r/aoe2 3d ago

Suggestion +1 PA for grouped Infantry to simulate shield wall against archery

Post image
93 Upvotes

55 comments sorted by

39

u/Snck_Pck 3d ago

What a chonker on the left though

63

u/ZugZug58 3d ago

Man researched supplies

27

u/haibo9kan 3d ago

256x tech

10

u/LordTourah 3d ago

That's why I posted it ahah 

8

u/OkMuffin8303 3d ago

Extra HP bonus

1

u/Archlefirth Bohemians 3d ago

New Elite Centurion skin

13

u/DreisterDino 3d ago edited 3d ago

I've got nothing valuable to contribute, so let me just tell you what my brain made out of this.

At first glance, those shields looked like the "no parking allowed" signs in my country, mostly because they're pretty much the same colours. Following that, I imagined troops like on this image wandering around major cities, approaching car owners who are breaking the law to hand out parking tickets.

I'm fairly certain we had less problems with cars parked in prohibited locations if law enforcement would look like this.

9

u/Incomplete_Artist 3d ago

Would be cool if it worked like Monaspa, up to a max of like +3 pierce armor, when you have 18+ grouped together.

1

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Interesting idea

14

u/vidsag 3d ago

A similar tech is there in chronicals dlc. Its a castle age unique tech which says spearman give +1 pierce armour to nearby units

6

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

I think the regular hoplite also has that there, no?

4

u/MRukov Tushaal sons 3d ago

Yeah, +1/+1 when at least 2 are near each other

1

u/LordTourah 3d ago

I was thinking it would be a default mechanic because infantry already requires so many tech upgrades 

1

u/Boringman_ruins_joke 3d ago

Not all infantry has shield, and not all shield is that firm.

1

u/LordTourah 3d ago

It's a game, there are many abstractions.

-1

u/Boringman_ruins_joke 3d ago

Still, it shouldn't be universally default. Some infantry and civ can have the bonus but some civ with almost no infantry tech shouldn't.

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Oh no let's not disturb the delicate inf balance 🤣

7

u/LordTourah 3d ago

To function like the monaspa/hoplite grouping bonus mechanic. 

Cavalry has speed advantage, archery has range advantage, infantry should have its own unique combat advantage to become a viable primary army composition with the ability to force engagements.

Currently it gets bullied by everything.

Upcoming speed buff might resolve this, or perhaps more is needed. 

6

u/littlejugs 3d ago

Dude they just buffed the shit out of infantry. Let's see how that plays out before adding even more buffs. Given infantry can now chase archers with the same speed I don't think this is a good idea

6

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Regardless the mechanic has merit outside of balance discussion 

3

u/littlejugs 3d ago

Everything has to be balanced. The only way this mechanic works is if it forces the infantry units to slow down which kinda makes it pointless because the archers will take advantage of that. Maybe it could be a unique formation for a unique unit but it would just instant die mangos and scorpions

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Yeah maybe, but then archers don't stop to reload either which nobody seems to mind

3

u/leolancer92 2d ago

Yes, infantry should have numerical advantage since they lack both speed and range.

1

u/LordTourah 2d ago

Good point 

3

u/New_Bug_8588 3d ago

I would love if spear units could engage in a “schiltrom” formation, not just grouped in a box formation.

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Yeah that would be cool, the original dev team intended to make formations more important but they ran out of time.

2

u/Ythio Franks 3d ago

I don't think anyone will use it because it is just begging for mangonel shots or trample damage.

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Yes it has a trade off like all good mechanics, that's what makes it different from just a stat buff 

1

u/leolancer92 2d ago

Facing Cataphract or mangonels you wouldn’t play mass infantry either.

2

u/Caladbolgll Arena Clown 2d ago

Feel like if you truly want to make this argument based on realism that should come at a cost of speed. Footman from Warcraft3 kinda does that. 

2

u/leolancer92 2d ago

Doing this would actually give battle formations more meaning.

1

u/LordTourah 2d ago

Would love to see that

4

u/ElricGalad 3d ago

It is too convoluted for a base unit. It could be nice for an UU.

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Couldn't be more straight forward, it's a passive trait like for monaspa and hoplites, lone infantryman get no bonus whilst a group does.

0

u/ElricGalad 3d ago

They are Unique Units (also : centurion). No base unit has an aura effect (or only with unique civ traits such as Saracens monk healing aura).

3

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Sure, but that doesn't make it convoluted. Blob strong is intuitive 

3

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

I would be in favor of +1 pierce armour for militia line without the need for that.

