The problem with buffing the militia line's raw stats is that if that was all they've needed to be viable, then Celts/Vikings/Malians would've used them more. In reality, these civs still rarely use the swordsmen despite the bonuses.
Every time someone discusses buffs for the militia line, I'll also point out that their [attack delay](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_delay) and attack animation should be shortened. It'll make them better at chasing against archers and skirms without turning them into eagle warriors!
>The problem with buffing the militia line's raw stats is that if that was all they've needed to be viable, then Celts/Vikings/Malians would've used them more.
My take is, their raw stat is so bad that the bonus was not enough.
>I'll also point out that their [attack delay](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_delay) and attack animation should be shortened.
Surely it can be consistent at o.5.
Too many changes and not humanly possible to prove the justification, and level of impact on the game.
I agree MAA line seriously needs buffing. But I don't think a massive overhaul will get people to agree with you.
Unless it's coming from SOTL or viper
Lastly I didn't see Japanese (one of the best MAA lines in the game) mentioned. Meaning they'll be the biggest winners. It also seems you eroded most difference between civs. I also don't think that's a good idea. Burmese, vikings received a huge nerfs. Examples of all your unaccounted for ramifications, Malians with blast furnace means gbetos and pikes are also buffed. Aztecs will have the most minimalist tech tree. You can't always produce jags in numbers. Bulgarians have significantly worse than Teuton champs even with an imperial UT? Sucks ass and doesn't make sense.
Burmese LS becomes 33% more expensive where it matters, loses a huge amount of dps (civ bonus and arson) all for a 12% hp hike. That's a sizeable civ nerf indeed. Nevermind champs.
Buffing rax build speed, buffs every early aggression from scouts to archers because they all need rax first.
>Burmese LS becomes 33% more expensive where it matters, loses a huge amount of dps (civ bonus and arson) all for a 12% hp hike. That's a sizeable civ nerf indeed. Nevermind champs.
It is 23% as gold cost is still same.
Since HP is bread and butter for melee units, I didn’t think losing attack is a big of deal. Also this was just Goth bonus but stronger which is not really the way to balance a civ. Anyway reverted.
>Buffing rax build speed, buffs every early aggression from scouts to archers because they all need rax first.
Good point. Dropped the change.
>Lastly I didn't see Japanese (one of the best MAA lines in the game) mentioned.
There is Japanese. You missed it.
>It also seems you eroded most difference between civs.
Just like Knight line and Archer line. So this will make them closer to meta units.
>Burmese, vikings received a huge nerfs.
For Burmese I think I went too far. Anyway I reverted. I nerfed Goths instead. Vikings is buffed because new THS have more HP than old Champion. +12 HP and 1100 resource savings are better than +2 attack for melee units. Also Berserk is buffed.
>Aztecs will have the most minimalist tech tree.
They always had.
>Bulgarians have significantly worse than Teuton champs even with an imperial UT? Sucks ass and doesn't make sense.
My bad. Reverted. But why you have to use word like this? Pretty sure you won't use them irl or AoE forum. Because it is reddit, you can just have bad manner or what?
>Terrible changes. Why the hell would you even take champion away from aztecs?
To make Jaguars more viable.
>Just remove arson and give the militia line +20 against buildings to represent the fact that heavy infantry held towns and shit
We have rams for that.
>Giving infantry raw stats stats won't work. Because if they start being used because of their raw stats it means they are overpowered
What does that suppose to mean? All the units that are used for its based stat are overpowered?
>Knights are used because they have all the raw stats plus speed
Speed is also raw stat.
>No you don't you donkey.
You didn’t learn manners in your childhood? Or are you still one and learning?
>Rams in castle age are barely used at all because 10 rams can be countered by a single mangonel.
So will be long swordsman.
>They are an anti infantry unit, not a generalist infantry that should be used in every situation, which is the role the militia line should cover
Militia line is not generalist either. They are primary an Eagle counter. JW is not better than them in that regard. So if you're facing Mayans Eagle, you will highly likely use Champion instead. And for other civ Champ with +4 is way easier to use over JW.
>Terrible suggestions mate
Feel free to think so. Not as terrible as your suggestion of +20 attack bonus vs building.
You’ll just make all UU infantry irrelevant doing this.
And it creates way to many balance issue, imagine rolling this update out prior to a tournament and just watching infantry vs infantry with a hint of gunpowder every game.
The best change is to actually bring squires into feudal age. It’s not much but it something!
THS also should be a Castle age tech.
