[shm0wt]

This is a perennial topic of debate as others have noted. The role of the swordsmen-line in game has seen a lot of tweaking overall, and IMO is in a fine spot at the moment, but many people want to see swordsmen armies be viable in the mid game and there are a bunch of opinions about how to achieve this, so let's consider them.

A point to bring up here is that most of the suggestions ITT have actually already been tried - it's just they were implemented as civ bonuses instead of game-wide balance patches.

Do they need a cost decrease? Armor/HP/Attack/Speed increase?

Goths and Aztecs can make cheaper swordsmen. Malian swordsmen have more armour. Viking swordsmen have more HP. Burmese swordsmen have more attack, and Japanese swordsmen have more attack speed. Celt swordsmen walk slightly faster. None of these civs really want to make a lot of swordsmen in the mid game.

they need to become more tankier vs ranged units, and a little slower to balance vs xbows

This unit exists, it's called the Serjeant, and it's not a good midgame unit. Admittedly it can only be created from stone buildings, but I contend that even if you could make it out of rax, you probably wouldn't.

I could go on, but as has been pointed out by others there are a lot of bonuses to swordsmen in the game and seemingly none of them make swordsmen armies good in the mid game. I think the idea that swordsmen just need a stat increase or cost reduction to be good in Castle is fundamentally wrong.

I think swordsmen are bad in the mid game because they are fundamentally a slow unit with no range. The most important units in the mid game are either fast or are ranged units - the best fast unit is a bloodlines knight, and the best ranged unit is thumb ring xbow. This is because the mid game in AoE2 is all about map control, and both fast and ranged units are intrinsically good at controlling a lot of space. You can see this when you look at the infantry unit that actually is good in the midgame: the eagle warrior. Eagles can give you a tonne of presence all around the map at the time when you need to expand outwards and prevent your opponent from doing the same, and that is why they are good and swordsmen aren't.

So if you really want swordsmen to be a good mid game unit, then they need to move a lot faster. I don't think any other tinkering is going to get you there. Yes you could make them stronger and cheaper so they trade more efficiently, but your opponent is just going to ignore your swordsmen army and just expand elsewhere. (I mean, obviously at some point they're just so efficient that you can hurl your swordsman army directly at your opponent's defences and get value, but at that point you've basically destroyed the structure of the game just to make this one unit good at something, and I don't think it's worth it).

So yeah, unless you want longswords zooming around the map at the speed of a huscarl or an eagle, I just don't think you're going to find a way to make them good. And since that seems like a silly way to represent an infantry unit in game (huscarls are already pretty silly IMO) I reckon you're stuck with the swordsmen line's current role: early game eco damage, and late game anti-trash or anti-eagle support, with only very niche applications in the intervening period.

 

[Lightysword]

What about an upgrade in Castle Age or Imp that removes gold cost for the swordsman line. Maybe some stats need to be tweaked, but it could make imp wars much more interesting. Hussars could counter swordsmen, who counter halbs, who counter hussars.

 

[Lokalo]

I think swordsmen are bad in the mid game because they are fundamentally a slow unit with no range. The most important units in the mid game are either fast or are ranged units - the best fast unit is a bloodlines knight, and the best ranged unit is thumb ring xbow. This is because the mid game in AoE2 is all about map control, and both fast and ranged units are intrinsically good at controlling a lot of space. You can see this when you look at the infantry unit that actually is good in the midgame: the eagle warrior. Eagles can give you a tonne of presence all around the map at the time when you need to expand outwards and prevent your opponent from doing the same, and that is why they are good and swordsmen aren't.

Well I can somewhat agree, although you missing a huge point there I think. Swordsmen are not only bad because of that and that's the main issue with it, they are super easily countered by xbow, even by mangonels/scorps can be killed often. So it's not only slow, but doesn't trade good nor with knights nor with xbow even if opponent agrees to take a fight. While EW can trade both with knights and xbow. While mallians kind of solves this issue and actually i lost with korean arbs few weeks ago against malian champ spam, was quite surprised, even few hc didn't help, sure it wasnt mid game, more like mid imp. But champs suck even vs hussars, personally as many times I tried to make champs as finish blow while doing okay I just instantly lost the game, they are just bad unless opponent has no hussars just skirms and halbs, then sure, they can be great, but in my opinion they need buff vs hussars at least to at least be good in late game.

 

[shm0wt]

Well I can somewhat agree, although you missing a huge point there I think. Swordsmen are not only bad because of that and that's the main issue with it, they are super easily countered by xbow, even by mangonels/scorps can be killed often.