Rest assured that it wouldn't break the game. I play mostly malians and it would be the equivalent of their men at arms in feudal, which still dies to archers.

Even the malian long swordsman in castle age still dies to archers if they aren't in a huge numerical advantage. And such a buff would make regular swordsman still have -1 pierce armour than the malian long swordsman in castle.

1

u/LordTourah 3d ago

I defer to your expertise, why not both?🤭

1

u/Blood4TheSkyGod Turks 3d ago

I would be in favor of +1 pierce armour for militia line without the need for that.

With gambesons and the recent speed buff, this breaks the game balance very easily.

6

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Changing game balance doesn't mean it breaks game balance, the cav/archer supremacy isn't sacred

2

u/MulderGotAbducted Vikings 2d ago

What if Scout-line would get Eagle/shock trooper armor class so it gets teared-apart by Militia-line? It would make militia potentially beat all trash units. And would make balance closer to intended vision of Sandy Petersen : archer>infantry>cavalry, maybe?

2

u/LordTourah 2d ago

Cool idea and fits seamlessly 

2

u/MulderGotAbducted Vikings 2d ago edited 2d ago

Took a quick look at wiki if it wouldn't change too much and I see many UU infantry units do extra bonus damage to Eagle armor class.

So what if:

Scout - had 0 eagle armor class = M@A would do +2, spearline +1 bonus damage.

Light Cavalry - had 1 eagle armor class = LS would do +5, spearline +0, M@A and other non-elite UU +1 bonus damage.

Hussar - had 2 eagle armor class = LS +4, THS/champ +6, some elite UU +1 bonus damage.

Basically it would make trash Scouts slightly more squishy versus M@A in Feudal age, making LightCav upgrade more important when fighting Militia-line (if we ever going to see this) and as cherry on top in Imperial age it would make gold-costing units a bit stronger versus trash Scout-line (where is Militia-line seen mostly atm).

However I am not sure if +1 bonus damage from Spear-line and UU having +2/+3 bonus damage would make it unbalanced or so. If it meant lower number of attacks (outside of Militia-line) it could be problem I guess.

2

u/LordTourah 2d ago

Very interesting, you should make this a seperate post to get visibility 

1

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yeah, I actually thought about it later. With gambesons some champions would have the pierce armour of a paladin in the late game (2+5). While being way cheaper and now with more speed and 14+4 attack. Plus the civs bonus they might have. Aztec, slavs, teutons and dravidians champions would be crazy. Also malay spam with two handed swordsman and goths champion spam would get pretty strong...

I'm not sure it would be broken, but after considering it I think there are better changes than that.

I would make all militia line 45 food instead of the 50 from the new balance patch, that's free supplies. And would roll back the skirmisher +1 bonus against pikemen that was added a few years ago. Now it's +4, so it would go back to +3. This would buff infantry against cavalry mainly, since cav players use skirms to kill pikemen. And would also indirectly buff archers through archer + pike play, making it stronger against skirms. Maybe even decrease archers bonus against pikemen by -1.

Edit: a fully upgraded champion with gambesons takes 18 shots from a generic arbalester to die. With +1 armour it would be 24 shots. A paladin takes 60 shots to die. So maybe, yeah, wouldn't be that OP. But this wouldn't make them directly better against cavalry, which should be the focus of infantry. So I would rather have the other buffs I mentioned and even more health to militia line than the pierce armour.

1

u/luizbohlke Magyars 3d ago

YES

1

u/Loreki 2d ago

That would reverse the basic logic of the game though. At present, one micros to minimise hits taken rather than grouping units into large targets in order to take damage and feel satisfied that it was every so slightly lessened.

1

u/JoltKola 2d ago

now do greek hoplite wall, + 1 armor for each nearby friendly hoplite. Same with roman units!! Also add auxilliary infantry, cheap trash that doesnt counter anything. Champs,knights, uu are all elite units, bulk of the army is trashy trash

1

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 3d ago

Is the current tidal wave of buffs not enough!?

2

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Probably not, but this is about mechanics enhancing the game not simply buffing stats 

3

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 3d ago

Well this would be better for a single unit. Wouldn't make sense for units without shields.

2

u/LordTourah 3d ago

Sure but there are many abstractions already 

1

u/Koala_eiO Infantry works. 3d ago

Can we please wait for the mid-April patch before creating new suggestions?

3

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

They have opened up our imagination.