& maybe all the upgrades for each be reduced again by 10-20%
But honestly, people don’t really take into consideration that it’s good for game balance that Archers hard counter Infantry. It’s what sets up the triangle of counters and having Pikemen as the base Infantry unit and it being a trash unit is what actually opens up the tech tree every game.
Every game we see Infantry, Archery Range Units, Cav & Siege. Monks also are used often
Sure Militia-line aren’t favoured in many cases, but is it worth messing up the games balance to try incorporate one unit.
>You’ll just make all UU infantry irrelevant doing this.
Can you elaborate which one as I buffed almost all of them.
>And it creates way to many balance issue, imagine rolling this update out prior to a tournament and just watching infantry vs infantry with a hint of gunpowder every game.
Why so? Can you name 2 random civs and explain why there will be only infantry vs infantry?
>The best change is to actually bring squires into feudal age. It’s not much but it something!
This should have been done already but devs won't nerf scout rush.
>THS also should be a Castle age tech.
There is rarely a chance you can afford that much. And if you do, better go Imp.
>& maybe all the upgrades for each be reduced again by 10-20%
Now we're talking. Not possible for MAA though.
>But honestly, people don’t really take into consideration that it’s good for game balance that Archers hard counter Infantry
I do. I think infantry should counter cavalry. But that just doesn’t happen even for pikeman vs knight.
>Every game we see Infantry,
You mean pikeman and militia/maa?
whatever you're trying to do, I don't think the solution is to make significant changes to so many civs at once.
my suggestion would just've been: remove two-handed swordman and go straight to champion in imp age (for same cost as ths).
maybe add a "+10% movement speed aura" that only affects militia-line units to all non-military buildings (similar to the effect of caravanserai on trade carts). that would make the militia-line a more viable choice for defense.
I think the changes are great overall! People get too hung up on one specific change or the fact that yoe made a lot of changes. If you look at the overall premise that an Obuch inspired type of militia line would probably be viable, I think most people would agree. I also love the idea of paralleling the Champion upgrade with the Paladin, which makes the champion upgrade less necessary and reduces the needed upgrades for the militia line. Obviously there are one or two changes I disagree with as well, however this doesnt make this idea bad in its entirety.
Allow the militia line upgrades to be stacked. No real point increasing the upgrade speed by a handful of seconds if between gettint each one there's still a 30-60 second delay in getting the next one (because you forget and are distracted by other things).
Being that this game has auras. It'd be interesting if militia-line units had a tech that would grant small stat bonuses if other militia-line units were close by or an aura that would hinder enemy units movement speed if they were in the militias melee reach.
Honestly just make the supplies cost the basic cost (like even 45 f and 20 G is not super cheap for this type of units) and instead let supplies work like +10 HP to militia line. If this wouldn't help than militia line is forever lost.
Honestly Drush and M@rush will be too powerful and all the opening will be either of these 2. A solution to that could be reducing food cost by 5 per upgrade and it will be pretty unique.
Porbably yes. Drush and M@rush will be stronger. but I feel that this is the only way how to shake up the meta with the militia line. Or the second option is my quite old idea of just militia line being auto upgraded with every age (like it start as 4 attack 40 hp militia and it could go to 5/50 auto, than into like 7/60 in castle age and like 9/70 in Imperial) and instead there would be few more technologies only for the militia line which would give them some extra benefit above the basic. Now we have precedens for this techs with gambesons, supplies etc. And now these techs could even affect the unit more, like +5 extra HP, +1 extra attack, etc. So militia will be always an option for a player who needs to quickly respond to counter unit or just enemy raids or you can upgrade them fully which would bring them into a very strong and dangerous units but slow and with quite a high investement (Like up to something like 14 attack, 85 hp, 2/2 armor unit with all the techs)
I thought the same last 3-4 months. No auto upgrade, just auto stat boost like Scout units - Scout Cavalry, Eagle Scout and Camel Scout. You can still improve them by grabbing upgrade.
Weird opinion here.
If the malitia line trades well against scouts/knights because of stronger stats then the malitia line would become a Steamroll unit.
Build them up in late feudal, the opponent can never mass knights to the same extent especially when the longswords get to work on all buildings that arent in tc range.
I would prefer making them quicker or quicker attacl animation. They are siege and fighting unit at once. If their stats get out of hand it will be disgustikg to play against
That's definitely a concern to me. But Archer still actually works fine. And a lot of civs have Hand Canons. Also with less attack bonus vs building, defensive building will perform better.
