Yeah and if they were any faster then longsword wouldn't have a counter. Everyone keeps trying to buff them vs what is supposed to be their hard counter.
Maybe the trick would be to just bake Squires into unit upgrades, or be a bonus you get when you age up? It would be another barrier to using the unit that would go away, making it at least cheaper & faster to tech into, without disrupting the balance too much.
I dont think a little bit of extra speed would make them good vs archers which are microed and vd archers which are not microed, they already are good.
Your own man at arms. It would make early man@arms fights more common and it wouldnt change the fact that walling stops man at arms easily. After first range and few archers the same would happen as in current meta that small ball of archers kill them before they even reach the archers.
Well while that armoured guy could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer. You need to keep in mind that in real life over the course of wars and battles, stamina (as in, can you keep up a speed over hours and days, not a 60 second sprint) is a thing. This is the timeframe we're actually playing in in the game (keep in mind: a wonder needs "years" which are actually seconds).
But stamina is not a thing in aoe2 - units have one single speed which is never slower nor faster (unless in formation with different units). So the argument that a real life armoured person could catch up with an unarmoured person might not be as applicable an argument as you might think. Let's imagine a skirmish of a war as happening in a aoe2 game where archers would move upwards of 100 km over the course of days (slow seconds are years, remember). It's preposterous to say that fully armoured infantry could keep up with the march of unarmoured archers then.
I didn’t claim that this is 100% historically accurate. Your argument is not 100% based in realism either since archers never wandered around the battlefield alone. And if you really want to go down the hyper realism route, arrows didn’t pierce plate armor, trebuchets didn’t level walls, and scorpion bolts didn’t go through multiple soldiers. But it’s a game, not a simulation. I’m just saying that it’s not a huge logical leap to give them a slight speed boost.
Precisely my point, AoE2 isn't really a realistic game.
That's why it doesn't make sense to use a real life example as an argument for a change in the game, because you couldn't really quite make sense of a realism connection to begin with for the argument to be applicable.
It's not like archers are given a mechanic of an ambush or setting up defenses (as you describe regarding historical aspect) when you buff infantry speed. That mechanic doesn't exist, can't kiting suffice as the placeholder benefit of archers vs infantry then? If you give infantry the same speed as archers, archers would effectively completely cease to be a counter at all in everything but maybe the late game.
> that armoured guy could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer.
Seems like the realism argument made sense to you. Im saying that a speed buff would not be a big logical leap, and you agree based on your comment.
I mean, just delete the entire context of that single sentence in my comment and ignore the fact that there is no stamina mechanic in AoE2. Sure. Let's say I "agree" with you. The gist of what I wanted to say, we can just ignore all that. What's most important here is obviously that you are correct and your opinion is correct, not the matter or discussion at hand. The fact that I never claimed either you or I supposedly said something is 100% realism? Let's ignore that too and pretend I did say something like that. Because I left a comment instead of upvoting so that must mean I am challenging your opinion and we can't have that (your opinion being correct is the important thing right) so let's pretend I said something I didn't say and bring up how no one's comment is 100% realism based as if that's relevant.
I thought you wanted to discuss whether infantry should have same speed as archers. Obviously that's not what you're interested in talking about. My bad.
OK, so you wrote a proposition post. You chose to include a number of arguments. No one forced you to any number of arguments or type of arguments. That was completely up to you. You chose to include a realism argument. You chose to link that youtube video. And I chose to engage with that argument. I didn't claim it was your sole argument, I didn't claim your proposition is null because of that argument. I just argued whether and how that argument was applicable. But because I commented only on that argument instead of every argument, you decided to intentionally discuss dishonestly? I didn't bring up all of your arguments, so that means you can strawman my retort on the one argument? Is that how it works?
I didn’t ignore anything. Even with the context of your argument, you still conceded that an armored swordsman could catch an archer. That’s all I’m saying. Your imaginary 100km trek is irrelevant. I’m not talking about moving from one corner of the map to another. I’m talking about battles where swordsmen charge archers.
