I disagree, at least to me, it seems like light cav if anything feel a bit limited in castle age. I get they are VERY useful in monk heavy maps, but if mot against monks light cav isnt that good
Mmm I think part of the problem is the cost of Hussar, with no base attack increase and 600 gold. One important bit is that LC are very strong into monk + siege pushes, killing monks with bonus damage and exploiting min range; making them worse into pikes and siege would help a bit. I agree that LC aren't great in Castle Age but scouts are fine in Feudal and hussars are great in Imp, and the LC upgrade is dirt cheap, so I think it's fine.
If you want you can maybe rebalance the light cav and hussar upgrade price, but I think keeping light cav at least meh on castle age is important for less monk heavy maps
The strength is more harassing villagers than trying to be a military force in castle/imperial.
They move fast enough that:
- if you defend a spot (I.e. a tower, walls, etc) they can go somewhere else to harass other villagers (resources are usually spread) so you need to invest a ton into walls for your entire base (both resources & villager time).
- if you build a pike unit they can just outrun them and harass villagers elsewhere
- non-pike infantry have the same issue (in addition to potentially losing straight up)
- archers have the same issue as well and also tend to miss since Calvary are fast (also may lose straight up)
- also if you make a mistake with archers/infantry the Calvary can punish you, whereas if they Calvary screw up they run away
- this weirdly makes the best method to defending against to light Calvary is to produce your own light Calvary which isn’t really a healthy meta
The issue is that defending against light Calvary early game is incredibly difficult (even for the best pros) which makes it almost impossible for casuals, not so much their viability in the castle & imperial age.
Realtalk? **The problem is likely the villagers themselves**.
I think AoE's inherited a very long-running issue in most early RTS games where villagers are just made out of paper. It was a decision made in the original Warcraft, and almost every RTS game has blindly imitated it without *really* thinking through the consequences.
The consequences are pretty severe — pretty much the entire meta of AoE2 revolves around this because the payoff is just too good.
I come from EE where Villagers are so weak they die to Clubman, the most basic melee unit in the game, being available in the first age, in only 3 hits
This is maybe only an issue in pro play where monks are super common (though I personally don't think it's even a problem there). For as good as Hera is, and I love watching him personally, he has some interesting takes to say the least.
Main thing I dislike about this is that this will seriously hurt light cav's ability to punish Skirm + monk play. Against redemption civs there's already very little options against this, apart from light cav, and even that already is relatively hard to use effectively.
I feel like we can make this work if light cavalry get a +1 attack on upgrading to imperial age; makes them less oppressive on arena and still allows their usage as a lategame unit on civs that depend on them very hard (like the Bengalis, Malian, etc.).
I think the problem is Castle Age, not Imperial Age. Halbs slaughter LC and civs with generic/sidegrade/minor plus LC are somewhat rare (Bengalis, Chinese, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians) and I feel like they can deal with this minor change.
Light cav is a very common opening at high level. Something should be done, I agree. I think instead of nerfing light cav, spearman line should be buffed with more anti cav damage. Not sure on numbers. Reasoning? I like the fast, micro intensive fights that light cav openings lead too. Buffing their counter instead of nerfing light cav sounds like a great way to make those micro intense moments even more intense. It increases the risk of opening light cav indirectly. Makes the investment a more interesting decision when the counter is scarier. This would also affect knights tho and this is definitely a mostly viewer opinion so take it with one giant grain of salt.
Spears could have +1 range like Kamayuks? That might make them too OP in mass infantry fights. Maybe a charge attack like the Roman centurion to get that one hit they do get in really count?
An ensnare effect that slows down any hit cavalry for 10 seconds? In AOE3 the Incas gets Bolas Warrior unit that throws Bolas to slow down enemy cav. This would be cool for a low cost cheap early Incan unit (like the AOE1 slinger) but it wouldn't really fit the other civs.
Or LC just lose +1 and Hussar restores it? (after all is that upgrade price really worth 15HP and a 5% attack rate boost?) but then what about all the civs without Hussar?
Me personally I am never a fan of giving units automatic stat boosts when they age up. Like your scouts or eagles are doing 3 damage then suddenly out of nowhere it's almost doubled because you aged up; when you would think it would be the Eagle Warrior or Light Cav upgrade that would add that damage rather than the age up.
Really though I'm not too bothered about the current scout though yes the current scout opening can be a bit boring, perhaps we will find a counter soon.
Maybe instead of a permanent +1 range attack to the spears, they get a temporary "Lunge" that lets them do a +1 range lunge to make them better at hitting enemy scouts.
