Man... The militia line reaaally needs a decent speed buff asap. It's really hard to make it work with its' current stats. It sucks even against units it's supposed to counter like skirms or pikes since it can barely catch up. It'd be great to see them get a 10-15% speed increase, I think it's much needed and would give the game much more variety. For now, the meta is maybe 70% cavalry and 30% archers. 0% infantry. That needs to change.
@@ramonessix I feel like they lack 2 major things: 1) power spikes: both the knight line (getting knights yourself without having to research it -> cavalier -> paladin) and the archer line (archers -> xbow -> arbs) have great power spikes... longsword/two-handed swordsman are so situational, the power spike just isn't there 2) a purpose: cavalry can pick when to fight because they have mobility, archers can choose when to fight because they have range... what about infantry? they jut don't have a clear upside, right? most times, the only viable infantry is Goths' or meso's eagles, and that is because of the snowball potential... if infantry were significantly cheaper, I mean really cheaper, then they would have a place in the game... can't see how hp/speed buffs will do anything honestly
It depends should be balance to have more drush in dark age instead of luring deere. Increase speed would make romans or goth too op maybe. In this game Daut did not make any siege was more like a troll
@@alexandretostes9002 higher speed could make them better against its obvious counter, the archers. Also, it would be better at swarming the enemy as their purpose is divisibility, the fact that you can divide your army a lot and attack by many sides (that and breaking buildings). But we already have many fast infantry units, so i think it would make many civs boring by having such a thing as generic. I personally think that they should trade cost effectively against cavalry, as the latter being able to take fights gives it too much of an advantage over the other. I would give it extra hp because realistically it makes no sense that an armoured man at arms has so little hp compared with a knight. Also, making them great damage sponges would give them a better role in team games. Maybe it would change too much the role of the militia line, but what we have right now sucks
I would make them just slightly faster than the archer line starting in castle. In feudal I think it’s too strong to be that fast (especially for Roman’s or Malians) because a small mass of 3 or 4 archers can’t kill MAA who have good armor. In castle though, xbows tend to be in larger mass. That makes hit and run easier and also gives the advantage to ranged units in a straight up fight. At that point I think a little more speed would be great and balanced.
![[AOE3] I Dare You To Siege My TC](/img/n.gif)
Infantry pouring in from different directions. It was nice to see how to wear down archer civ using infantry civ.
SO many experts in the comment section of a worldwide top 5 player kek
give him some more advice, surely he will appreciate and improve upon it
If you added rams earlier this would’ve ended a lot quicker, you can’t just go infantry you have to add siege with it
You needed to go for his production earlier.
👍🏻
Infantry is sooo frustrating!
Man... The militia line reaaally needs a decent speed buff asap. It's really hard to make it work with its' current stats. It sucks even against units it's supposed to counter like skirms or pikes since it can barely catch up. It'd be great to see them get a 10-15% speed increase, I think it's much needed and would give the game much more variety. For now, the meta is maybe 70% cavalry and 30% archers. 0% infantry. That needs to change.
that or make them tankier
@@ramonessix I feel like they lack 2 major things:
1) power spikes: both the knight line (getting knights yourself without having to research it -> cavalier -> paladin) and the archer line (archers -> xbow -> arbs) have great power spikes... longsword/two-handed swordsman are so situational, the power spike just isn't there
2) a purpose: cavalry can pick when to fight because they have mobility, archers can choose when to fight because they have range... what about infantry? they jut don't have a clear upside, right?
most times, the only viable infantry is Goths' or meso's eagles, and that is because of the snowball potential... if infantry were significantly cheaper, I mean really cheaper, then they would have a place in the game... can't see how hp/speed buffs will do anything honestly
It depends should be balance to have more drush in dark age instead of luring deere. Increase speed would make romans or goth too op maybe. In this game Daut did not make any siege was more like a troll
@@alexandretostes9002 higher speed could make them better against its obvious counter, the archers. Also, it would be better at swarming the enemy as their purpose is divisibility, the fact that you can divide your army a lot and attack by many sides (that and breaking buildings). But we already have many fast infantry units, so i think it would make many civs boring by having such a thing as generic.
I personally think that they should trade cost effectively against cavalry, as the latter being able to take fights gives it too much of an advantage over the other. I would give it extra hp because realistically it makes no sense that an armoured man at arms has so little hp compared with a knight. Also, making them great damage sponges would give them a better role in team games.
Maybe it would change too much the role of the militia line, but what we have right now sucks
I would make them just slightly faster than the archer line starting in castle. In feudal I think it’s too strong to be that fast (especially for Roman’s or Malians) because a small mass of 3 or 4 archers can’t kill MAA who have good armor.
In castle though, xbows tend to be in larger mass. That makes hit and run easier and also gives the advantage to ranged units in a straight up fight. At that point I think a little more speed would be great and balanced.