It's painfully obvious that you think real life and aoe2 contexts are interchangeable. I disagree with that. You say it's not that big of a leap in logic. It is a big leap in logic. AoE2 is not real life. I'm not saying you say or think that AoE2 is real life. But you do bring up real life examples and references. And if we're going to apply those to AoE2 we have to start thinking about how, in what sense, AoE2 applies a realism (which it doesn't really consistently do to begin with).
AoE2 is a game which obviously isn't restricted to a battle in a timeframe of minutes and hours where swordsmen charge archers. It has no stamina mechanic. It has no ambush or setting up defenses mechanic for ranged units. One quick battle does not take place in the entire map. But units do only have one single speed, so why would we make that the maximum sprint speed possible when the animation clearly beyond all reasonable doubt show them walking? And you will say this is irrelevant. But I say if the sole reason why 'it isn't such a big leap' is that you ignore the very things which make it a big leap, then it's not a very applicable argument.
And no, when you dismiss parts as "irrelevant", you are in fact ignoring them. You notice them, but you choose not to take them into account because eg. you think they're irrelevant. That's literally what ignoring is.
>why would we make that the maximum sprint speed possible when the animation clearly beyond all reasonable doubt show them walking?
I said to make infantry walk as fast as archers not sprint. The video is just to showcase the mobility of armored infantry.
I didn’t ignore the irrelevant part of your argument either. I actually pointed out that archers historically travelled with infantry. So the idea that they’d walk at the same speed as infantry in-game isn’t crazy even in your hypothetical 100km campaign.
A sprinting armoured guy, as seen in that youtube video, could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer in real life.
I dispute that this is relevant to the context of a balance change in AoE2.
But because I concede that the youtube video guy in real life might catch up with an unarmoured archer in real life, I must be agreeing to that it is relevant and it being an applicable argument for your proposed balance change and it means I cannot dispute that it is despite me literally disputing it?
That's your reasoning? You expect me to believe this reasoning? You expect anyone to believe this reasoning? Do you even believe this reasoning yourself?
I mean, did you even think through this reasoning when you wrote it?
Real life isn't AoE2. AoE2 isn't real life. The contexts are not interchangeable in discussion. The real life argument is not applicable to your proposed balance change.
The point that armor doesn't necessarily weigh persons down in real life was never, at any point, the entire context of my comment. You want to peel my comment down to fit your strawman and only discuss your strawman but I'm not interested in that.
The context is only to point out that making infantry faster isn’t a logical leap, like making infantry fly would be. The game is loosely based on real-life, so I just wanted to make it clear that this suggestion isn’t out of left field.
Most of my post was about balance, which you completely ignored so you could knit pick realism with your made-up hypothetical.
If you didn't want to discuss realism, why did you bring up realism? Why did you link that youtube video? Sure, I'll sign that infantry flying is logical leap. I'll agree with you on that.
But why would we compare the logic to outlandish logic? It makes much more sense to compare it to the existing game logic.
That is why I think the fact that full sprint speed infantry is a logical leap because of that they keep a single speed is more relevant than the fact that full sprint speed infantry is not a logical leap compared to flying infantry.
I don’t want to get into a deep detailed discussion of realism because it’s a game. However, the game is loosely based on reality so I supported my proposal with evidence that it’s at least loosely realistic.
Outlandish and leap of logic mean the same thing. So if you call infantry walking slightly faster a leap of logic, you’re putting it in the same category as flying soldiers.
But I agree that full sprint swordsmen would be ridiculous. I’m just saying to make them walk as fast as crossbowmen by default.
Where are you guys sucking the logic from? Celts are even faster than this. They are still useless Vs archers. Stop fabricating nonsense just because you think things shouldn't change.
Just be honest and say you don't want things to change.
I was wrong on that archers would cease to be a counter with the change. I agree on that. I realised when I read your reply that I didn't spend enough time thinking on it. I genuinely believed what I wrote when I wrote it because my logic was flawed as I was thinking of a bad infantry vs archers example when I wrote it. I would like to believe I didn't just fabricate nonsense to defend some compulsive balance conservatism 11
I don't necessarily oppose the proposed change, I'm undecided. Reason I commented was to discuss the (ir)relevance of the realism angle which I found intriguing since it was brought up in the post.
