Are Longswordsmen finally a good unit? (AoE2)

[@Stubobrules]

The best part of this buff is that Spirit has even more reason to love Japanese

[@morkaili]

Or Teutons!

[@bigcazza5260]

or "insert every civ that can eventually get champions"

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Japanese Malians Goths Teutons Bulgarians Slavs and Aztecs kind of Burmese and Vikings kind of

[@karonteazt3286]

He forgot teutons...

[@karonteazt3286]

And malays

[@ChilledfishStick]

1:06 "Infantry would have been the backbone of a typical medieval army" Infantry yes, swordsmen, not so much. The weird thing in games, and perhaps all media, is how the swordsman is the typical infantryman, when in history it was mostly pointy sticks, which are really a great counter to swords. Swords can be good weapons, and sometimes even a main weapon, but most often, if soldiers were issued swords, or had the money to buy them, they were side arms.

[@agihammerthief8953]

Well, the Roman legions in early Empire used swords extensively, by relying on full-body shields in a close formation to let them get near enough to the enemy. And I think one other example of swords as a main weapon is the Aztecs, at least for the elite. But yes, in medieval Europe spears and polearms ruled.

[@Agilaz89]

@@agihammerthief8953 I mah remember it wrong, but didn't the Romans also use a lot of spears along with shields until getting close enough to use the swords instead?

[@dokhanh1044]

@@Agilaz89 actually they are javelin not spear. The main uses of pilum and venturium are getting rid of enemy shield and sometimes killing enemy archer. But roman soldier main weapon is sword. The reason is theri formation and shield is not really suited to use spear, unlike Greek soldier or German tribes

[@agihammerthief8953]

​@@Agilaz89 It varied in different time periods. The armies in the Roman Republic used both spears and swords (actually, for centuries they basically used hoplite tactics); after the Marian reforms the gladius became the primary weapon for the infantry; and in late Empire, especially after the East-West split, spears became popular once again, which was possibly influenced by greater use of cavalry by both Rome and its enemies.

[@dokhanh1044]

you're right, armies in medieval are made of man with spear. Easy to train and easy to produce. But elite troops actully use sword as main weapon like Roman heavy infantry or Chinese heavy infantry or royal bodyguard. Depend on what meaning of the word "Backbone", swordman may be consider is backbone since they are elite troop in the army like Roman army Also spear is not good counter against sword. It is really depend on terrain, tactic and formation. One of the most common tactic in Eastern countries is "Using short weapon to fight long one" since polearm is really useless in short range, locked by shield or hand and destroyed by sword or axe

[@denizumut1]

8:49 you also forgot to consider that, bloodlines and thumb ring were added on conquerors expansion, not on release. so longswords were doing better before AoC

[@fourthknower9831]

So the infantry units got nothing to go with that?

[@migueeeelet]

Hmm, I wonder how much would the game change if those two were removed.

[@budwyzer77]

AoC also gave them +1 pierce armor.

[@urabraskthedeplorable725]

You say that but Britons still don't have thumb ring and they're still considered one of the best archer civs around. Their crossbows shred longswords no matter what version of the game you're playing.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

I was looking before commenting if anyone else had thought of this too. Less accurate, slower-firing xbows and 100 hp knights suddenly seem a lot less menacing. Husbandry also used to be 250 food instead of now 150. I think it’d be interesting to make squires a feudal age tech. Maybe arson too. But that might be too much like the old Saracen archer bonus or obsidian arrows (rip.)

[@michaeltaylor8698]

I'm only one minute into the video and now I truly understand just how bad infantry has had it in AoE2 if they've received that many buffs and were still not being used.

[@migueeeelet]

For real though, everything out there counters infantry. Knights (heavy cavalry) historically counter infantry. Archers have range advantage. The only weird thing is that halberds don't shred infantry but that's because here they're relegated to anti-cavalry. The main favor points in AoE 2 however are weird: Knights are instantly available in Castle Age, and Crossbows are... just OP.

[@daftwulli6145]

Well if you are good you can kite them with ranged units and keep shooting at them while they either try to run after you unsuccesfully, or run away unsuccesfully. Who wants to lose 15-20 units and not to any damage back ? And if you try to raid with them you kill 1 or 2 farmers if you are luck before losing half of them to crossbows. Though there is one thing I use them for : holding tight choke points on black forrest maps, with crossbow men and skirmishers behind them. If you can block the choke with like 5 or so longswordmen, having them 2 people deep, and then behind that like 30 ranged units, and there is nothing getting through this except siege maybe. So be ready for that.

[@noodleknight7924]

There are a lot of units in the game that have it similarly bad. At least half of the unique units also very rarely see play because they are just not as good as a crossbowman or knight even in most situations where they are supposed to excel at. Many people are affraid that they would become broken with buffs, but I would argue that most of them could absolutely get at least small buffs (like +1 attack/armor, or +5-10 hp, or -5-10 resources, etc.) and the archer/knight options would be still more price efficient options than them 99% of the time, just like it is the case with the longswordsman even after a dozen of small buffs.

[@daftwulli6145]

@@noodleknight7924 I agree though there are a few really goo ones. Britons longbowmen come to mind, some of the elephant units are fun etc.

[@daftwulli6145]

@@noodleknight7924 Btw the more SOTL videos I watch the more I hate the developers : why do so many units have hidden bonuses that are mentioned nowhere ? Is it really so hard to just tell me everything a unit does ?? You do write unit descriptions, so add all the bonuses they have. But no you have to test the unit against everything to find out all this hidden stuff, since it is the ONLY way to really find out how your unit actually works. Plus some of the stuff in the descriptions is just plain wrong. Devs have known this for years. Do they change it for the definitive edition ? Nah, were would be the fun in that. 80% of it I only know since I am a regular viewer here. Started watching since I kept losing fights I should win on paper, and wanted to know what I did wrong. BAZINGA I did everything right, but they had hidden bonuses I did not know about. Thanks devs, fuck you too. Sorry for the long rant, but do you agree ?

[@orionl7406]

As someone who played the Aztec demo in school as a kid and didn't know cavalry existed, I've wanted swordsman to be good since the beginning and will cherish each buff on my shielded bois

[@tamaskosa4456]

I think what makes the Knight especially good is the fact you need ZERO upgrades to train them plus they have amazing stats and speed. Instant availability in castle age is a luxury few units have.

[@Halvtooth]

But you can't mass them in feudal or on the way up to feudal. So you get a small window where you initiate a long swords push. I think it can work well if you're ahead after feudal.

[@pax6833]

@@Halvtooth I think this recent buff will make Infantry more attractive for that reason. Now that you can build an army momentum advantage in Feudal and not get instantly countered by the other player fast castling into knights.

[@Matthew-uv6gl]

@@Halvtooth That is true going up to feudal, where some delayed drush openings hit. The difference with castle and longswords is that archers do the same trick into xbows, which hard counter not only infantry but just about everything else as well.

[@martijn9568]

@@Matthew-uv6gl You could use a Scout rush to force enemy into Spear Men. That way he may make Spear Men/Pikes instead of Archers, forcing him into building researching unfavourable units.

