TheViper Reacts to Hera's Balance suggestions

[@jeffreychen2099]

I can't wait for Hera to react to Viper reacting to Hera

[@PurpleWarlock]

It's called GamerLegion meeting.

[@mygoodnessmyguiness]

I think they call that a conversation.

[@Dirkulos]

That's what we all want and need

[@spookynya3066]

I can't wait for SotL to react to both videos while doing some crazy math

[@somebody-anonymous]

Also unedited and with another notepad, of course, it's gonna be a gem

[@alexbrennan9928]

I want to see them implement a "No formation" formation. When toggled units will not form up into any shape, each unit instead taking the most direct individual route. I think that change would help infantry out a ton

[@kotzebrecher]

They should call it the "AoE1 formation"

[@iyziejane]

Wouldn't that create a ton of collisions?

[@renbowo]

​@@iyziejane no because when units in a formation decides to move to a point where you choose, they first try as hard as they can to go into formation and when it gets close to the destiny, depending on the formation, it goes into the "neutral" formation, which makes the units cluster into themselves, suffering a lto of collision, and stuttering a lot, which make you lose movement, actions and damage dealt on enemies

[@chronographer]

I really love the aoe2 unit formarions, it's part of what makes it aoe. But it's fun to play with some other game engines and see how different things can be for unit control. Viper should try out a game called 'beyond all reason' controlling units in that is so smooth and fun

[@alexbrennan9928]

@@chronographer I agree they're very unique and in some cases they are a skill element., However every single time I play infantry i always end up with my infantry moving away from the direction I want them to go to form back up with some other units, infantry do not gain as much from formations as cavs and archers do and IMO it has been a weakness of theirs for the entirety of AOE2.

[@Naccarat]

Now make your own balance suggestions so Hera can react to it

[@demiserofd]

I've recently been testing a reduction in the Infantry Pathing Size. Before, if you attack command 20 longswords into 10 knights, the knights usually win with 3-5 remaining. Then I reduced the Pathing Size of longswords by 25%, and repeated the same exact test, and now the infantry are actually winning, sometimes with as many as 9 units remaining! Not only that, but they path SO much smoother, getting into the fight in a fraction the time. 25% might even be overpowered, I don't know, but it doesn't make the models overlap or anything, so I think this really is the way to go with infantry.

[@tinyman1144]

What is pathing size? Because in my experience 20 longswords always win against 10 knights in current regular game, and often even just 15 or 16 longswords can win against 10 knights. (I play a lot of infantry and my general rule is 40-50% more longswords compared to knights to reliably win fights)

[@micahbonewell5994]

@@tinyman1144 the collision size of the unit aka how many units can be stacked in x tiles. Smaller collision size would mean less bumping and better pathing. Though it could look jank

[@demiserofd]

@@tinyman1144 Pathing size is what they changed on Steppe Lancers a while back; they doubled their pathing size, so they couldn't stack as close to each other as easily. It's basically the size of the circle around them. Anyway, I did quite a few tests in the editor; are you sure you're not comparing longswords with better blacksmith techs or maybe against knights without bloodlines?

[@auberry8613]

@@demiserofd I love that change thematically cause it helps carve out infantries currently shaky niche of being the "mass unit"

[@tinyman1144]

@@demiserofd Quite sure, though often we both lacked second (castle age) attack but still equal upgrades in the fights I counted for these. Of course this all from games that I rewatched for fun, so take your test results as more reliable I'm sure. no idea if both players lacking the castle age attack might have something to do with it? 10+1 vs 1+2 armor, and 9+1 vs 2+2 armor

[@joshc6493]

Hera says he wants to do these balance videos regularly - what he should do is have Viper or one of the other GL players on live to react to his takes live and have a discussion. Or maybe make this discussion a regular part of the podcast on the GL AoE channel. Viper raises great points in this video and it would be a really interesting conversation to hear Hera respond to them in a live discussion.