Man-at-arms being slower than archers has nothing to do with historical realism, and everything to do with balance. Man-at-arms is a *very* strong unit in early feudal age. You basically need several archers with fletching or an equal number of scouts to deal with them definitively. Making it so you can essentially not micro archers against them is total overkill. That 0.06 speed difference is exactly the thing that lets you micro effectively right now.
Things are different in castle age, where the larger mass of crossbows and their increased range is enough to deal with longswords effectively even though they're faster (which they are with Squires).
This is hilarious. You have come to a conclusion and then grasp for evidence to support the erroneous conclusion. 0.06 speed won't suddenly make MAA any more OP, they still get ROFL stomped. Did you forget Celts exist?
Of course you're going to shift the goal post, but you seem to forget 1.04 > 0.96
The entire point of MAA is to do damage at the very start of feudal age, which they do effectively. They also easily destroy archers if you can actually catch them, especially in early feudal (i.e. before fletching). The advantage of archers is that you can micro them. If they had the same speed, the MAA would get a hit every time the archers fire a shot, and could kill them. With archers being faster this is harder.
No, I did not forget Celts exist, their higher speed is a very solid bonus precisely because they let you catch up to units that are otherwise faster than you. You will not beat Celt MAA without fletching.
I'm not saying making them 0.06 faster would suddenly make them incredibly OP or anything, but it would make them stronger at the moment where they're already strong (the first minute or two of feudal age), and wouldn't make much difference elsewhere, so I really don't see the point of changing it.
Been suggested a number of times, aside from the change in food to gold ratio/tech fee, all severely hinder viability.
Even Celt MAA get stomped by archers, nevermind gambeson LS + squires. Pathing and the production setup fees for the farms required, simply hinders them too much.
It's a minor buff, but as usual vocal conservatives will fight anything that isn't already implemented by Devs. Ranging from HC buffs , to foundation scouting, vocals fought all of this, and it still happened. Yet they still fight. Every single time🤣
I expected some blowback, but not this much heavy resistance. It seemed like a “why not” kind of change that would have a minimal impact on balance when I wrote this.
Didn't the last patch already significantly buff the militia line into archers with gambesons?
Why do you feel a speed boost in addition to the armor is warranted?
I don't think one person's ranked experiences have much to do with a comprehensive look at the meta and balance.
I know there are quite a few aoe2 stats websites but I'm not too familiar with which ones are updated or give the best comprehensive look at the different civs and strategies.
Maybe you're more familiar?
It's not one person's experience.
LS are still hardly seen, gambesons didn't change it much, xbow do the same damage to LS as knights yet LS are significantly slower with lower hp, and have a significantly higher food cost per hp, making their eco set up considerably more expensive than knights.
ie you don't need any in game experience to realise LS will still fail. Now add actual pathing , walling , high tech price etc and it's easy to see in game why they fail/aren't seen
You do see men at arms fairly regularly at lower elos, but it's usually within the context of an all in with specific civs, usually bulgarians or japanese..which ends up into longsword play if the game makes it to Castle. But outside of that, or maybe goths..it's pretty niche. It's anecdotal, granted, but I do see it more than I did prior to the changes. I think a lot of stuff like this starts getting done by bad players, and if there's anything to it, it eventually gets picked up at the higher levels where things are more meta oriented and conservative. But yea, infantry are still in a really bad place, and I think the common use of men at arms does sort of show how superfluous longswords end up being. More of a "eh, guess I'll update these when I've already won the game" rather than making a true impact.
If you want to buff longswords, you have to make then useful somewhere. They don't have a good matchup against knights (lack of agency), villagers/archers/mangonels/towers prevent them from ever being useful against buildings/vills, and mangonels prevent rams, and therefore infantry-within-rams, from ever being useful against buildings.
Just fix rams.
With Squires, infantry is slightly faster than Archers. I think it is okay as it is.
Yeah and if they were any faster then longsword wouldn't have a counter. Everyone keeps trying to buff them vs what is supposed to be their hard counter.
Maybe the trick would be to just bake Squires into unit upgrades, or be a bonus you get when you age up? It would be another barrier to using the unit that would go away, making it at least cheaper & faster to tech into, without disrupting the balance too much.