[@IschmarVI]

well, they still need a lot of relatively expensive upgrades but yes, one HUGE advantage they have over longswordmen is that knights can already function well without those upgrades whereas longswords can't.

[@light_david7]

Ilicktoesatnight is so awesome for making SoTL saying it at the end of every video he makes.

[@user-ec8cg1nx8x]

It's almost like a signature sign-off on SOTL videos at this point. You know it's over when he gets lickin'.

[@CrabQueen]

The longsword buffs basically made the unit good for infantry civs, and everyone else in /very/ niche circumstances, which is probably the way to go

[@freindlich8112]

I think the word "good" is a little to strong,

[@SIGNOR-G]

@@freindlich8112 is "usable" better?

[@RandomGuy-ls3nm]

Here is an example of the rare inf v inf game: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4bOaaqhhd6BkLc Basically the pressure in feudal was intense so a lot of infantry infrastructure was already developed by both civs which had inf bonuses on the Gold Rush style map. Then the game "devolved" into wars along a single line in permanent Castle Age. Definitely an interesting game, might get old fast if it became meta though. Maybe also instructive on how inf should be played if you happen to have that many.

[@oyuyuy]

Why is that the way to go? It's a basic unit, it should be playable for all civs.

[@Thomas-u8q]

Not really, even as Goths, going for Knights is usually the stronger option in castle age.

[@casusincorrabilis1584]

Really like you mentioned the need of setting up a farming eco for LS. I think this is one of the most important things of the story. 6 extra farms cost 360 extra wood - an eqivalent of almost 5 LS.

[@Jurigag]

Well i mean sooner or latter you need to put those farms anyway to have high production from more than 2-3 military buildings, right?

[@casusincorrabilis1584]

@@Jurigag But it's always better if you have to do it less. It's about the timing. The more farms you have to place the less military you can get out initially. I think that's the main reason food intensive units (also light cav) are rarely seen in the midgame. Btw farming is also way slower than chopping wood.

[@NotThatGuyJD]

Combine it with the fact that trash to counter enemy knights, crossbow or monks also cost food and pikes come out the same buildings as your LS, can make the whole situation very complicated to balance the eco properly especially if you want to make it to imp.

[@kavinh10]

@@Jurigag wood is extremely valuable in feudal and castle age since ur constantly needing to build stuff. the 60 wood spent means to pay for 1 farm u effectively idling a villager for a whole minute. compared to gold which is free after the initial mining camp.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Makes Teuton longswords all the more viable with those 36 wood farms.

[@TheRunningPigeon]

Personally I think a way I'd buff them is to significantly drop the training time of them, spearman and skirmishers too, wouldn't want any of them to better in combat itself but if they're supposed to be a generic troop/core backbone of army then being able to spam them out in order to defend would be nice and give them a strong anti-raiding potential. They would still get rolled out in the field and burn up resources potentially inefficiently so don't think it would be unbalanced.

[@scevda]

This suggestion is probably the most conservative of those that I had been wondering about and because of it, has a stronger chance to be actually implemented. I could see where the devs would highlight the choice of the player to spam the units but at the cost burning through resources.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Especially considering that knights take 30 seconds to train and only once in castle age whereas swordsmen (and bows to be fair) can be massed before castle age and then upgraded. I think making squires and maybe arson available in feudal would help a lot.

[@Thomas-u8q]

I like this idea, it would at least give infantry a niche as quickly massable emergency defense unit, which even now they're rubbish at. (You'd need at least 5 barracks+upgrade time)

[@penus7639]

I see the appeal with trash units but long swordsman spam would be unbearable considering how much dmg they deal to buildings

[@descartes2404]

Wont that make Goth champion spam even more crazy?

[@Andreecals]

I wanted to know how much more viable are teutonic longswords now

[@mikelivingood7797]

I think you would need to look at them in conjunction with knights. Knights to chase down archers and longswords to destroy pikes and buildings.

[@ReeperRiopel]

@@mikelivingood7797 Thats so much food. might as well go to imp at that point

[@luggy9256]

@@mikelivingood7797 longsword skirm could be good…

[@Tocaraca]

@@ReeperRiopel Imp into what? Cavalier? when vs pikes? you need a counter unit

[@QWERTY-gp8fd]

@@Tocaraca cavalier defeats pike. making enough castle age pike to deal with cavalier is much more taxing on ur economy

[@Boethion]

So the takeaway is: give them a couple more years and they might be good. That said some Civs with a really strong bonus can justify them a little more, so one should look at them like a unique unit similar to Eagles and Steppe Lancers.

[@dirkauditore8413]

Burmese, viking, japanese , malian longswords seem to be kinda decent.

[@bluehonour02]

@@dirkauditore8413 also the free and instant upgrade with the Bulgarians

[@NoraNoita]

Hera wants to know if his Hunnic Longsword rush is now even more deadly.

[@voidgeometry794]

The older this game gets, the more refined it becomes...Like a fine wine! Keep it up SotL!

[@CrazyIvan64]

At the end of the video you make the suggestion that Long Swordsmen take a back seat by design. I think the real design is that they're supposed to be a filler unit akin to the Long Swordsman in the original AoE, but because of a few differences in the games it doesn't end up panning out that way. The original AoE had the Hoplite that you could make at the Academy, which completes the cycle of Hoplite beats Cavalry beats Bowman beats Hoplite with each unit having its own advantage (power, speed or range). What's strange about AoE2 is that you don't have a Hoplite type unit that completes the circle as the closest thing to a Hoplite in AoE2 is probably the Teutonic Knight, which isn't exactly widely available. This essentially makes the more generic replacement the Pikeman. That's left the game with no real "heavy infantry" unit with the Knight filling both the power and speed roles. The Long Swordsmen of AoE2 then feels like a halfway house between the more easily spammable original AoE version and the Hoplite making it feel like it doesn't have a set role. I think Supplies is the nearest thing they've done to making it more like the original version, which is just innately cheaper. The problem in AoE2 is you can't make the baseline cost of a Long Swordsman cheaper without making the Militia cheaper too, which would greatly disrupt the current Dark Age meaning you can only really alter the cost with a tech like Supplies. The original AoE didn't have this issue because the Clubman is a separate unit line. You could separate the upgrade lines in AoE2 in a similar way, which would give you a bit more freedom to mess around with the unit and would also alleviate some of the painful transition, but is maybe too much of a shake up to the game at this point this far into its life.

[@khankhomrad8855]

I was thinking about that too. It is also worth noting some thing: Archers unlock on feudal and have 1 upgrade each Age; Knights unlock on Castle and have 2 upgrades on Imperial; infantry unlocks on Dark and gets 4 upgrades with 2 of them being on Imperial. However, each upgrade that the inf line gets is so insignificant that you really need to get all of them for the unit to even be useful. You can clearly see that by the fact that whenever the devs want to make an in civ they give the inf line some ridiculous strong buff to make them somewhat viable (a somewhat similar situation to horse cav I'd say.). Add to that the fact that Conquerors added Halberdiers without giving anything to the sword line and you end up with a unit that is mostly good to clean up trash comps. Lastly, did the removal of the hand cannoneer tech affect the sword line at all?