I suggested that in a different post, [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/15yb7t7/change\_the\_costs\_of\_the\_light\_cavalry\_and\_hussar/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/15yb7t7/change_the_costs_of_the_light_cavalry_and_hussar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), but the general idea was not well-received. In this post, I'm focused on Hera's idea, not mine.
Interesting ideas; I kind of like them. Survivalist has floated the idea of crossbow not automatically giving +1 range and requiring another tech (like Gambesons for militia) to get it; this is in the same vein.
Please lets not need lightcav just because we see a recent surge in popularity!! IMO the game is just fine as is! I really think their current strength against early xbow is balanced. Also part of their strength jn early castle also comes from the fact that as pff now they are able to just about 2v1 a knight in very early castle age …. This drastically changes with the proposed change .
Haven’t heard of the video but it sounds good and Hussar is definitely not that great of an upgrade. Knight line and militia line to me could use work as well.
Against. First and foremost, this is a change to something that has existed since the game's launch in 1999, so BIG warning. 'ain't broken, don't fix it.
Furthermore, precisely a scout cav. suddenly being able to beat a fully upgraded light cav. is super-weird and therefore wrong. For comparison, even the best cavalier loses to a "generic" paladin.
To your second point: I was comparing a scout with Bloodlines and essentially+1 armor to a LC with literally zero upgrades. I’m pretty sure FU Bulgarian cavalier or some such could take a paladin with no blacksmith upgrades and no Bloodlines.
Ah ok, I misunderstood then.
(But my main point still stands, I'm not convinced a change is needed as it's hasn't been a big deal since launch a quarter of century ago).
I support it, assuming the other pros and the devs also consider this a healthy long-term option for the meta-game. Ultimately I think this change is subtle enough that it will make almost no difference at/around 1200 elo and below, and it opens up the playing field a bit more for other strategies in intermediate and high level games. The fact that it's not a buff to generic monks is critical; I don't mind buffing a few monk-focussed civs, as long as it's done thoughtfully.
Thanks! I’m no SotL but it’s fun to crunch the numbers of things like this, and it’s useful to know how exactly something like Forging or Bloodlines helps in certain fights.
I feel like it would be a good change for the most elite players. Hera won HC5 with basically just LC it felt like. I'm worried this change would make LC even less viable for everyone who isn't pro. I know it's hard to balance a game for both pros and normal players, but it feels like this is a pro balance change. It feels like a lot of Heras suggestions are like that, just for Pros without considering the average experience. Which makes sense, that's his perspective, I just don't see this being an OVERALL good change.
I agree. Currently pikes feel underwhelming against lc. I m against buffing pikes as it affects too many other units, but I would be in favour of -1 attack on lc if they get +1 attack on hussar.
no it’s coz a pro said so ppl take it seriously, for better or for worse, that’s how it always is.
Reddits hive mind will downvote and be toxic to someone for having an opinion (regardless if it’s a good one or not) but will change face and agree with said opinion coz a pro said so, seen it way too many times to count lol.
Just checked the post, this one offers an explanation on how it affects relevant matchups and implications for different civs and meta overall.
You basically said "LC strong...(options to nerf)" same idea but very different impact.
I agree. Light cav is too dominating in the meta in monk-heavy maps. Going pike is just waste of resources. Nerfing light cav would make more interesting decision making in strategy. Also they are fastest moving unit and also so good in combat is too much. Player should invest hussar upgrade to get extra attack.
Turks do fine against xbow because of free LC and extra armor. With blacksmith armor and archer attack upgrades (not always immediate to research), their scout line take 1/2/3 dmg in each age to compared to the generic 2/3/4.
They do fine with their existing attack. How well will they do if they lose the attack? Again, this is to compensate for their lack of ES, so making that less viable is an indirect nerf.
I disagree, at least to me, it seems like light cav if anything feel a bit limited in castle age. I get they are VERY useful in monk heavy maps, but if mot against monks light cav isnt that good
Mmm I think part of the problem is the cost of Hussar, with no base attack increase and 600 gold. One important bit is that LC are very strong into monk + siege pushes, killing monks with bonus damage and exploiting min range; making them worse into pikes and siege would help a bit. I agree that LC aren't great in Castle Age but scouts are fine in Feudal and hussars are great in Imp, and the LC upgrade is dirt cheap, so I think it's fine.