This is true, but I think it's a bit more complex than just being easy to counter. Yes, swordsmen die hard to xbow (assuming a realistic engagement, i.e. some micro, reasonable numbers on both sides). And xbow die just as hard to eskirm (again assuming reasonable numbers, upgrades on both sides, etc.) And knights die to pikes. So why are mid game swordsmen bad when xbow and knights are still good?

The key thing is that if you make the counters to swordsmen you're also making units which are useful for map control (and for raiding, pushing TCs, etc.) whereas if you make the counters to knights or xbow you end up with an army that can beat your opponent's army head on but can't actually do much else.

So it's not only slow, but doesn't trade good nor with knights nor with xbow even if opponent agrees to take a fight. While EW can trade both with knights and xbow.

I'm not saying that trading doesn't matter at all in the mid game, but I do think it matters less than people often think. That said, generic FU longswords actually trade pretty evenly with knights if you assume supplies and balanced red. Any civ which has a meaningful infantry bonus here (Japanese, Vikings, Burmese) should get reliably good trades with supplies longswords, assuming your production is good enough. You can also quite easily mix in low numbers of pikes since you already have the blacksmith techs and get reliably good trades. And assuming similar age-up timings you can start to mass your swordsmen before your opponent can produce knights. (You shouldn't do this, because they aren't a good unit, but you can.)

So I actually don't think trading is a big issue for the swordsmen line: they're generally ok in a straight fight except against the things that explicitly counter them. Unfortunately though, after you've won that fight you're left with an army that doesn't really do anything. OTOH if you make the counter to swordsmen (xbow) you end up with a much more useful army composition going forwards.

While mallians kind of solves this issue and actually i lost with korean arbs few weeks ago against malian champ spam, was quite surprised, even few hc didn't help, sure it wasnt mid game, more like mid imp. But champs suck even vs hussars, personally as many times I tried to make champs as finish blow while doing okay I just instantly lost the game, they are just bad unless opponent has no hussars just skirms and halbs, then sure, they can be great, but in my opinion they need buff vs hussars at least to at least be good in late game.

I think this is kind of unrelated to my point since it's really about the uses of swordsmen in lategame, when map control is much less important and the game is much more focussed on trading, raiding and pushing. I don't think Malian longswords are good, even with the extra armour against xbow. I have won games where I made a bunch of Malian longswords but only against eagle civs, and even there I wouldn't really recommend it.

As for the hussar issue ... I think hussars are kinda a problem in general honestly. It's tricky because their stats are not that wild, only +15 HP and a 5% attack speed boost compared to light cav, but they really are a unit that feels oppressive a lot of the time. Maybe making champions better into them could help? But halb already counter them incredibly efficiently for no gold cost, so I don't know how much impact it would have.

 

[Vossn]

This is true, but I think it's a bit more complex than just being easy to counter. Yes, swordsmen die hard to xbow (assuming a realistic engagement, i.e. some micro, reasonable numbers on both sides). And xbow die just as hard to eskirm (again assuming reasonable numbers, upgrades on both sides, etc.) And knights die to pikes. So why are mid game swordsmen bad when xbow and knights are still good?

The key thing is that if you make the counters to swordsmen you're also making units which are useful for map control (and for raiding, pushing TCs, etc.) whereas if you make the counters to knights or xbow you end up with an army that can beat your opponent's army head on but can't actually do much else.



I'm not saying that trading doesn't matter at all in the mid game, but I do think it matters less than people often think. That said, generic FU longswords actually trade pretty evenly with knights if you assume supplies and balanced red. Any civ which has a meaningful infantry bonus here (Japanese, Vikings, Burmese) should get reliably good trades with supplies longswords, assuming your production is good enough. You can also quite easily mix in low numbers of pikes since you already have the blacksmith techs and get reliably good trades. And assuming similar age-up timings you can start to mass your swordsmen before your opponent can produce knights. (You shouldn't do this, because they aren't a good unit, but you can.)

So I actually don't think trading is a big issue for the swordsmen line: they're generally ok in a straight fight except against the things that explicitly counter them. Unfortunately though, after you've won that fight you're left with an army that doesn't really do anything. OTOH if you make the counter to swordsmen (xbow) you end up with a much more useful army composition going forwards.



I think this is kind of unrelated to my point since it's really about the uses of swordsmen in lategame, when map control is much less important and the game is much more focussed on trading, raiding and pushing. I don't think Malian longswords are good, even with the extra armour against xbow. I have won games where I made a bunch of Malian longswords but only against eagle civs, and even there I wouldn't really recommend it.