[@CrazyIvan64]

@@khankhomrad8855 I think the Halberdier needed to be added as there wasn't an infantry Imperial Age equivalent to the Centurion that could really stand up to the Paladin in Age of Kings, but this did push you away from the Champion a bit more as you say. I think the removal of the Hand Cannoneer tech was more done to help civs that don't have access to the Arbalest as it was a bit clunky and time consuming having to research Chemistry and the tech to even get a single Hand Cannoneer on the field. It may have had some impact, but I'd say the main issue is the Long Swordsman in Castle Age as brought up in the video and that Champions are relatively OK in Imperial Age at the moment where the cost of some of the infantry techs doesn't feel as jarring compared to things like the cost of the Paladin upgrade for example.

[@bstress]

I love Japanese longswords. Even before the buff they would surprise a lot of players not excepting them when I start out with archers

[@Igor369]

Gotta try viking LS too at this point

[@ababyalbatross9016]

I played a game today as Vikings with Chieftains tech vs Franks...my god. Just walked right into their base and started shredding TC's. Any Knights that tried to dive the mass got mangled. If you get initiative on an attack and can't be outplayed by maneuverability, these new longswords feel great.

[@ababyalbatross9016]

@Robert Rowe Zero pikes. Unnecessary with Chieftains when you have such high longsword numbers, unless you're out of gold for some reason. I've gotten a few wins now with the longsword rush, me and 2 friends just rolled a ranked RM 3v3 (1700~elo) with all longswords (Goths, Malians, Vikings). It was one of our easiest games. The combo is tough to beat. Anti archer, anti cavalry and spam lol.

[@dirkauditore8413]

@@ababyalbatross9016 I would love to see the rec of that game lmaoo

[@ababyalbatross9016]

@@dirkauditore8413 I wish DE let you play old rec's after updates :(

[@arforafro5523]

I agree on the upgrades needing to be cheaper, its kind of odd how knights which historically were mostly the rich and royalty are somehow easier to afford compared to infantry.

[@HasekuraIsuna]

Just like most rich and royal, it was handled to them. ; )

[@leonardorivelorivelo9253]

The meta and competitive players: *Impossible* Players who play matches for Fun: Everything is possible *Starts spamming infantry*

[@AgnusCavichioliPereira]

@Lucas Campos No kidding, mass archers is the sole reason I stop playing this game from time to time

[@Flavourius]

And then there is Viper who is both

[@rovsea-3761]

Infantry spam is viable in a few circumstances, especially if you catch the opponent off-guard, but sadly it's very much a high-risk high-reward scenario, so it doesn't see a lot of play at the very top level.

[@darthcabs]

@Lucas Campos truth has been said here

[@araulen4820]

@@rovsea-3761 *sad Goth noises :(

[@sidarthurgortimer355]

Infantry was the backbone of most medieval armies, but not many of them would have been swordsmen. The vast majority were equipped with spears or something similar.

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

Heavy infantry would however have been some of the most important soldiers, being able to essentially shrug off projectiles.

[@hobeto13]

I also thought that was the point of making knight more favourable choice. Despite heavy cavalry were minority, cavalry charges were more decisive and sometimes were the whole reason why one army won the battle against the other during High Middle Ages. Later on, standing armies which were not necesserily levied from land but consist of men who made war as a profession in pike&shot formations pushed infantry to the center of attention once more. Of course in the Age of Empires 2's context Imperial age is more representative of the transition of late medieval era rather than full on pike&shot warfare.

[@GepardenK]

@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 Yes but heavy infantry would normally use spears or maces, etc, depending on opposition. They had swords but as a sidearm; used, for example, during indoor fighting when something like a spear would be unwieldy.

[@Asterix958]

Sword lost its prevalence in Europe after plate armor. Before plate, it is most common weapon after spear. Plate armor is used in west and middle Europe generally. In other part of the world, sword was continued to be used. European also didn't stop using sword after plate armor. Swordmen need more representation. Historically, swordmen are weak against heavy cavalry but they are good against archers and pikemen (game did right in this point). In game, they are also very weak against archers, thus they are useless unit in castle age and in imperial age they are meh.

[@robertjobe5503]

@@Asterix958 knights are good in the game also based on the history of there combat vs them a knight was taught too strike from above at a 45 degree ish angle at the neck because plate armor was not designed too take the hit but too make it bounce of by making the blows slide of the sides its also why pikes where bad at that point in history because the armor was made too be at a point ish at the chest so it woude slide way from there body if struck but how a knight woude hit it it woude have no where too go but into the swordsman's body its also why imp cannonries are counters too infantry because plate armor did jack too bullets

[@MindlessWanderings]

The big problem is that, historically, the entire point of infantry is to be a massed force while cavalry are a more specialised force. Basically, Knights (and other force multiplier units) need to take up more pop space (not just 1 for every unit), slower to train, and cost WAY more.. Not that I necessarily recommend that (this game is what it is), but if we really want to see more infantry use we would need knights to be less pop efficient and swordsmen to be closer to a trash unit.

[@conworldus8310]

Well, historically, battles were fought in formation. When an infantry or cavalry is separately from the group and duel one on one, the battle outcome becomes an individual skill contest. Cavalry's power comes from line charging with heavy lances so you have no chance of dodging, and infantry power comes from formations that protect the flank because frontal attacks are usually blocked by those giant shields. AOE game combat mechanism is totally unrealistic start with.

[@dekmar7954]

Interesting how AOE 1 had barracks units for 1/2 pop, and then the academy that was slow but with some of the best attack+armor in the game. Gave it a special function, rather than just being "worse than cavalry". Also they started a separate infantry line in the 3rd age, bypassing some of the upgrade cost.

[@jonathanpowell9979]

@@conworldus8310 Speaking as a Historyologist AOE mechanics are actually phenomenally accurate. For instance one of the most important roles for knights to take was screening in front of the crossbow line. Basically they would run back and forth taking as much arrow fire as possible, so their own crossbows could engage without taking as much fire from the enemy. Fun fact for you, this is actually where dance-offs first became common place. The knights got to be so good at dodging arrows that the contemporary laymen of that time began to imitate the way knights moved in this combat role. Ideally they would use battering rams for this purpose. Where the battering rams would go back and forth in the middle of an open field taking nearly all of the enemy's crossbow fire.

[@g0lgrim1]

A realistic thing would be to let cav use more pop space OR even do a unit cap specific for military... let's say you have 100 military units so you just can use 20% cav units... 80% infantry which is militia and archers... maybe give historic cav civs like the mongols a slightly differnent composition in % ...

[@elmanhux]

another big problem is that non-gunpowder missile units are FAR too accurate which is a general problem in most games making them by far stronger than they actually should be and don't make me start when it comes to obstructions and stuff... [afaik AOE4 makes this even worse which worries me a lil bit] and that problem makes melee infantry units always look worse than they should be

[@bluewho4071]

In my opinion, the buff they need is creation time, focusing on the defensive potential

[@Igor369]

Defense? Longswords and siege towers is the way.