[@Naccarat]

They could alternate each month, would be pretty cool tbh.

[@roboyle]

I loved this content *because* it shares more than one opinion, which is sort of the conversation point you were making. The balance in the game between civs has never been so even, and the balance changes between patches has been less dynamic (and more balanced!) themselves. As only a viewer (only have AOE2HD!) I would have my own views on balance, like making tech costs dynamic (feudal techs cost more when acquired in Castle or Imperial) as the rush up through the Ages is almost the only way to go any more... a militia rush with more than three units might be interesting occasionally!

[@nicksdrumsticks]

Hera: civs need more versatility so here are some ideas Viper: changes are hard and we need to be careful I think we need these two to be chatting live so we can get some real discussion. It would also be good to hear viper comment on the higher level goals that Hera is trying to achieve here.

[@TheSrijitMajumder]

These guys need another TC session with Masmorra

[@danieltoth9742]

I get the feeling that the Militia-line's biggest problem is not just speed, but cost as well. They have so many upgrades just to make them _usable_ (not good), which slows down an already slow unit even further. The many unit upgrades are all a necessity: Longswords in Imp are damn near useless -- while Light Cav still do just fine (and that upgrade is much cheaper too). Squires is needed to stop every other unit from running laps around yours. Armor is even more critical against ranged units, since being slow means more hits taken. And even after upgrades, Longswords still don't trade well vs Knights, which are stronger _and_ faster _and_ more cost effective _and_ require less commitment. TLDR: Militia-line needs too many upgrades just to break even with other units, that also have other qualities on top, like speed or range.

[@bvzv]

You should go straight from LongSword to 2h/champ depending on what your civ is allowed to go for.

[@aralornwolf3140]

I have several "solutions" to this problem. One solution I came up with is.. 1. Make the Militia be their own unit, upgraded slightly upon each age up, but costing only food. (They become the trash unit.) 2. Increase the health, armour, and damage of the spearman line, but instead of "wood" they cost ~5 gold and food. (They keep the bonus vs Cav) 3. The Man-at-Arms begins the swordsman line. Reduce the cost slightly. They are overall better than the spearmen line. (they gain advantages vs trash units) Second solution I came up with is... Reduce the range of ranged units by 1. Slightly reduce the speed of ranged, cavalry, siege units to compensate. This makes it easier for infantry to get into range of archers faster as they effectively gained MS over the other units. Of course, the issue really is the imbalance between the unit types. Most battles were of infantry. Typically cheap infantry. Yet, infantry was countered by archers. Archers were countered by cavalry, unless they took precautions to prevent the Cavalry from flanking them. Siege weapons should be potent, but immobile. The fact is, if you have a choice between fielding a company of cavalry or a company of infantry, the cavalry is better. Worse case, they fight on foot, making them expensive infantry. Best case, they use their mobility to win battles. *Shrugs* That expense is only reflected, in AoE2, in the training cost and training time. It takes 15 hits for a Longswordsman to defeat a Knight. While it takes a Knight 7 hits to kill a Longswordsman. Thus the imbalance... knights aren't twice as expensive as Longwsordsmen.

[@Dissident_Agreessor]

Agreed, on the odd chance I'm thinking of a Militia line switch in late castle or Imp it's like cool I will have that unit in..... 10 minutes after sinking thousands of resources into getting it going. It's weird how I can get a long swordsman on a horse in castle age right out the gate, but to get a long swordsman on foot, that's a much harder prospect somehow?

[@inconemay1441]

Just remove the unit line already, they 're so DAMN useless!