As for the hussar issue ... I think hussars are kinda a problem in general honestly. It's tricky because their stats are not that wild, only +15 HP and a 5% attack speed boost compared to light cav, but they really are a unit that feels oppressive a lot of the time. Maybe making champions better into them could help? But halb already counter them incredibly efficiently for no gold cost, so I don't know how much impact it would have.

Halbs don't counter halbs though, that's the difference. Now Champs destroy halbs(1v1, or in gold value, if halbs are trickled), and skirms, but they only win relatively slightly vs Hussars(Who also run away a lot faster). This whilst they are meant to be trashkillers, who probably should be decent vs all three.

Over all, infantry already has a role lategame, so whilst it's a bit odd, it's not problematic than champs aren't as good vs hussar as they perhaps should.

 

[Progeusz]

That's historical. The Franks dismounted and form a shieldwall at the battle of tours. Although I don't know if it was more for defending against moorish archery or their light cavalry.

It goes further back. Roman soldiers were carrying huge shields to form turtle formation which was basically impervious to arrow fire and other ranged attacks, decently effective vs melee too. It's what let them decimate enemy forces while barely taking any losses.

 

[shm0wt]

decently effective vs melee too. It's what let them decimate enemy forces while barely taking any losses.

I think this is incorrect, most historical accounts that I've heard of describe the "testudo" formation used primarily in sieges and when facing archers, not for close quarters battle. That said, it was used in the medieval period both by the (Eastern) Romans and by various Muslim armies, again mainly in sieges.

I think it would be hard to implement in AoE2, since formations in AoE2 don't generally effect anything beyond the positioning of the units, but if it was in the game, I imagine it would mostly be useful for attacking defensive buildings, as ranged units would just micro away. This would be historical and fun, but I don't think it would really add thaaat much to the utility of swordsmen overall.

 

[xThomas]

It goes further back. Roman soldiers were carrying huge shields to form turtle formation which was basically impervious to arrow fire and other ranged attacks, decently effective vs melee too. It's what let them decimate enemy forces while barely taking any losses.

View attachment 204824Testudo!

I think this is incorrect, most historical accounts that I've heard of describe the "testudo" formation used primarily in sieges and when facing archers, not for close quarters battle. That said, it was used in the medieval period both by the (Eastern) Romans and by various Muslim armies, again mainly in sieges.

I think it would be hard to implement in AoE2, since formations in AoE2 don't generally effect anything beyond the positioning of the units, but if it was in the game, I imagine it would mostly be useful for attacking defensive buildings, as ranged units would just micro away. This would be historical and fun, but I don't think it would really add thaaat much to the utility of swordsmen overall.

It's not impossible to imagine a ratha stye infantry unit that can switch to a slow-moving giant shield animation, and a normal speed animation. You have to use your imagination to believe that one unit in shield formation represents a formation, though. And you seem to be right insofar as Parthian Horse Archers and Cataphractoi managed to fight, but I don't know.

I think from the perspective of "Does it add anything new to the game" it has value because now players can do something they couldn't before, but if you look from "Will infantry be as strong as crossbowmen and knights" the answer is obviously "No"

 

[Miss一歌丶siyuan]

How about reducing the attack interval of Longswordmen, Two-handed Swordmen and Champions from 2.0 to 1.5, and give them 60/70/80 HP?

 

[Hunyadi_]

I think that after 20 years it's difficult to make a radical change to the milita line. But if we look at history, infantry was typically used in tight formations able to withstand barrage of arrows by using shields and hold against cavalry charges by using spears / halberds.

Infantry units were only effective if they were disciplined and worked together as a group. As soon as formations were lost and discipline abandoned, they were routed and killed. Maybe there's an armour mechanic that can be implanted to infantry if they're a certain number of units and within a certain distance to each other. Let's say +2 to armour if more than 10 units are within 0.5 tiles of each other or something like that.

Don't know if that would break the game, but it is reasonably similar to how infantry worked in real battles. Individual swordsmen were largely useless in real life too. Movies like to romanticize that one hero swordsmen killing 50 enemies, but in reality it wasn't like that.

 

[Shakal]

How about reducing the attack interval of Longswordmen, Two-handed Swordmen and Champions from 2.0 to 1.5

Japanese have that and they are usually not going for militia line and the bonus HP probably won't change that either.
This change together with some civ bonuses would most probably make them really strong in a direct fight for those civs, but I don't think that's the way they should be buffed