[@MouseDestruction]

Don't forget that for some time the swordsman is the biggest threat to buildings. Perhaps the fastest way to kill an enemy tc outside of specialist civilizations. With the ability to pre build, unlike seige, cheaper than horsemen and much more damage than an archer. I think they have been under rated, particularly vs a booming player. However, they do fall off around the two handed swordsman upgrade. Still, a shield wall is always useful.

[@daisychain5125]

Siege is a bigger threat to buildings from Castle Age. Unless you kill TCs with MAAs that wouldn't be a very accurate selling point.

[@DtemplarK]

What i AM interested in hearing about this change, is how much it affects the late game of those civs that are reliant on two-handed swordsmen as their main unit, like the the malay or the bulgarians.

[@Krisstoff001]

It seems like a major buff for Bulgarians, since they have free miltia upgrades + the tech that gives'em +5 melee armor and now with this tweak they are even more durable they are like lesser teutonic knights

[@Teknonymic]

Mayans to a lesser extent, as it gives them a much needed frontliner against melee.

[@kavinh10]

it's a pretty big buff for malians whose infantry were in a standstill vs archers. Now that they can trade effectively vs knights outside of heavy seige and monks it'll be pretty hard to counter them.

[@bobsickle2336]

Any buff to infantry is a good thing, if you're not an infantry civ, taking infantry is the absolute last resort. How to beat cavalry? "Well spears of cou-" BOWS

[@Thomas-u8q]

Or camels. Or, most commonly, just more cavalry. Spears only see serious use in the extreme early and late game.

[@Jz4p]

This buff makes Britons significantly more viable against Goths. Longswordsmen beat Huscarls and can tank for the Britons archers. Knights don't work as well here, because a Gothic player can just sprinkle a few halberds in with their Huscarls to ruin the expensive and outnumbered knights, then march in to imperviously take out Britons archers and castles.

[@anonnymousperson]

Hi Spirit! Do you know why when unloading a full transport ship of 20 units it sometimes unloads them in a long line rather than a blob? Also do you know what dictates when battle event markers are added to the timeline in the post battle stats? I only seem to see them for opponents that have already basically been defeated.

[@light_david7]

This question is actually not best to ask Spirit of the Law, but rather T-West. He is the programming nerd. SotL crunches numbers, T-West goes and actually looks at numbers the devs used in the game files.

[@khatack]

I'd really like to see the resurrection of the AoE1 tech Logistics, which cut the pop space requirement of all infantry into half, so that essentially going into inf let you field significantly larger armies. I really think there should be a similar tech from castle in castle age, which would let you buildup a massive force

[@araulen4820]

I don't think that would be a good tech because it doesn't affect the game state until very late. In a standard 200 pop game it takes a while to even get to max pop, and even if you and your opponent are playing on even skill levels then you might never even get there. For me the tech seems like a win-more tech that wouldn't be researched until way late imperial where your economy is completely maxed and you can afford to make army that size. Researching this tech before hand doesn't seem cost effective to me because it doesn't change the cost of the units, so you've essentially received double pop space but still need resources to train the infantry to even benefit from the tech.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Karambit warriors have entered the chat

[@Thomas-u8q]

@@araulen4820 It's still worth implementing, because at max-pop, high-eco slugouts (*very* common in big team games) even halberds will lose to massed paladins in equal numbers.

[@khatack]

@@araulen4820 I didn't say it would be a solutiuon to this particular issue, but it could be a part of the solution if infantry price got dropped slightly, like from 20 gold to 15 gold.

[@frozenfeet4534]

@@jefffinkbonner9551 this would leave very little room for good micromanagement of armies as there would be too many units to manage and they'd take up so much of the map that they'd be bumping into each other

[@KimLumbard]

Hey Spirit! I love your unit comparisons, in particular how you often will give the "equal resource" comparison. However, I also feel the "equal population" comparison is just as vital. There are often situations in late game where we aren't resource constrained, but max pop constrained. Then it makes sense to get the highest quality unit per population, rather than the most resource efficient. Since in most situations army units consume the same population, your 1-on-1 comparisons are usually sufficient. But in those cases with unequal population per unit, it makes sense to include a normalized per pop comparison as well. Thanks for making the most educational and useful videos on Age of Empires!

[@InternetMameluq]

2:30: Infantry might have been the backbone of an army in the castle age, like they always were, but the knight had several enormous advantages that made them the premier force at that age. Infantry would only become popular again later after the sociopolitical forces that artificially made knights more popular waned. Towards the end of the mediaeval era knights were fighting off horseback as the horse was too vulnerable... Also FYI: the 'infantry' line is also a knightly line... In English the term 'knight' is used to describe mounted heavy cavalry as well as the rank of nobility. Men-at-arms, Champions, two-handed swordsmen, etc. would all be knights as well; a peasant can't afford all that castle-forged steel.

[@alejandroromero6464]

I love how many variables you consider for your analysis.

[@chaosmarine113]

I wonder how the Teutonic long sword does with the extra +1 melee armor against knights.

[@Anoarai]

Spirit you are freaking awesome at making really nice music to go with the videos and for intro and outro. Freaking loving it!

[@calixthenustv6739]

Although I'm not playing DE for the time being, it's interesting to see all these balance changes that are being made in order to have more viable and fun alternatives overall. Game design isn't my passion, per say, but it's truly interesting to see how some changes can make these great differences

[@TheRomanAoE]

just fyi, it's "per se"

[@ricks1570]

@@TheRomanAoE is it really per se? What language does it come from?

[@ricks1570]

It's Latin. Looked it up. Literally means by itself in Latin.

[@calixthenustv6739]

@@TheRomanAoE Oh, I see, thank you

[@elliejohnson2786]

I always loved playing infantray (and hence, infantry civs like aztecs) in campagins and custom scenarios I made as a kid. I didn't really notice until now just how expensive and lengthy it was to upgrade them to full, especially back then with tracking being an upgrade that needs to be researched and squires either being double price or not even a thing. Arson definitely didn't exist back then, so I was out of luck when it came to burning buildings.

[@Volcano4981]

Their upgrades did not seem expensive to me at all until I got the expansions and later DE and came to the realisation. They truly add up. Despite all of that I still favour infantry civs over most others. Funnily enough, I still relied on LS to knock down buildings, especially Castles, when playing the second scenario of the Mongol campaign, well before that tech was even a thing, because I knew they dealt bonus damage to buildings, I had no siege engines (as the scenario prevents you from training any), and other units were woefully ineffective.

[@AlphaSquadZero]

I guess the most unrealistic part is the fact you can train a knight the moment you reach castle and yet are unable to train that knight without the horse which would be a long swordsman. It would be interesting to test out how the meta would shake out if the knight unit was locked behind the long swordsman tech.

[@scevda]

Hmmm that would be very cool to test on.

[@GepardenK]

I love the idea in terms of balance, but it feels messy as it breaks with the established logic behind aoe2 teching. They did something similar with fire/demo upgrades being locked behind the galley upgrade, and it just feels "wrong".