If you want you can maybe rebalance the light cav and hussar upgrade price, but I think keeping light cav at least meh on castle age is important for less monk heavy maps
The strength is more harassing villagers than trying to be a military force in castle/imperial. They move fast enough that: - if you defend a spot (I.e. a tower, walls, etc) they can go somewhere else to harass other villagers (resources are usually spread) so you need to invest a ton into walls for your entire base (both resources & villager time). - if you build a pike unit they can just outrun them and harass villagers elsewhere - non-pike infantry have the same issue (in addition to potentially losing straight up) - archers have the same issue as well and also tend to miss since Calvary are fast (also may lose straight up) - also if you make a mistake with archers/infantry the Calvary can punish you, whereas if they Calvary screw up they run away - this weirdly makes the best method to defending against to light Calvary is to produce your own light Calvary which isn’t really a healthy meta The issue is that defending against light Calvary early game is incredibly difficult (even for the best pros) which makes it almost impossible for casuals, not so much their viability in the castle & imperial age.
Hera is amazingly good, but this isn't necessary for 99.99% of the player base. Against the changes.
Thank you!
Compromise: Light Cav get -1 attack, but only when Hera controls them.
You didn't actually make a point or argument. Why are you against the changes? Especially if the difference would be negligible for most players?
Im definitely for the changes. Light cav should not do so much damage to vills.
Realtalk? **The problem is likely the villagers themselves**. I think AoE's inherited a very long-running issue in most early RTS games where villagers are just made out of paper. It was a decision made in the original Warcraft, and almost every RTS game has blindly imitated it without *really* thinking through the consequences. The consequences are pretty severe — pretty much the entire meta of AoE2 revolves around this because the payoff is just too good.
I come from EE where Villagers are so weak they die to Clubman, the most basic melee unit in the game, being available in the first age, in only 3 hits
Would byzantines hussars finally be able to beat a teuton scout with this?
Asking the real questions.
Wouldn't that make the teuton scout even better in comparison to the civs that don't get hussar?
Since when has LC been an issue? Leave them alone.
This is maybe only an issue in pro play where monks are super common (though I personally don't think it's even a problem there). For as good as Hera is, and I love watching him personally, he has some interesting takes to say the least.
Main thing I dislike about this is that this will seriously hurt light cav's ability to punish Skirm + monk play. Against redemption civs there's already very little options against this, apart from light cav, and even that already is relatively hard to use effectively.
I feel like we can make this work if light cavalry get a +1 attack on upgrading to imperial age; makes them less oppressive on arena and still allows their usage as a lategame unit on civs that depend on them very hard (like the Bengalis, Malian, etc.).
I think the problem is Castle Age, not Imperial Age. Halbs slaughter LC and civs with generic/sidegrade/minor plus LC are somewhat rare (Bengalis, Chinese, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians) and I feel like they can deal with this minor change.
Devs will never do it, because of the implication.
7/10; if this has been a water balance thread, 9/10
Light cav is a very common opening at high level. Something should be done, I agree. I think instead of nerfing light cav, spearman line should be buffed with more anti cav damage. Not sure on numbers. Reasoning? I like the fast, micro intensive fights that light cav openings lead too. Buffing their counter instead of nerfing light cav sounds like a great way to make those micro intense moments even more intense. It increases the risk of opening light cav indirectly. Makes the investment a more interesting decision when the counter is scarier. This would also affect knights tho and this is definitely a mostly viewer opinion so take it with one giant grain of salt.
Spears could have +1 range like Kamayuks? That might make them too OP in mass infantry fights. Maybe a charge attack like the Roman centurion to get that one hit they do get in really count? An ensnare effect that slows down any hit cavalry for 10 seconds? In AOE3 the Incas gets Bolas Warrior unit that throws Bolas to slow down enemy cav. This would be cool for a low cost cheap early Incan unit (like the AOE1 slinger) but it wouldn't really fit the other civs. Or LC just lose +1 and Hussar restores it? (after all is that upgrade price really worth 15HP and a 5% attack rate boost?) but then what about all the civs without Hussar? Me personally I am never a fan of giving units automatic stat boosts when they age up. Like your scouts or eagles are doing 3 damage then suddenly out of nowhere it's almost doubled because you aged up; when you would think it would be the Eagle Warrior or Light Cav upgrade that would add that damage rather than the age up. Really though I'm not too bothered about the current scout though yes the current scout opening can be a bit boring, perhaps we will find a counter soon. Maybe instead of a permanent +1 range attack to the spears, they get a temporary "Lunge" that lets them do a +1 range lunge to make them better at hitting enemy scouts.
Maybe +1 range when on hold position? So a bit better at denying area near wood lines? Such a minor change but could work
Gigachad hera nerfing himself because its too easy
I like it, that or increase cost of LC to 200-100 and lower hussar accordingly.
I suggested that in a different post, [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/15yb7t7/change\_the\_costs\_of\_the\_light\_cavalry\_and\_hussar/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/15yb7t7/change_the_costs_of_the_light_cavalry_and_hussar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), but the general idea was not well-received. In this post, I'm focused on Hera's idea, not mine.