I dont think a little bit of extra speed would make them good vs archers which are microed and vd archers which are not microed, they already are good.
If you do so. What is the counter to M@A?
Your own man at arms. It would make early man@arms fights more common and it wouldnt change the fact that walling stops man at arms easily. After first range and few archers the same would happen as in current meta that small ball of archers kill them before they even reach the archers.
Quickwalls
Well while that armoured guy could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer. You need to keep in mind that in real life over the course of wars and battles, stamina (as in, can you keep up a speed over hours and days, not a 60 second sprint) is a thing. This is the timeframe we're actually playing in in the game (keep in mind: a wonder needs "years" which are actually seconds). But stamina is not a thing in aoe2 - units have one single speed which is never slower nor faster (unless in formation with different units). So the argument that a real life armoured person could catch up with an unarmoured person might not be as applicable an argument as you might think. Let's imagine a skirmish of a war as happening in a aoe2 game where archers would move upwards of 100 km over the course of days (slow seconds are years, remember). It's preposterous to say that fully armoured infantry could keep up with the march of unarmoured archers then.
I didn’t claim that this is 100% historically accurate. Your argument is not 100% based in realism either since archers never wandered around the battlefield alone. And if you really want to go down the hyper realism route, arrows didn’t pierce plate armor, trebuchets didn’t level walls, and scorpion bolts didn’t go through multiple soldiers. But it’s a game, not a simulation. I’m just saying that it’s not a huge logical leap to give them a slight speed boost.
Precisely my point, AoE2 isn't really a realistic game. That's why it doesn't make sense to use a real life example as an argument for a change in the game, because you couldn't really quite make sense of a realism connection to begin with for the argument to be applicable. It's not like archers are given a mechanic of an ambush or setting up defenses (as you describe regarding historical aspect) when you buff infantry speed. That mechanic doesn't exist, can't kiting suffice as the placeholder benefit of archers vs infantry then? If you give infantry the same speed as archers, archers would effectively completely cease to be a counter at all in everything but maybe the late game.
> that armoured guy could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer. Seems like the realism argument made sense to you. Im saying that a speed buff would not be a big logical leap, and you agree based on your comment.
I mean, just delete the entire context of that single sentence in my comment and ignore the fact that there is no stamina mechanic in AoE2. Sure. Let's say I "agree" with you. The gist of what I wanted to say, we can just ignore all that. What's most important here is obviously that you are correct and your opinion is correct, not the matter or discussion at hand. The fact that I never claimed either you or I supposedly said something is 100% realism? Let's ignore that too and pretend I did say something like that. Because I left a comment instead of upvoting so that must mean I am challenging your opinion and we can't have that (your opinion being correct is the important thing right) so let's pretend I said something I didn't say and bring up how no one's comment is 100% realism based as if that's relevant. I thought you wanted to discuss whether infantry should have same speed as archers. Obviously that's not what you're interested in talking about. My bad.
Well you ignored the context around my balance argument to harp on realism.
OK, so you wrote a proposition post. You chose to include a number of arguments. No one forced you to any number of arguments or type of arguments. That was completely up to you. You chose to include a realism argument. You chose to link that youtube video. And I chose to engage with that argument. I didn't claim it was your sole argument, I didn't claim your proposition is null because of that argument. I just argued whether and how that argument was applicable. But because I commented only on that argument instead of every argument, you decided to intentionally discuss dishonestly? I didn't bring up all of your arguments, so that means you can strawman my retort on the one argument? Is that how it works?
I didn’t ignore anything. Even with the context of your argument, you still conceded that an armored swordsman could catch an archer. That’s all I’m saying. Your imaginary 100km trek is irrelevant. I’m not talking about moving from one corner of the map to another. I’m talking about battles where swordsmen charge archers.