[@hansenxavier4403]

MAA in aoe4 are also expensive, but they are at least viable unlike in aoe2

[@verdiss7487]

"If you give infantry 0.92 speed, Dravidians would be OP." 3:05 I know this is likely just a joke, but there is something true to it. There is a big issue that I think is holding the militia line back right now, and it's that civ bonuses for infantry are way too strong. They have to be, otherwise infantry would be utterly useless. For example, 33% faster attacking infantry still gets 0 play, if the devs wanted Japan to go infantry they might have to tune that up to 50% or even higher. Japanese infantry get, for free and in feudal age, the same benefit that Bulgarians get to their cav with a castle age unique tech, with the added benefit of Japanese champions being fully upgraded unlike Bulgarian cavalier. And, still, Japanese don't play champions almost ever. In other cases, you have Malian champions with a free +3 pierce armor, compared to Sicilians getting +2 with an imperial age unique tech; Goths with 35% cheaper infantry versus Berbers 20% cheaper cav; Vikings getting 20% extra hitpoints, whereas Franks get the same nominal 20% boost to cav but lose out on the bloodlines tech, giving the an effective cav HP bonus of only 7%. The levels that the devs have pushed infantry civ bonuses to, just to make them vaguely viable in some very niche situations with some very specific civs means that every potential infantry buff is being effectively multiplied. Giving the militia line +1 attack isn't giving it +1 attack, it's giving Japanese +1.33 attack. Giving them +20 hitpoints isn't giving them +20 hitpoints, it's giving Vikings +24 hitpoints. And so on. In my opinion, changes the the Militia line have to be dramatic, a lot more than just minor speed buffs, and they will by necessity have to be paired with reductions to the scale of infantry civ bonuses. Hopefully someday we might see a militia line which isn't: countered by everything, counters nothing. Edit: and now I watch a bit further in an Viper pretty much gets at this exact idea

[@Pacamol]

Your message makes a lot of sense. The generic militia-line is clearly too weak, and civ bonuses affecting them are definitely too extreme in an attempt to make them viable for the civs concerned. Perhaps the solution is to transfer a small portion of the civ bonuses to the generic unit, like: a little bit of the Goths' cost discount & creation time decrease, a bit of the Celts' speed boost, more attack speed from the Japanese and slightly more HPs from the Vikings.

[@georgeshaw8563]

Viper has an amazing way of making the perfect joke, without saying anything, just implication

[@GeorgerGeorger-wh7zf]

Entire video be like: "I dont necessarily agree or disagree with Hera."

[@el_kasztanejlo8555]

Only a sith deals in absolutes

[@shino4242]

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other!"

[@KamisKapi]

It depends

[@AviSandy]

Yea if you're reacting on something you must give your strong opinion

[@GeorgerGeorger-wh7zf]

@@AviSandy True

[@JimCullen]

This is exactly how a stream reaction should be done. Lots of interjections, some genuinely hilarious quips, and a lot of meaty serious responses to the ideas presented in the original video. Nice stuff!

[@JJBeauregard1]

When it comes to balance, I feel like Hera tends to look at potential changes too much in a vacuum. He rarely considers all potential areas one single change could have and at the same time fails to recognize when a change has a high chance of being useless because you can pin a suggestion to an existing example already, like with the militia movement speed thing.

[@BlueShellshock]

8:29 -- YES, I've been saying this one for a long time, reduced attack delay on Militia Line would do wonders for infantry chasedowns in the same way that Fast Fire ships can somewhat fire while chasing after ships. This lets infantry still be slow and kitable, but still able to 'catch' fleeing enemies when the gap is closed, *which is where a melee unit is supposed to do well*. 0.02 speed increase is a wuss of an upgrade. We need buffs with hair on its chest if the intention is to make real changes.

[@JarmamStuff]

"Longswords now grow more hair on their chest, adding another +1 pierce armor and 10% movement speed from not needing to wear as much metal anymore"

[@davidwhite2463]

LETS NOT BALANCE THE GAME CURRENTLY TILL WE FIX THE PATHING!!!