[@AlphaSquadZero]

@@GepardenK It does feel unnatural there, here though it does have some sound logic.

[@pax6833]

I wonder what would happen if you put the knight behind its own tech in the stable?

[@GepardenK]

@@pax6833 Putting knight behind a upgrade just nerfs the knight timing a little bit; but it doesn't do much to help the longsword. Requiring longsword to unlock knight would - but as I stated earlier I think it's too messy of a setup even if I do like it's implications for balance.

[@Jacks_Suffocating_Nihilism]

Really solid analysis with your inclusion of the economic factors in Castle Age that make infantry undesirable. Your best video.

[@josephronk4124]

I'm curious. If knights (or any cavalry in general) took 2 population rather then one how would that effect the balance?

[@Marth667]

You'd probably still see them being used in early game before a swap to siege.

[@lateralus6512]

This was a good idea.

[@spectre9065]

1:05 Infantry would be the backbone of a typical medieval army Yes, infantry with spears. Swords were not a primary weapon in medieval warfare.

[@thedanebear]

Great video as usual! Cost of population space for long swordsman (as opposed to say knights) is a minor consideration worth factoring in too

[@dirkauditore8413]

In late game yes but in early castle its irrelevant since players don't reach their max pop by that stage.

[@Smite_Sion]

Maybe we will see 1 last small buff where their cost and creation time get reduced + their upgrade costs. So we can maybe see them as the backbone of a lot of armies out there. Would be awesome to have at least always infantry fighting

[@SIGNOR-G]

They just need to be more quick to produce. Once they become easier to mass they will finally be more viable

[@alt5494]

This does nicely open up the early castle monk longswordman combo as a durable infantry wall in front of your monks is now more than possible. And very few opponents are going to be able to effectively counter in early castle.

[@daisychain5125]

Crossbows, siege? Anything that isn't knights. And even knights can just go raid while you defend with like monk scorpions.

[@Angmir]

Your analisys makes it absolutely clear - they need a much substancial buff. It is a simple case of beeing inferior to Knights at everything they do, while also beeing slower, making it extra difficult to utilise in desired way. they take 4 times less fire than Knights, despite beeing only 2ce cheaper they dont win with Knights on equal resources, even though they are not supposed to be their counter (and again Knights are faster) and (again) they are slower. To make a slower unit viable, it needs to be better (aka more cost effective) than the faster unit once the actual fighting starts. I think it is time for a slight Knight (and all mounted units) nerf, I think -10 hp would make it fair.

[@Jz4p]

Add just a couple of pikes in with the longswords, and it's a different story. I think they really begin to have a place in mixed unit compositions.

[@Angmir]

@@Jz4p I dont get it. Mix some Knights with your pikes and you do even better for less

[@Rhapsodyas]

What about the +1 melee armor for Malay 2Hswordsmen in Imperial?

[@MustardOligarch]

Asking the real questions here; I basically only ever play Malay purely for forced levy and spamming my yellow cape boyes

[@scevda]

I believe the +1 is maintained, not added on to when it comes to 2hs/champion. So essentially the +1 armor is now originating a age earlier, not necc accumulating an additional.

[@Rhapsodyas]

@@scevda yes but I thought 2Hswords were 0/1 armor before and are 1/1 now? Champions having always been 1/1

[@ababyalbatross9016]

@@Rhapsodyas you are correct. 2h swordsmen just became a lot more exciting

[@tyacyoung]

I'm constantly amazed at the work you put into your videos. Well done. I think the longswords should continue to be buffed!

[@ethribin4188]

To be historically accurate, swordsmen never were an army staple. That was polearms and javalins. Bows and crossbows came later or were used combined with battlements, rarely on the field outside of first salvos. Add to that cavalery, either light (aka mounted spearmen) for flanking, or heavily armoured knights, and you get the general army comp. And very late medival knights phase out due to gunpowder too. So aoe2 is suprisingly historically accurate beyond the heavy use of crossbows.

[@TheDuxbuse]

Between the need to also mix in spears so you dont get rolled by knights, and the extra farms which necessitate extra wood choppers, plus the need for more housing you just cant fight a player going knights, cause you have spent so much more villager time so you cant have double numbers compared to knights, and even if you could due to pathing the knights can hit on one side do damage and retreat. I think for infantry civs to be able to actually play infantry as their main line combat units, their gold cost should become wood. They are arguably worse trash unit than light cav. Yet cost gold. And that way an economy set up to produce swordsmen can also play spears

[@frankieseward8667]

I wish you compared infantry civs. It would've been interesting.

[@John-jc3ty]

idea: make the previous age man at arms upgrade instant and free. example: get to castle age, get man at arms upgrade. get to imperial, get longsword upgrade.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Angry Bulgarians shouting: “Well, we still got it first!!”

[@7PlayingWithFire7]

It punishes you for upgrading tho

[@John-jc3ty]

@@7PlayingWithFire7 if you are using them, you pay as usual. if you dont, you arent punished by 50 years of research in castle or imperial

[@willichtenstein7071]

I'd like to know how the 2-3 militia in dark age, into a mass MaA while teching into castle and pushing hard as arson is being researched, fairs. Its this window of opportunity that a castle or knights likely arn't up and I haven't had trouble breaking towers either. So they could cut through a bit or all of the base before coming back.

[@daisychain5125]

That's an interesting cheese if you kept your drush alive, but then how many MAAs can you realistically mass before hitting Castle Age, even with let's say Aztecs or Goths? The strat still dies to crossbows, and the window where it can be stronger than a scout-knight play seems small. But I'd like to see it work once in a while.

[@michabaron4129]

Cool. Now we need some HC buffs. I know, i know, they get small buffs pretty often lately, but the idea seems to be 'make them more similiar to arbalests so they suck less'. Its nice to have better accuracy, dont get me wrong, but they still are way too difficult to get into for job they perform (countering infantry) given that arbs do it /at least/ as good, thanks for example to less overkill. I think HCs should be late game power unit, not just a wonky archer substitute. Double down on their strenghts, make them deal more flat damage (17->20/25), bump up bonus damage (10->12/15), give them some armor piercing maybe. So they are actually good in what they were supposed to do and maybe less helpless against cav. Not good mind you, just like countered by paladins slightly less compared to arbs. This is an Imperial Age unit with limited distribution, locked behind Chemistry and unable to be massed early. I mean even Bohemians preffer chemistry xbows to HCs which highlights the problem perfectly. They cost 95 resources a piece. They should be an /option/, not the niechest of choices. (Also keep them not too accurate, but fix that atrocious projectile speed man)

[@GBtothe3]

I get the frustration of hc being niche but the fact is infantry is already bad even with all the buffs. So since infantry is bad obviously hc are also going to be bad since their main purpose is to kill infantry. If you up their damage to the point that they are useful against cav, there would be no counter for hc except siege. You could argue archers would be good but if you mix skirms and hc then archers would just die. Skirms would beat archers, and whatever can kill skrims would die to hc. Since you bumped their flat damage, they would kill archers in 2 shots, infantry in 3, and knights in around 8-10. If you bumped their bonus damage to infantry on top then its 2 to kill infantry. At that point you would just build hc and pike since knights would be the only unit able to kill hc at that point besides siege. Its sad that the balance on the game essentially bottoms out to if knights cant win cost effectively then its strong.

