tl;dr: What if Goths had Militia that costs 39f and 13g in the Dark Age? OP? Not OP? What's your opinion?
I've been thinking about the Goth's "eco bonus," which gives them +5 Atk vs Wild Boars (as well as the +15 meat carrying bonus) and how useless it seemed.
Then it hit me: maybe Ensemble Studios' intention was for the player to be able to skip Loom for a short time, relying on the anti-Boar bonus to help them through early game, and make Militia as an alternate strat.
Now ES could not have foreseen exactly how useful or how useless some of their bonuses would be. But what if we were to take the idea that the player could forestall researching Loom until the Dark Age.
I think the Goths can afford to be boosted in the Dark Age because they are not particularly good at anything until Imperial.
SCENARIO 1: Present-day AoC. Goth player foregoes Loom and pretends like he can live without it for a while. Now he has as many Militia as an Aztec, and incidentally you'd create those Militia a little faster (+20%) than the Aztecs (+15%). BUT, one of the strengths of the Aztecs is that with free Loom, they can build a forward Barracks and not worry so much about wolves. In this current scenario, the Goth WOULD have to worry about wolves and they don't have a decent eco bonus; free Loom = more Town Center time, also +5 carrying of ALL resources and Goths can't compete with that. So that means that the Goths would have a very similar but shittier Drush. It's like comparing a Knight to a Paladin. Same type of unit, just worse.
HOWEVER, what if the Goths got their cheaper Infantry bonus starting in the Dark Age instead of starting in Feudal?
SCENARIO 2: Militia are now cheaper at every age. Goths research Loom, and now they have 3 Militia for the price of Loom, 4 if they mine a little extra gold. Their Drush is still not as good as the Aztecs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The point is to make it different, with different pros and cons, not make it equal. However even in this 2nd scenario, it's still roughly the same idea as the Aztec drush except worse. Let's say a Cavalier vs a Paladin.
SCENARIO 3: Militia are still -35% cheaper. Now, the Goth player decides not to Loom, and builds a Barracks ASAP. They now get to have 7 Militia. 8 if they mine 4 extra gold. Now this is starting to show some promise: 7 Goth Militia cost less Food than 5 Aztec Militia. Aztecs are still way faster than the Goths, and the Goths can't forward build a Barracks. However now they are pretty good Drushers at best, Drush-proof at worst since now they have 7 defensive Militia who can take on any other civs' Drushes. I'd say that this makes the Goths Drush different enough from the Aztecs but still useful, like comparing a Cataphract to a Paladin.
Thoughts?
I've been thinking about the Goth's "eco bonus," which gives them +5 Atk vs Wild Boars (as well as the +15 meat carrying bonus) and how useless it seemed.
Then it hit me: maybe Ensemble Studios' intention was for the player to be able to skip Loom for a short time, relying on the anti-Boar bonus to help them through early game, and make Militia as an alternate strat.
Now ES could not have foreseen exactly how useful or how useless some of their bonuses would be. But what if we were to take the idea that the player could forestall researching Loom until the Dark Age.
I think the Goths can afford to be boosted in the Dark Age because they are not particularly good at anything until Imperial.
SCENARIO 1: Present-day AoC. Goth player foregoes Loom and pretends like he can live without it for a while. Now he has as many Militia as an Aztec, and incidentally you'd create those Militia a little faster (+20%) than the Aztecs (+15%). BUT, one of the strengths of the Aztecs is that with free Loom, they can build a forward Barracks and not worry so much about wolves. In this current scenario, the Goth WOULD have to worry about wolves and they don't have a decent eco bonus; free Loom = more Town Center time, also +5 carrying of ALL resources and Goths can't compete with that. So that means that the Goths would have a very similar but shittier Drush. It's like comparing a Knight to a Paladin. Same type of unit, just worse.
HOWEVER, what if the Goths got their cheaper Infantry bonus starting in the Dark Age instead of starting in Feudal?
SCENARIO 2: Militia are now cheaper at every age. Goths research Loom, and now they have 3 Militia for the price of Loom, 4 if they mine a little extra gold. Their Drush is still not as good as the Aztecs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The point is to make it different, with different pros and cons, not make it equal. However even in this 2nd scenario, it's still roughly the same idea as the Aztec drush except worse. Let's say a Cavalier vs a Paladin.
SCENARIO 3: Militia are still -35% cheaper. Now, the Goth player decides not to Loom, and builds a Barracks ASAP. They now get to have 7 Militia. 8 if they mine 4 extra gold. Now this is starting to show some promise: 7 Goth Militia cost less Food than 5 Aztec Militia. Aztecs are still way faster than the Goths, and the Goths can't forward build a Barracks. However now they are pretty good Drushers at best, Drush-proof at worst since now they have 7 defensive Militia who can take on any other civs' Drushes. I'd say that this makes the Goths Drush different enough from the Aztecs but still useful, like comparing a Cataphract to a Paladin.
Thoughts?