[@TimClauson]

Word

[@danieltoth9742]

B-but... we "fix" it every update! (But seriously, I don't understand how it keeps getting worse. Basic movement that already worked before, now fails left right and center, and yet the Mule Cart, which is a brand new advanced "building-unit" type that could cause all sorts of pathing problems with villagers, somehow *that* works almost perfectly on release. Devs are running a marathon before learning how to walk.)

[@mario97br]

@@danieltoth9742Verschlimmbessern

[@mario97br]

Idk what happened, but my answer seems gone, so again: „Verschlimmbessern“

[@achaean4780]

Wow... I was JUST typing about attack animation when you brought it up. Thats a must change imo, even if it doesn't completely solve the problem. I feel the problem with militia "feeling" slower as viper said is because even if an individual unit is faster, the whole mass of militia gets blocked by the frontmost one. If that in hits once, it stops for an eternity completing the animation and clogging everything up. And also archers can just snipe the forward unit, the only one which was presumably moving at maximum speed while the rest lags behind. Id love to see a mod with no collision and see how a group of LS does chasing xbow, not to implement like that ofc but to better visualize the effect of collisions when chasing at a small speed advantage

[@davebuikema4119]

I think we can look to real world examples for inspiration. In real life, it takes longer to learn to ride a horse and shoot a bow than it takes to learn how to swing a sword or stab with a spear. Therefore, the barracks units should all be producing MUCH faster than the current rate. This buff will not affect the balance of army compositions, nor will it fundamentally break any game mechanics. Another consideration: in aoe2 a unit or a technology costs gold to represent an investment of the economy to support the tech/unit's development. Perhaps, considering my aforementioned point of how infantry would require less training than archers/cav, the militia line could cost a little bit less gold. This fairly represents real-world economic/historical factors as to why infrantry was ever even used.

[@Blitzprogger]

When talking about improving the viability of the militia line, I tend to agree with a suggestion from Sandy Petersen, one of the original designer of Age Of Empires: The militia line should be cheaper. This was also their historical advantage.

[@Asterix958]

They are already good damn cheap, 45f 20g, almost as cheap as Pikeman 35f,25w. Difference is that Pikeman can counter Knight while Longsword counters no unit. If they counters buildings and Castles with bonus +8/+9 damage, they will be viable in my opinion.

[@geoffrey1955]

One balance change I would love to see..... Meso civ unique techs applying to Xolotl Warriors! They still miss bloodlines and armour upgrades however it would add a fun element to the game without major impact. Aztec xolotl warriors with 10 + 8 attack would be pretty cool even with missing stats...

[@micahbonewell5994]

too much work for unit that will only be seen once every 100 or 1000 games. And usually even then in low numbers.

[@JarmamStuff]

​@@micahbonewell5994 It cant require that much work, and it would be absolutely amazing to see in those rare cases

[@vaelophisnyx9873]

@@JarmamStuffyeah its literally like, 2 line changes. zero effort change.

[@myne00]

As a relative newcomer to the game, it seems silly to me that a monk can steal a building but not get the ability to make those units. It's add some interesting depth to the game if you could steal a building and then get tech your civ doesn't have. Eg Malay steal a lumber camp and then can research 2man saw. Or steal a stable as Incas and make cavalry. Etc.

[@enigmaaoe3503]

"He wants to make AOE2 a much better place, (viper sarcastically) lets go" I fucking love viper lmfao 1111

[@engineering_guy]

Woah. Viper really showing his experience. Lot of angles that Hera didn't think about.

[@garrettshort7920]

No kidding

[@Connection-Lost]

Whoa*

[@feeroldent9462]

thats a bit unfair. Its always esayer to react. I think they have just different approaches and maybe Hera thougth about some of the points Viper said and just had a different opinion. But ofc Viper will think about some thinks Hera doesnt :) Just dont think its a fair comparision. Nevertheless I agree with Viper more than with Hera :D

[@engineering_guy]

@@Connection-Lost uk english 😬

[@blackgoku2023]

​@@feeroldent9462 I am sure hera planned and thought a lot before making the video. But viper had no idea about what hera going to say,Still viper gave some good points. What hera thought for hours or probably days,Viper instantly thought better than that. Instant pointing on Infantry and Tower show us how much experienced and expert viper is

[@andrewblinn7622]

Really liked this format! You two should do this in person! A discussion and adjusting lists of changes would be exciting to watch come together.