[@michabaron4129]

@@GBtothe3 post imp infantry is mostly fine. For sure it would be a tough balancing act, but given how bad HC are now i think we are /far/ from pushing them over the edge. You say that just having archers, siege and cav is bad as only counters - i mean yes, you could cover their weaknesses better but that's how army composition works. If they are not overwhelming on their own i am not alarmed. Castle age knights are pretty much overwhelming, having the ability to outrun their only counter, and we are pretty much ok with that. Again, remember about limited distribution, chemistry, sheer cost and the fact you cannot mass them up. You cannot have strong pike HC comp (which still is voulnerable to siege and archers - you can mitigate that but at this point you have 4 unit army comp and thats how game is supposed to work) anytime but the very end of the game, you certainly cannot go uo to imp just having pointy bois around. Thats my point, going into HC is such an effort that the payoff should be at least a little bit worth it

[@GBtothe3]

@@michabaron4129 Im getting mixed messages here. You disregard what the buffs you want would change how counters work with archers for example. You said buff hc attack to 20 or 25 and I gave a pretty clear example of how just that change alone changes the counter system. With that change they will 2 shot arbs while only costing 5 more gold and 20 more food. So they would be more pop efficient and trade ok with similar numbers against arbs, yet they would murder infantry and be many times better at fighting cav. Then add the fact that hc need almost nothing to be effective and their only unlock required is chemistry which everyone gets anyway and its actually cheaper to go hc than go arbs. I never said it was ok that knights only have 1 counter, that's why I said its sad that if knights struggle to kill a particular unit that means that unit is strong. You said that you cannot have strong hc with pike but yea you can, because archers and pike would lose, and cav with skirms might win but cost more resources overall. Siege would be the only way to go. Im not going in 4 army comp because that's ridiculous to theorize. Its actually really easy to go hc since there's no real cost the problem is justifying it but upping the damage like that would make hc massed such a deathball that if you don't have onager its gg.

[@michabaron4129]

@@GBtothe3 i was saying you cannot have hc-pike Comp in earlier ages than Imperial so you have play something else earlier on. Like if youre playing arbs you get a bunch of them almost right away in Imp, because you were playing xbow in castle. You have to go out of your way to get HC army. Amd about changing counter system - two shoting Arbs doesnt mean HC wins that engagement - given less range, accuracy and fire rate. Which can be experience playing Burgundians, thos HC do 20 damage and are still eaten up by archer line

[@jamesgunn9056]

I feel a mix of pikes and longswords should be the go to instead of mass longswords to deter knights. While also giving you the ability to raze buildings reasonably quickly.

[@FortuneTellher]

ok but what about battering rams full of long swordsmen? As a kid I teched into champions precisely to fill siege rams with them, even though I did this with Byzantines who are one of the worst civs for that strat lmao

[@matthewmartin3787]

My strategy was always Mongols Black Forest, turtle to imperial and then go in with a horde of elite mangudai and drill-boosted rams filled with assorted longswords and pikes. I'm not a very good player...

[@YuenHsiaoTieng]

Swords need something like +10 against buildings and walls. There, I just simultaneously solved the UP swords and OP walls problems.

[@lateralus6512]

Yes, swords used to excel at close quarters combat like fighting in buildings, stairs, walls and chock points where the spear wasn't suitable. So a buff against buildings would make sense.

[@SaladinBarchan]

Maybe even just bonus damage against houses and production buildings would be enough because it would nerf house walling and force all players to use resources in actual walls around their base.

[@Pawn2e4]

@@SaladinBarchan I like this idea a lot. Give militia line a bonus versus houses pls

[@PsychCaptain]

You could give longswords an actual buff against trash. +1 or 2 damage against Spears/Skirmishers and maybe Scouts.

[@windwindy5356]

Yes please, this is a good buff

[@daisychain5125]

They already fare well against trash, that's not their issue. Their issue is that they're unbelievably worse than knights, crossbows and siege, so never a realistic option in Castle Age. That's a point he explained well.

[@dirkauditore8413]

@@daisychain5125 They can do kinda ok vs knights if u have a civ like japanese or teutons, but vs archers yea its really bad. Unless u mix in a lot of siege but then they can always make their own siege.

[@Krisstoff001]

Nice, now all we need is an overview of this buff applied to civs who only get 2 handed swordmen

[@realerobin]

I really feel like archers can "kite" them so easily that even if you can get good value with them you are always fighting an annoying battle

[@Lockieez]

Yeah they need to be able to throw a one-off net or something like Ensnare in Warcraft 3.

[@IschmarVI]

yes, archers completely wreck longswords (with good kiting, even malian longswords lose against a sizable group of crossbows) but the crossbows are rather bad at actually forcing an engagement. True, the archers can raid your economy but one way to defend against this is by using siege and/or skrims for defense while using your longswordmen aggressively to tear down their archery ranges which forces them to retreat. Not saying that longswordplay is good let alone favourable against archer play, but you definitely have some options.

[@dirkauditore8413]

@@IschmarVI I think going for a heavy ram push with longswords can still kill an archer player, if u kill their buildings without losing your entire army. U can even add a siege tower probably to get a good surround on the archers or mangonels.

[@tribalbeat6471]

I thought it was really interesting how AoE4 does it where the swordsman line is your slow, tanky unit good at soaking arrowfire.

[@a_blind_sniper]

I feel like the head-to-head matchups where longswords trade evenly with knights ends up even worse for longswords because knights can turn and run from a losing battle like that, but longswords HAVE to commit because the knights can always run them down. So, halfway through an "even" resource trade, the knights can pull back if things aren't going well. It ends up being: knights win when numbers are equal, and knights only half-lose when resources are equal.

[@vegannegan9652]

True, but you can force fights by attacking buildings.

[@shigerufan1]

@@vegannegan9652 take a few farms early before the enemy can react and you just threw off his whole eco.

[@donxnik]

I tried with bulgarian +5 armor thing longsworsman but I agree I see fewer and fewer longsowrdsman(champion)

[@shigerufan1]

Most of the infantry focused civs have their unique unit as their go-to option instead, so it's easy to overlook the militia line, Slavs and Bulgarians are the only two exceptions I think. Not to mention the Native American civs have eagle warriors as discount cavalry, so a mirror match between two of them is the only real case where the militia line would become the staple unit through the whole game.

[@Enigmacombe]

I don't know if it makes a huge difference, but I find if I plan to build into longswords, I tend to build up some man-at-arms in Feudal. It may be small but being able to build up an army earlier, especially if you're on the offensive, means that you can transition nicely into longswords in Castle Age and already have some available if they survived Feudal. Compared to knights, where you have to start building them in Castle Age, this might be able to make a difference depending on how the match is going.