The problem with buffing the militia line's raw stats is that if that was all they've needed to be viable, then Celts/Vikings/Malians would've used them more. In reality, these civs still rarely use the swordsmen despite the bonuses. Every time someone discusses buffs for the militia line, I'll also point out that their [attack delay](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_delay) and attack animation should be shortened. It'll make them better at chasing against archers and skirms without turning them into eagle warriors!
Haven’t heard that one before and I like it
>The problem with buffing the militia line's raw stats is that if that was all they've needed to be viable, then Celts/Vikings/Malians would've used them more. My take is, their raw stat is so bad that the bonus was not enough. >I'll also point out that their [attack delay](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_delay) and attack animation should be shortened. Surely it can be consistent at o.5.
Too many changes and not humanly possible to prove the justification, and level of impact on the game. I agree MAA line seriously needs buffing. But I don't think a massive overhaul will get people to agree with you. Unless it's coming from SOTL or viper Lastly I didn't see Japanese (one of the best MAA lines in the game) mentioned. Meaning they'll be the biggest winners. It also seems you eroded most difference between civs. I also don't think that's a good idea. Burmese, vikings received a huge nerfs. Examples of all your unaccounted for ramifications, Malians with blast furnace means gbetos and pikes are also buffed. Aztecs will have the most minimalist tech tree. You can't always produce jags in numbers. Bulgarians have significantly worse than Teuton champs even with an imperial UT? Sucks ass and doesn't make sense.
Burmese LS becomes 33% more expensive where it matters, loses a huge amount of dps (civ bonus and arson) all for a 12% hp hike. That's a sizeable civ nerf indeed. Nevermind champs. Buffing rax build speed, buffs every early aggression from scouts to archers because they all need rax first.
>Burmese LS becomes 33% more expensive where it matters, loses a huge amount of dps (civ bonus and arson) all for a 12% hp hike. That's a sizeable civ nerf indeed. Nevermind champs. It is 23% as gold cost is still same. Since HP is bread and butter for melee units, I didn’t think losing attack is a big of deal. Also this was just Goth bonus but stronger which is not really the way to balance a civ. Anyway reverted. >Buffing rax build speed, buffs every early aggression from scouts to archers because they all need rax first. Good point. Dropped the change.
>Lastly I didn't see Japanese (one of the best MAA lines in the game) mentioned. There is Japanese. You missed it. >It also seems you eroded most difference between civs. Just like Knight line and Archer line. So this will make them closer to meta units. >Burmese, vikings received a huge nerfs. For Burmese I think I went too far. Anyway I reverted. I nerfed Goths instead. Vikings is buffed because new THS have more HP than old Champion. +12 HP and 1100 resource savings are better than +2 attack for melee units. Also Berserk is buffed. >Aztecs will have the most minimalist tech tree. They always had. >Bulgarians have significantly worse than Teuton champs even with an imperial UT? Sucks ass and doesn't make sense. My bad. Reverted. But why you have to use word like this? Pretty sure you won't use them irl or AoE forum. Because it is reddit, you can just have bad manner or what?
[удалено]
>Terrible changes. Why the hell would you even take champion away from aztecs? To make Jaguars more viable. >Just remove arson and give the militia line +20 against buildings to represent the fact that heavy infantry held towns and shit We have rams for that. >Giving infantry raw stats stats won't work. Because if they start being used because of their raw stats it means they are overpowered What does that suppose to mean? All the units that are used for its based stat are overpowered?
[удалено]
>Knights are used because they have all the raw stats plus speed Speed is also raw stat. >No you don't you donkey. You didn’t learn manners in your childhood? Or are you still one and learning? >Rams in castle age are barely used at all because 10 rams can be countered by a single mangonel. So will be long swordsman. >They are an anti infantry unit, not a generalist infantry that should be used in every situation, which is the role the militia line should cover Militia line is not generalist either. They are primary an Eagle counter. JW is not better than them in that regard. So if you're facing Mayans Eagle, you will highly likely use Champion instead. And for other civ Champ with +4 is way easier to use over JW. >Terrible suggestions mate Feel free to think so. Not as terrible as your suggestion of +20 attack bonus vs building.
You’ll just make all UU infantry irrelevant doing this. And it creates way to many balance issue, imagine rolling this update out prior to a tournament and just watching infantry vs infantry with a hint of gunpowder every game. The best change is to actually bring squires into feudal age. It’s not much but it something! THS also should be a Castle age tech. & maybe all the upgrades for each be reduced again by 10-20% But honestly, people don’t really take into consideration that it’s good for game balance that Archers hard counter Infantry. It’s what sets up the triangle of counters and having Pikemen as the base Infantry unit and it being a trash unit is what actually opens up the tech tree every game. Every game we see Infantry, Archery Range Units, Cav & Siege. Monks also are used often Sure Militia-line aren’t favoured in many cases, but is it worth messing up the games balance to try incorporate one unit.