[@olgidos6999]

Why not enhance the Infantry line by increasing their damage against buildings? This way, they'd be a middle ground between standard fighting units and rams. They'd be less effective than knights and archers, yet still have a unique role. This change could boost early aggression while still necessitating a varied unit composition, preventing any single unit from dominating the game. The developers have already attempted to encourage early feudal skirmishes by reducing wall and building HP. However, giving the militia line a purpose in early siege could be another approach. I'd also find it intriguing if they adopted the Age of Empires III mechanic of infantry throwing torches at buildings instead of engaging in melee. Perhaps giving the Arson technology a 2-range against buildings would allow multiple infantry to attack a single wall segment.

[@Connection-Lost]

Arson

[@maskarone]

Nah that's too much with arson. I think pros have overlooked the offensive capabilities of the the militia line actually. The reason the YouPudding works is because it is extremely offensive and the slow movement speed of the serjeants doesn't matter as you have to adress them. In the same way the militia line with arson could be used, they would be a threat that you have to adress or you would loose all your buildings, and then their lack of speed is okay. So giving them even more damage against buildings + arson would make this very cheesy and strong.

[@fuac]

Arson giving range to infantry against buildings would be cool. But they really need to make infantry easy to upgrade. Make the longswordsman and two handed swordsman upgrades free and instant for example. It needs drastic changes.

[@thomasmuller546]

For the Huns-Horse on nomad: i dont feel like it does alot. it has very short eyesight and more often than not even if you are on live-cam with the pony you run straight into the opponents tc and become horse-meat. There is also some luck involved of course. In some games it might be great, in others it might be 100% useless. Overall i think its okay to have this unique thingy for the huns there. balance-changes: nothing new, but before aoe does big balance-changes they should put all ressources into fixing the pathing-issue. not to an acceptable level, but to a good level. glad im more of a daut-approach to microing units so im not thaaat affected, but even for me its annoying. not only with archers but also group of 10 villis randomly running into the same corner instead of pathing through the gate.

[@MrTheQuestioner]

Thanks for giving me a chuckle from the jordan impression “diss cruh pan see”

[@ditoorkodashvili6018]

Huns horse CAN kill. You can block the boar luring villager with it.

[@Ymgarl]

0.02 speed for the militia cuts down the speed advantage for archers by 1/3rd. It's not insignificant for the early game.

[@naveenramkumar6123]

who all shouted "Laaaazzyy" when Viper said, "btw, this video where I'm reacting to Hera is also going to be unedited" ?

[@justlolit]

Heras changes were very conservitive, overall. Just small changes to see what will happen. I think its an excellent starting point.

[@Mangeol]

As someone who manages a balance mod played primarily with friends on random Civs I am really happy seeing these changes. I am a bit more aggressive sometimes but still. From my mod: Militia Movementspeed increase from 0.9 to 0.92 Man-at-arms Movementspeed increase from 0.9 to 0.925 Long swordsman Movementspeed speed increase from 0.9 to 0.93 Two handed Swordsman Movementspeed increase from 0.9 to 0.94 Champion Movementspeed increase from 0.9 to 0.945 Pike line Movementspeed increase from 1 to 1.02 Same Archer Changes Mining tech cost - impacts Archers Reduced from 100f 75w to 75f 50w Shaft Mining tech Cost - impacts Archers Reduced from 175f 75w to 150f 75w Steppe lancer - Too strong super early, falls of late. - Mongol steppe lancer HP bonus halved! from 30% to 15% Hp increased from 60 to 65 Cost increased from 70f 40g to 75f 40g - I did increase food cost instead. early castle age it is more impactful. We did somewhat have the same idea. Mine just isn't as much of a nerf in lategame. Elite Steppe lancer - Too strong super early, falls of late - Mongol steppe lancer HP bonus halved! from 30% to 15% Cost increased from 70f 40g to 75f 40g Hp increased from 80 to 85 Monaspa Training time increased from 11s to 15s Elite Monaspa Training time increased from 11s to 13 Melee armor reduced from 5 to 4 Sicilians Damage reduction increased from 33% to 40% - I actually made it 30% + (10% as a teambonus) right now for some testing but still same idea Donjon Cost reduced from 175s 75w to 175s 45w Huns bonus is an amazing idea! That I did not think about