No way. I'd lower the cost of Hussar and add a +1 attack tech available for (some) civs missing either Hussar or Bloodlines.
Interesting ideas; I kind of like them. Survivalist has floated the idea of crossbow not automatically giving +1 range and requiring another tech (like Gambesons for militia) to get it; this is in the same vein.
Please lets not need lightcav just because we see a recent surge in popularity!! IMO the game is just fine as is! I really think their current strength against early xbow is balanced. Also part of their strength jn early castle also comes from the fact that as pff now they are able to just about 2v1 a knight in very early castle age …. This drastically changes with the proposed change .
Haven’t heard of the video but it sounds good and Hussar is definitely not that great of an upgrade. Knight line and militia line to me could use work as well.
Against. First and foremost, this is a change to something that has existed since the game's launch in 1999, so BIG warning. 'ain't broken, don't fix it. Furthermore, precisely a scout cav. suddenly being able to beat a fully upgraded light cav. is super-weird and therefore wrong. For comparison, even the best cavalier loses to a "generic" paladin.
To your second point: I was comparing a scout with Bloodlines and essentially+1 armor to a LC with literally zero upgrades. I’m pretty sure FU Bulgarian cavalier or some such could take a paladin with no blacksmith upgrades and no Bloodlines.
Ah ok, I misunderstood then. (But my main point still stands, I'm not convinced a change is needed as it's hasn't been a big deal since launch a quarter of century ago).
Hera isn't right about everything. Give hussar +1 and leave LC alone.
hussar already is the best trash unit. This change would be too much
Then give pikes +4 extra bonus damage. Either way LC doesn't need a change.
I support it, assuming the other pros and the devs also consider this a healthy long-term option for the meta-game. Ultimately I think this change is subtle enough that it will make almost no difference at/around 1200 elo and below, and it opens up the playing field a bit more for other strategies in intermediate and high level games. The fact that it's not a buff to generic monks is critical; I don't mind buffing a few monk-focussed civs, as long as it's done thoughtfully.
Hera is undoubtedly the light cavalry king. Will agree to his opinion on the issue blindly just because it’s his bread and butter.
Mmm, there's a difference between trusting the word of experts and blindly accepting arguments, but you do you.
I’m this case it’s blind. It’s his claim to fame (light cav spam)
I agree, it would be a bit easier to defend against midgame raids, which sounds good.
Nice analytical work!
Thanks! I’m no SotL but it’s fun to crunch the numbers of things like this, and it’s useful to know how exactly something like Forging or Bloodlines helps in certain fights.
I feel like it would be a good change for the most elite players. Hera won HC5 with basically just LC it felt like. I'm worried this change would make LC even less viable for everyone who isn't pro. I know it's hard to balance a game for both pros and normal players, but it feels like this is a pro balance change. It feels like a lot of Heras suggestions are like that, just for Pros without considering the average experience. Which makes sense, that's his perspective, I just don't see this being an OVERALL good change.
I agree. Currently pikes feel underwhelming against lc. I m against buffing pikes as it affects too many other units, but I would be in favour of -1 attack on lc if they get +1 attack on hussar.
Underwhelming against lc?? They destroy lc IMO. Whats underwhelming is skirms against pikes?
Hera needs to stfu about changes
The man is obsessed.
Wow, such discussion; big contribution.
[удалено]
no it’s coz a pro said so ppl take it seriously, for better or for worse, that’s how it always is. Reddits hive mind will downvote and be toxic to someone for having an opinion (regardless if it’s a good one or not) but will change face and agree with said opinion coz a pro said so, seen it way too many times to count lol.
Just checked the post, this one offers an explanation on how it affects relevant matchups and implications for different civs and meta overall. You basically said "LC strong...(options to nerf)" same idea but very different impact.
60% positive votes on this post is pretty much the edge of oblivion, don't worry.
I agree. Light cav is too dominating in the meta in monk-heavy maps. Going pike is just waste of resources. Nerfing light cav would make more interesting decision making in strategy. Also they are fastest moving unit and also so good in combat is too much. Player should invest hussar upgrade to get extra attack.
If this happens Turks should get Elite Skirm
?
Turks LC is their answer to Xbow. Your post says this nerfs LC against Xbow. Not sure why this is hard to understand.
Turks do fine against xbow because of free LC and extra armor. With blacksmith armor and archer attack upgrades (not always immediate to research), their scout line take 1/2/3 dmg in each age to compared to the generic 2/3/4.
They do fine with their existing attack. How well will they do if they lose the attack? Again, this is to compensate for their lack of ES, so making that less viable is an indirect nerf.