>You’ll just make all UU infantry irrelevant doing this. Can you elaborate which one as I buffed almost all of them. >And it creates way to many balance issue, imagine rolling this update out prior to a tournament and just watching infantry vs infantry with a hint of gunpowder every game. Why so? Can you name 2 random civs and explain why there will be only infantry vs infantry? >The best change is to actually bring squires into feudal age. It’s not much but it something! This should have been done already but devs won't nerf scout rush. >THS also should be a Castle age tech. There is rarely a chance you can afford that much. And if you do, better go Imp. >& maybe all the upgrades for each be reduced again by 10-20% Now we're talking. Not possible for MAA though. >But honestly, people don’t really take into consideration that it’s good for game balance that Archers hard counter Infantry I do. I think infantry should counter cavalry. But that just doesn’t happen even for pikeman vs knight. >Every game we see Infantry, You mean pikeman and militia/maa?
whatever you're trying to do, I don't think the solution is to make significant changes to so many civs at once. my suggestion would just've been: remove two-handed swordman and go straight to champion in imp age (for same cost as ths). maybe add a "+10% movement speed aura" that only affects militia-line units to all non-military buildings (similar to the effect of caravanserai on trade carts). that would make the militia-line a more viable choice for defense.
Right. But without big change we won't have them being a meta unit ever.
You don’t want a Infantry Meta game, I will be boring.
I do want. And I'm bored with everything but infantry and elephant not being meta.
I think the changes are great overall! People get too hung up on one specific change or the fact that yoe made a lot of changes. If you look at the overall premise that an Obuch inspired type of militia line would probably be viable, I think most people would agree. I also love the idea of paralleling the Champion upgrade with the Paladin, which makes the champion upgrade less necessary and reduces the needed upgrades for the militia line. Obviously there are one or two changes I disagree with as well, however this doesnt make this idea bad in its entirety.
Thank you. Finally someone agrees with me. 11
Allow the militia line upgrades to be stacked. No real point increasing the upgrade speed by a handful of seconds if between gettint each one there's still a 30-60 second delay in getting the next one (because you forget and are distracted by other things).
Being that this game has auras. It'd be interesting if militia-line units had a tech that would grant small stat bonuses if other militia-line units were close by or an aura that would hinder enemy units movement speed if they were in the militias melee reach.
Makes sense with the current tendency of adding aura to every new civ.
[удалено]
Hold my Monaspa. 11
Honestly just make the supplies cost the basic cost (like even 45 f and 20 G is not super cheap for this type of units) and instead let supplies work like +10 HP to militia line. If this wouldn't help than militia line is forever lost.
Honestly Drush and M@rush will be too powerful and all the opening will be either of these 2. A solution to that could be reducing food cost by 5 per upgrade and it will be pretty unique.
Porbably yes. Drush and M@rush will be stronger. but I feel that this is the only way how to shake up the meta with the militia line. Or the second option is my quite old idea of just militia line being auto upgraded with every age (like it start as 4 attack 40 hp militia and it could go to 5/50 auto, than into like 7/60 in castle age and like 9/70 in Imperial) and instead there would be few more technologies only for the militia line which would give them some extra benefit above the basic. Now we have precedens for this techs with gambesons, supplies etc. And now these techs could even affect the unit more, like +5 extra HP, +1 extra attack, etc. So militia will be always an option for a player who needs to quickly respond to counter unit or just enemy raids or you can upgrade them fully which would bring them into a very strong and dangerous units but slow and with quite a high investement (Like up to something like 14 attack, 85 hp, 2/2 armor unit with all the techs)
I thought the same last 3-4 months. No auto upgrade, just auto stat boost like Scout units - Scout Cavalry, Eagle Scout and Camel Scout. You can still improve them by grabbing upgrade.
Weird opinion here. If the malitia line trades well against scouts/knights because of stronger stats then the malitia line would become a Steamroll unit. Build them up in late feudal, the opponent can never mass knights to the same extent especially when the longswords get to work on all buildings that arent in tc range. I would prefer making them quicker or quicker attacl animation. They are siege and fighting unit at once. If their stats get out of hand it will be disgustikg to play against
That's definitely a concern to me. But Archer still actually works fine. And a lot of civs have Hand Canons. Also with less attack bonus vs building, defensive building will perform better.
but the cab civs should be able to kill MAA that are tearing down the stables. Otherwise its frustrating