[@Progeusz]

Wow that must feel amazing to have such similar balance ideas as another person. Good job on your mod!

[@hoooplah]

I think more variety would occur if the level of UUs was increased for a lot of civs. For too many civs they aren't viable options often enough and strong UUs tend to be over nerfed (Eg. Ghulam)

[@dirkauditore8413]

Just introduce the snare mechanic from AoE 3, that way once the swordsmen close the gap, the archers are screwed. A small unit cost decrease wouldn't hurt, either.

[@forsakenquery]

I feel Vipers critique of the infantry change actually supports the change. It won't change much maybe but it will help.

[@thefatherfarmer5282]

I think Militia just need more base hp. Or a more direct pathing and faster strike speed.

[@MadnessTW]

Good point on Steppes. The unit might need a buff, but Mongols might need a nerf. They could reduce the HP boost they get (separately from LC) and/or reduce the food bonus. I favor doing the latter first and seeing what happens.

[@Progeusz]

Light cav attack change from 7 to 6 would have been HUGE. Light cav aren't used just vs monks. They are used vs vills, skirms and crossbows too. Killing one hit slower is a very big deal. It can often be a difference between killing the vill or not, killing two vills instead of three, denying the TC or not. When fighting vs groups such things snowballs quickly. Killing a unit faster means taking less damage which lets you dominate harder as the fight progresses. Conversely killing the unit slower means taking more damage which means losing attack pwoer of your group leading to even slower damage output vs the enemy. That's a WAY bigger difference than -25 wood for towers which Viper opposed heavily.

[@robertenger3863]

Maybe some hidden extra attack range for infantry? Like .2ish? I mean they do call them LONG swords right? :)

[@botond3141]

What about a video where the GL boys come together to talk about balance everyone bring 1 or 2 changes. I would love to listen to it, you could even split the video where everyone will post their part like your changes on your chanel, hera's on his, tatoh, daut. Would love to see it, hear it.

[@ViciousSatsuma]

If you allow Donjons in Dark Age, cap them at max 1.

[@darkranger116]

"dont make a big difference" thats the entire point of his approach. Change it by a small amount and then go from there.

[@artolaganus]

Now we need Daut to upload a reaction video on vipers reaction video

[@NC7491]

Viper should create a new video series called QuickReacting as a pun for his famous Quickwalling prowess. But his videos will just have to be one word sentences like What? How? WTF? No shit! I 'd watch that.

[@ViciousSatsuma]

I think a key issue with militia/m@a is how fast people go up to feudal these days, using deer pushing, which gives militia so little time. And if you want to attack early with militia, you risk missing out on your own deer pushing. Solution: stop scouts being able to push deer.

[@verdiss7487]

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the death if the deer pushing meta, but I do feel like buffs to the militia line should be made with the intent of making them useful throughout the game, rather than specifically targeting their current use case as a ultra-early feudal unit.

[@chrisr4023]

What if there is "Stamina" bar on infantries, that can accelerate their move speed for a few seconds (maybe upto Eagle warr speed). But, the bar cannot recharge during attacking (to balance things out). Like a short range charge. I think that will be more fun than Squires, Gambisons and Supplies "treatment".