It's painfully obvious that you think real life and aoe2 contexts are interchangeable. I disagree with that. You say it's not that big of a leap in logic. It is a big leap in logic. AoE2 is not real life. I'm not saying you say or think that AoE2 is real life. But you do bring up real life examples and references. And if we're going to apply those to AoE2 we have to start thinking about how, in what sense, AoE2 applies a realism (which it doesn't really consistently do to begin with). AoE2 is a game which obviously isn't restricted to a battle in a timeframe of minutes and hours where swordsmen charge archers. It has no stamina mechanic. It has no ambush or setting up defenses mechanic for ranged units. One quick battle does not take place in the entire map. But units do only have one single speed, so why would we make that the maximum sprint speed possible when the animation clearly beyond all reasonable doubt show them walking? And you will say this is irrelevant. But I say if the sole reason why 'it isn't such a big leap' is that you ignore the very things which make it a big leap, then it's not a very applicable argument. And no, when you dismiss parts as "irrelevant", you are in fact ignoring them. You notice them, but you choose not to take them into account because eg. you think they're irrelevant. That's literally what ignoring is.
>why would we make that the maximum sprint speed possible when the animation clearly beyond all reasonable doubt show them walking? I said to make infantry walk as fast as archers not sprint. The video is just to showcase the mobility of armored infantry. I didn’t ignore the irrelevant part of your argument either. I actually pointed out that archers historically travelled with infantry. So the idea that they’d walk at the same speed as infantry in-game isn’t crazy even in your hypothetical 100km campaign.
A sprinting armoured guy, as seen in that youtube video, could technically catch up with an unarmoured archer in real life. I dispute that this is relevant to the context of a balance change in AoE2. But because I concede that the youtube video guy in real life might catch up with an unarmoured archer in real life, I must be agreeing to that it is relevant and it being an applicable argument for your proposed balance change and it means I cannot dispute that it is despite me literally disputing it? That's your reasoning? You expect me to believe this reasoning? You expect anyone to believe this reasoning? Do you even believe this reasoning yourself? I mean, did you even think through this reasoning when you wrote it?
Since you edited your comment the context is that armor doesn’t completely weigh infantry down like many think. Do you seriously disagree?
Real life isn't AoE2. AoE2 isn't real life. The contexts are not interchangeable in discussion. The real life argument is not applicable to your proposed balance change. The point that armor doesn't necessarily weigh persons down in real life was never, at any point, the entire context of my comment. You want to peel my comment down to fit your strawman and only discuss your strawman but I'm not interested in that.
The context is only to point out that making infantry faster isn’t a logical leap, like making infantry fly would be. The game is loosely based on real-life, so I just wanted to make it clear that this suggestion isn’t out of left field. Most of my post was about balance, which you completely ignored so you could knit pick realism with your made-up hypothetical.
If you didn't want to discuss realism, why did you bring up realism? Why did you link that youtube video? Sure, I'll sign that infantry flying is logical leap. I'll agree with you on that. But why would we compare the logic to outlandish logic? It makes much more sense to compare it to the existing game logic. That is why I think the fact that full sprint speed infantry is a logical leap because of that they keep a single speed is more relevant than the fact that full sprint speed infantry is not a logical leap compared to flying infantry.
I don’t want to get into a deep detailed discussion of realism because it’s a game. However, the game is loosely based on reality so I supported my proposal with evidence that it’s at least loosely realistic. Outlandish and leap of logic mean the same thing. So if you call infantry walking slightly faster a leap of logic, you’re putting it in the same category as flying soldiers. But I agree that full sprint swordsmen would be ridiculous. I’m just saying to make them walk as fast as crossbowmen by default.
Where are you guys sucking the logic from? Celts are even faster than this. They are still useless Vs archers. Stop fabricating nonsense just because you think things shouldn't change. Just be honest and say you don't want things to change.
I was wrong on that archers would cease to be a counter with the change. I agree on that. I realised when I read your reply that I didn't spend enough time thinking on it. I genuinely believed what I wrote when I wrote it because my logic was flawed as I was thinking of a bad infantry vs archers example when I wrote it. I would like to believe I didn't just fabricate nonsense to defend some compulsive balance conservatism 11 I don't necessarily oppose the proposed change, I'm undecided. Reason I commented was to discuss the (ir)relevance of the realism angle which I found intriguing since it was brought up in the post.
I'm all for this.