[@LoutreDuBengale]

Your work is so precious, thank you.

[@rusael333]

Since they're buffing infantry they need to buff Celt movement speed, currently their Militia line moves almost exactly like a generic civ and you can't even catch up to other infantry

[@windwindy5356]

Exactly my problem with felt infantry. They are classified as infantry civ and yet their infantries are generic at best. I think the dev should just just give them squire already

[@tankofnova9022]

Here's another possible situation. A player makes a mix of knights and longswords and sees camels, of course the knights would get flattened, how well can Longswords fight camels?

[@ateium2409]

Pretty good ASAI know

[@quaintserpent]

Your every new video puts a smile on my face👍🏻

[@arturoaranamatus1034]

The problem with infantry is that archers are OP. They shoot, move and shoot again an infinite number of arrows is like instead of bows they have guns. Same with mangonels, they move shot move shoot move shoot. If they want to se more infantry, they need to give a little of reload time for range units. at least to those who want to move right after a shoot. If they stay still its ok that shoot as fast as they can.

[@dirkauditore8413]

Yeh kinda agree, the archer mechanics are too dumb, like bruh it takes like a minute to reload a crossbow. But in the game these bitches just reload instantly like guns lmao

[@IWillBeBacon]

Posted 26 seconds ago and I already love the video!

[@xarkey7859]

Cringe

[@IWillBeBacon]

@@xarkey7859 no u

[@zachariastsampasidis8880]

The armor upgrade largely doesn't matter and their upgrade time is still long. There is only one real way to buff militia line. Make it need max 3 (one per feudal/castle/imp age) upgrades and make each stronger than their current version.

[@NotThatGuyJD]

Wonder if this was also at least partly in response to new UU introduced recently and how poorly LS and Two handed performanced against them.

[@shavedhomersimpson742]

If a Age of Empires Unit would describe me well, it's definitely the Longswordsmen

[@apolakigamingandmore6376]

1:00 I love how Villagers are still working in the farms even though their base (Town Center) is already being attacked. Aaahhh! Age of Empires II is such a Classic Game!

[@scevda]

“Eh, its a living” - Peasants.

[@Daxter250]

they gotta change the militia line to something that can force the other player to recognize the threat instead of just walling em off or outpacing 'em. or in other words, militia should be a danger to enemy bases where the cav player has to bite in the sour apple and fight a maybe costineffective battle to get rid of em.

[@MadnessTW]

It seems LS and THS are in a similar place now to where CA used to be. They're situationally useful, especially for civs with a substantial bonus for them. Considering that CA only needed a little nudge to get from there to being generally viable, I think we're on a good path. It shouldn't take much longer before they take their rightful spot.

[@dirkauditore8413]

I think Longswords should cost 35 food and 15 gold after supplies. Maybe give them a 0.1 movement speed buff too.

[@taintedPot]

longswords could be a nice surprise option, if there was no scorpions. But as it is if you see your opponents making longswords you just make siege workshop and pump out few scorpions in addition to whatever you were making and thats all. You dont even need any upgrades for them in castle age. It could be pikes + scorps, knights + scorps, skirms + scorps, or lightcav + scorps. Or just crossbows if you already make them. Anything of those beats longswords, you can just choose whatever you have upgraded.

[@Shroud83]

Mmh... not exactly related but... How about making horses a resource? Like you have to breed them at the stables with workers in order to train any kind of horsemen/camelriders/elefants. Could be a way of making infantry more viable and cavalry blobs less common. And it would also reflect better the reality of medieval warfare. Stables use up to five workers to breed horses etc. It takes a certain amount of time for a horse to appear in the stables. Only then can you begin training a rider. You could give certain civilizations bonuses to breeding. Like the Mongols get 25% faster breeding etc. The thing is: Right now, most players go for cav because, except for higher resource cost, there is nothing that prevents you from getting knights as fast as possible. Why bother with infantry? However if you have to divert economic strength (e.g. workers) to breeding, that would change up the gameplay. Do I really want knights where I need to breed horses, or do I try to use more infantry which cost less, don't need horses and are trained faster? Also, depending on how fast breeding time is, knights would become truely elite units because you can only get so many in so much a time. You might also limit the number of horses per stables (like a second pop cap just for horses etc.)

[@israeltovar3513]

Longswords are useful defending fortified positions. The walls/palisades, with the gates and the towers help to offset their speed limitations. Putting some crossbows in the towers, and you can defend a position for a long time, buying time to flank the opponent, build a larger army and assaulting them, or to build more defenses. A relatively small group of swords and archers can defend three or four towers with palisade defenses for a reasonable amount of time, IMHO

[@dirkauditore8413]

That sounds like a low elo legends game or a campaing map

[@RustyGorbi]

for teutons longswordsmen seem like a very interesting choice now in castle if you ask me not only do they get another +1 melee armor in castle as a civ bonus which makes them quite powerful vs knights, they also have the cheaper farms to support the more food intensive eco

[@poyloos4834]

What if the knight line required a tech at the stable in castle age just to unlock the ability to train them? Because it is the only unit in the standard rmeta of infantry, ranged inf, and cav to not need some kind of unit-specific tech to catch it up to speed. It wouldn’t need to be super expensive, but just delaying knights by an extra minute or so might at least even the choice between infantry and knights.

[@kevinfogle7929]

I'll be honest, I rarely use the sword line. In most games I don't even research man at arms. It would be interesting for the sword line to be more useful.

[@SIGNOR-G]

As an italian player i understand perfectly

[@michaelr6612]

I’d like to see if this gives any boost to Bulgarians who don’t have the upgrade cost or wait time + the unique tech for two-handed swords

[@darthvaderbutwayshittier7054]

Look at all those buffs and then think about how terrible they were before all of those.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

But also think about how the original balance was without bloodlines, more expensive husbandry, and no thumbring.

[@Thomas-u8q]

@@jefffinkbonner9551 Infantry still sucked and nobody used them except noobs

[@luggy9256]

Well fine to try teutons on arena, I wonder how fc into longsword siege tower push goes? Teutons for cheaper farms to make this not use a million wood.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Definitely has a lot of potential

[@Wabaanimkii]

one of my favorite moves in DE was the classic magyar scout rush, followed by a couple of rams garrisoned full of longswords. since magyars are obviously going to go cav, the smart defensive move is to make pikes... lots of pikes. but since magyars also get the melee upgrades for free your longswords are already whoopin ass right out of thew barracks, and they only have to tangle with some pikes. lure them in with the rams, get out, and give em a whoopin. garrison back in rams when the arrows get thick.

[@steretsjaaj2368]

all this great mechanics man... hope they make some more ueropean factions like scotland, irish, swiss, aragon castile and such

[@TheCitnarfoztiks]

Personally, I think the only way they're going to make Longswordsmen comps super viable and seen in middle-ages is if Longsword upgrade was free and automatic. Edit: And a bit extra speed wouldn't hurt either.