[@neildutoit5177]

Sandy Peterson's suggestion for the millita line of reducing their cost? Make them spam like they were IRL.

[@nlb137]

Viking's Chieftains should be "baked in" to most infantry. Cavalry are fast and pop efficient. They don't need to *also* be resource efficient vs. non-spear infantry. Longswords should be resource efficient vs. Knights at a baseline; Knights are pop efficient and can chose whether or not to engage. Give a small anti-cav bonus to militia line (and champion-equivalent unique units) to make that more the case.

[@TheSceletonx]

I honestly think infantry should be buffed more significantly (and if that makes some civs broken, just nerf the bonus that make it broken - and move from there. (later on you can introduce different bonuses for those nerfed civs etc).

[@Akimbob321]

The Horse on Nomad can actually kill something :D In my first game with the horse, I used it to body block a vill which was luring a boar. :D

[@superjarri]

I suggested some time ago to add a "raise shield stance" that would add a +2 pierce/melee armor and -2 attack. You can switch it on or off like ratha melee or range attack. This way, you have to micro them and raise your shield against archers and lower it to attack.

[@88porpoise]

I think a big issue wirh towers is, if tower rushing is actually a decent strategy it is bloody frustrating for most players. Even when not broken, it is just not fun for most people to play against. So it ideally would be something that would work occasionally as a surprise strategy but generally be bad for most regulwr players level.

[@4everdex]

I feel like towers should be buffed in a way that makes them better as a defensive tool, but not as an aggressive tool. I don't want any more tower rushes than there are already, but I feel like making a tower a better option to defend against early aggression would be great.

[@seancsnm]

Viper: Are Celts MAA good? Every

[@SHiX11]

Hahahah! The energy with which viper starts the reaction. Lol! 😂😅 Absolutely hilarious. I wish in their combined videos they keep this energy alive

[@pedrocarvalho7480]

Give scilians a new bonus "no prerequisite for military buildings", much better than the donjon idea

[@Omni0404]

I love how the notepad file is named "balance video" lol. Bro made that in advance and saved it to his desktop like a champ.

[@CirrowProductions]

This is my solution for the infantry problem. Instead of having all these upgrades that were added to increase their stats, simply have them be trainable from most buildings. Houses, archery ranges, stables, etc. This gives them a unique role in the game, you can spam infantry if you're in a tight spot because you have so much production.

[@samadams2203]

Purely as a viewer, I feel like AoE2 is very healthy right now, apart from the perennial problem of infantry being rare to see due to nicheness. I see lots of games with tech switches, early/lategame play and a good mix of cav, archers and siege. I also feel like the recent monk changes were good. So uhh, buff infantry somehow, I aint an expert.

[@SimoneBattaglia94]

I think early game is pretty one-sided at high-to-pro level right now.

[@floriangailliegue6760]

maybe reducing slighty the collision radius of the militia line could help them not bumping around when chasing units

[@holasmay542]

I can confirm - Hunnic Horse on Team Games can be pretty strong with gathering sheep for team and scout.

[@dodgydondbo1361]

Entire video is viper saying “lol no” to suggested changes, and vipers not wrong.

[@Fendeguard]

I'm loving this rivalry.

[@mundolincurve7577]

I don't see why the horse in Nomad is an issue. Huns with no houses and wood maluses are pretty hard to play on nomad, you can't house wall and your fishing ship production starts very late. At least, Huns can scout the map early to know more about their surroundings and potential threats.

[@yveskelders6840]

We always talk about Lierrey getting nerfed with the upgrade of archers being more expensive, but Vinchester went faster up to imp and arbs almost every game as well. He has been performing a lot less since then as well.