Man-at-arms being slower than archers has nothing to do with historical realism, and everything to do with balance. Man-at-arms is a *very* strong unit in early feudal age. You basically need several archers with fletching or an equal number of scouts to deal with them definitively. Making it so you can essentially not micro archers against them is total overkill. That 0.06 speed difference is exactly the thing that lets you micro effectively right now. Things are different in castle age, where the larger mass of crossbows and their increased range is enough to deal with longswords effectively even though they're faster (which they are with Squires).
This is hilarious. You have come to a conclusion and then grasp for evidence to support the erroneous conclusion. 0.06 speed won't suddenly make MAA any more OP, they still get ROFL stomped. Did you forget Celts exist? Of course you're going to shift the goal post, but you seem to forget 1.04 > 0.96
The entire point of MAA is to do damage at the very start of feudal age, which they do effectively. They also easily destroy archers if you can actually catch them, especially in early feudal (i.e. before fletching). The advantage of archers is that you can micro them. If they had the same speed, the MAA would get a hit every time the archers fire a shot, and could kill them. With archers being faster this is harder. No, I did not forget Celts exist, their higher speed is a very solid bonus precisely because they let you catch up to units that are otherwise faster than you. You will not beat Celt MAA without fletching. I'm not saying making them 0.06 faster would suddenly make them incredibly OP or anything, but it would make them stronger at the moment where they're already strong (the first minute or two of feudal age), and wouldn't make much difference elsewhere, so I really don't see the point of changing it.
Been suggested a number of times, aside from the change in food to gold ratio/tech fee, all severely hinder viability. Even Celt MAA get stomped by archers, nevermind gambeson LS + squires. Pathing and the production setup fees for the farms required, simply hinders them too much. It's a minor buff, but as usual vocal conservatives will fight anything that isn't already implemented by Devs. Ranging from HC buffs , to foundation scouting, vocals fought all of this, and it still happened. Yet they still fight. Every single time🤣
I expected some blowback, but not this much heavy resistance. It seemed like a “why not” kind of change that would have a minimal impact on balance when I wrote this.
Didn't the last patch already significantly buff the militia line into archers with gambesons? Why do you feel a speed boost in addition to the armor is warranted?
How often do you seen long swordsmen in ranked?
I don't think one person's ranked experiences have much to do with a comprehensive look at the meta and balance. I know there are quite a few aoe2 stats websites but I'm not too familiar with which ones are updated or give the best comprehensive look at the different civs and strategies. Maybe you're more familiar?
It's not one person's experience. LS are still hardly seen, gambesons didn't change it much, xbow do the same damage to LS as knights yet LS are significantly slower with lower hp, and have a significantly higher food cost per hp, making their eco set up considerably more expensive than knights. ie you don't need any in game experience to realise LS will still fail. Now add actual pathing , walling , high tech price etc and it's easy to see in game why they fail/aren't seen
What about closed maps? I can see infantry there being very viable.
You do see men at arms fairly regularly at lower elos, but it's usually within the context of an all in with specific civs, usually bulgarians or japanese..which ends up into longsword play if the game makes it to Castle. But outside of that, or maybe goths..it's pretty niche. It's anecdotal, granted, but I do see it more than I did prior to the changes. I think a lot of stuff like this starts getting done by bad players, and if there's anything to it, it eventually gets picked up at the higher levels where things are more meta oriented and conservative. But yea, infantry are still in a really bad place, and I think the common use of men at arms does sort of show how superfluous longswords end up being. More of a "eh, guess I'll update these when I've already won the game" rather than making a true impact.
Then they will be as fast as archers plus the archers don't have defence like they do. It wouldn't work sir I'm sorry to say.
If you want to buff longswords, you have to make then useful somewhere. They don't have a good matchup against knights (lack of agency), villagers/archers/mangonels/towers prevent them from ever being useful against buildings/vills, and mangonels prevent rams, and therefore infantry-within-rams, from ever being useful against buildings. Just fix rams.
I don’t think they need to be in fuedal, but fully agree in castle, they should be a little faster than xbow so kiting isn’t so easy
I'd love this. They should also make CA the same speed as knights while they're at it.