[@Volcano4981]

I was thinking of something like this. Free MAA might be a bit too strong but provided players have that upgrade and progress to Castle, they *should* get the LS upgrade for free or at least instantly upon paying for it. But Bulgarians can still have the MAA and 2HS upgrade for free so they have that edge, and drop the price of Bagains slightly to compensate.

[@elliejohnson2786]

Love that flash of the vs eagle warrior after the vs huskarl :)

[@dirkauditore8413]

What chu mean

[@mikelivingood7797]

The point of not lowering the tech cost is they share the attack with cavalry. Since everyone will have cavalry on the field at some point, it is not nearly as costly as it might sound.

[@bm8985]

I think the best way for swordsmen to see more play is to make them a prerequisite tech for knights. It makes some sense, having to research the armor for the guy that rides the horse. Also it would force people to use barracks a little more often, and give more of a payoff for small investments in infantry.

[@astrid2432]

I think you forgot to mention: you can start with infantry/ the longswordsmen already in dark age. with the militia. in feudal, you can keep using the militia, upgrading them to Man at arms and get their blacksmith stuff. then in castle, you get the longswordsmen and the blacksmith upgrades with cav. you can only start with scout, so you can't use the units later on. sure you can get the blacksmith upgrades too in feudal age and yeah castle age, you don't need to pay directly for a knight upgrade, but you need to start from scratch as with infantery, you can already start in dark age or better, transition in castle age, you can already produce them. you could go even so far, that you don't even need to research cav upgrades in total, as with spears and skirmish, you already counter crossbow and knights as with knights, you usual need spears to counter other cav,

[@ajazzforrock]

I think mixing Huscarls into Longsword/Two-Hand/Champions to add protection against archers could be an interesting video topic. I imagining them being added like Rams. Without micro the archers shoot the huscarls and as more arrows are needed to down them, keep shooting them, protecting the other infantry.

[@MajorTomFisher]

TBF about what you said about infantry being the backbone of an army, usually that infantry would be armed with spears. Swords like the Arming/Knightly Sword were typically a sidearm in case your spear broke.

[@AttiliusRex]

Debatable, one could argue these soldiers are primarilt armed with shields ;) And shield and sword combination is pretty common historically

[@MajorTomFisher]

@@AttiliusRex I would recommend Shadiversity or Lindybeige's videos on the spear. You definitely wouldn't never see swords used in a proper battle scenario, but to use it as your main medieval weapon would be like equipping a modern army with primarily pistols instead of automatic rifles. Spears and pikes make much more sense for fighting in formation, especially since a wall of pikes can deter a cavalry charge. (Cavalry would have been the deadliest units in the medieval era even despite pikes, which is why infantry that could fend off cavalry like the Swiss infantry would come to be so renowned) It also just makes sense to keep your enemy a good distance away from you as a sword isn't going to do much good when your enemy can poke holes in you from a good distance away. Even the Roman Legions used spears in a way... They just threw them instead of using them as a melee weapon.

[@AttiliusRex]

@@MajorTomFisher watch scholagladiatorias videos on shield and sword, you would defnatively use shield and sword as your main weapons see roman legionaries for the most famous example

[@MajorTomFisher]

@@AttiliusRex I gave the legionaries as an example. The legionaries still threw pilum (special spears designed to implant themselves into an enemy's shield) at their enemies, the swords and shields would be for the cleanup after throwing pilum. But thank you for the recommendation.

[@chrisl9112]

Hey Law, Spirit of the guys here

[@richardistvanthier5620]

But adding just few pikes in (or even un-upgraded spearmen?) change infantry vs. knight encounters I think to be economical. Crossbows seem to be more of a danger as for them likely there needs more than just a few units of their counter to be effective. PS.: I pretty much hate playing infantry - just saying what I think is logical.

[@Volcano4981]

You would be correct. A few pikes mixed in with the swords can easily swing it in favour of the infantry player against knights, *and* provide protection for the pikes too. Knights are also easily countered by Monks and Camels if you have them. I don't buy the whole 'Knights can pick their engagements' argument as they would just be intercepted at a different time frame if on their own, and it goes double for Monks since you can just steal them from your opponent. It would be notably more resilient against ranged attacks too than just having pikes. The real danger, and too much of a meta, I would say, is massed crossbows, so one would be wise to include Skirmishers or even siege weapons. Which is why Sword-and-Skirm is one of my favourite combos, especially if playing an infantry civ.

[@ПолОтто]

could combine pikeman and longsword upgrade into a single upgrade (like in dock)

[@Elron089]

I think longswords should have same armour as a knight at least for pierce armour. Knights are basically a longsword on a horse. Hey even have same food cost pre upgrades.

[@abrahamx321]

this video made me go back and play AOE2

[@ivansolodyankin6820]

I always liked to play long swordsman with Vikings, Celts and Japaneese, it's nice to see they buffed so much.

[@zachariastsampasidis8880]

Malians and Burmese are more relevant than Viking longswords in castle age at least.

[@ivansolodyankin6820]

@@zachariastsampasidis8880 i know, but i don't play burmise at all(this civ itself VERY situational) and rarely play mallians, tho enjoy when do so(idk why i play them rarely, i guess i just overlook them when i pick my civ).

[@zachariastsampasidis8880]

@@ivansolodyankin6820 I think gold intensive unit civs like Burmese Celts Japanese Malians and a few others who are also good at infantry could benefit from maps like marketplace. Especially those few with the wood bonus. It becomes easier to set up a longsword push in castle age when you have the economy to back it up

[@karlthomasson6776]

I had the idea that the best way to differentiate the sword line was to make archers, cavalry (and pikemen) very weak against buildings: to speak in terms of "realism" archers force people to stay in cover behind walls but wouldn't really damage the building itself, while obviously you can't scale a castle wall on horseback. Archers and cavalry would still be better at raiding unprotected villagers but would essentially be unable to take down a town centre by themselves. Siege units would obviously still be better than swords for raw alpha damage, but would have harder counters and be less overall price efficient, making them best as support for taking out key defensive towers or castles so the swordsmen can assault the rest of the base. Cavalry, archers and pikemen would still form the basic triangle for field battles, but when you want to actually finish off your opponents base you need to bring swordsmen to take it out...

[@birisuandrei1551]

Honestly long swordsman are surprisingly good in mid game, I've had quite a hard time against them meanwhile in the late game two handed swordsman or champions couldn't even hurt my base.

[@scevda]

Now that LS are in parity with castle age huskarl, I think stats wise they are where they need to be. Now though, the devs should be thinking how to better define the role for them. And I feel like the the more interesting unit interactions that have emerged in the recent civ additions indicates an opportunity for that. Im not suggesting this change outright but want to put forth some things to imagine: what if LS provided the same bonus of coverage for the units behind them as the hussite wagon? They have the shields after all. Or what if LS could uniquely reduce or ignore the armor of buildings but not walls (obuch like trait but to the one thing they don’t)? This could provide them a nice role in attacks of getting into rams and popping out to support sieges on key positions. Another (probably well outside the capacity of the games code) is if infantry got a defense buff when in compact group formation? Once again not necessarily these changes but these types of design experiments should be what the devs are looking at in order to find LS a home in the game space.