[@flyingsteaks]

5:32 damn that Celt infantry comparison was really good by Viper, so yeah I guess if you wanted to buff the movement speed (And I particularly think they should) it would need to be by way more than 0.02

[@LokirofRoriksted]

I agree with hera on hating double+ nerfs for specific problems, but he also gave a monaspa double nerf and is presenting a few double buffs which I disagree. I still remember bulgarian's nerf. They lost paladin, nerfed konniks HP AND nerfed their attack rate by a ridiculous ammount all in the same patch. My idea for infantry, since he's comparing the movement speed to archers and hc, I'd say, just nerf archers and hc movement speed to 0.9 or something. Maybe add squires for archers to compensate. I think aoe2 buildings need to be destroyed more quickly than they currently are. That will surelly shake up the meta and people will stop all this walling spending like 50 resources to block hundreds of resource worth army. I mean, they can still wall, but it wont last as long as it is now where a single 25w house can keep 4 man at arms hitting it for 4 minutes

[@dylanfalk3243]

Donjon I’m dark age, no arrows till feudal, and it has to be made within 15 squares of your starting tc till feudal

[@HyunAOP]

2 minutes in I was laughing at Viper saying LAZY followed by him saying WE WONT

[@matteo.pilgrim]

Radical suggestions... -Pikemenline should have less hp... buuut... have 1 range! Make them squishy in close combat, but amazing when bunched up. -Knightline should have small charge attack.

[@CommissarLORDBernn]

Kamayuks already have the 1 range. I could see it being that upgrading from spearmen to pikemen gives them +1 range, then buff Kamayuk to have 2 range instead of 1.

[@patonnight]

The issue is with that 1 range, pikemen would be better than militia-line overall, which isn't a good thing. You can see how much advantage that +1 range give on pathing and melee fights on SOTL videos. It is not a small feat.

[@alexkfridges]

No

[@xShikari]

​@@patonnightIt's probably difficult AF, but they could program them to only have +1 range to cavalry.

[@Sids1192]

Hera talking of how tower rushes are no longer a threat. Someone needs to invite him for T90's small maps series.

[@minikawildflower]

Wouldn't Hera's suggestion of giving a buff to the xbow price kind of counteract making infantry more viable? I guess most militia/MAA play is usually done by the time many xbow are out, but it does seem like these two changes could counteract each other a bit.

[@curtsnewbrand]

The problem with the proposed Bulgarian change is that by the time you reach castle age, you've already fallen so far behind. They need a minor eco buff that hits a bit sooner.

[@Gnalistair]

From a civ specific point of view: if we take NAC, a tournament with lots of variety in maps (plus random bans) I think the civs we never saw were bulgarians, sicilians, celts, and vikings. So those are all ones to look at buffing. I think a buff to M@A/drush play looks appropriate, maybe look at improvi g production speed/research time/research cost. Vikings would be fine again if archer pathing was improved also, although their water play has been overshadowed a bit by new civs like dravidians/bengalis/armenians. I don't envy the devs, though. Balancing is a tough proposition.

[@philwithcheese]

Dark age donjon and sargents has an EASY fix. Put the castle age buff on sargents behind an upgrade tech. Currently it's the equivalent of free xbow tech.

[@tobiasobermayr501]

Militia line needs to either become cheaper or - get way more HP/ Armor. They are slow, no range and little HP/Armour compared to other Units like Cavalry. Also they have no bonus against anyone, basically, right? They have nothing going for them. Somehow it must become more viable to get to a strong army force. What about eliminating all Upgrades? The militia line automatically researches upon the next age. This would make them at least a quick punch. If something is slow you gotta make it strong. There is no reason they can't have higher pierce armor than a mounted knight. A footsoldier with shield should actually be better at dodging arrows and fending them off. This would make them strong, even if they are slow. And you can mass them to be an anti everything unit basically. Atm they are a little too weak and too many upgrades to tech into vs knight line and way too slow and weak pierce armor vs Archers. So they lose to the other 2 rock paper scissor teams. It's as if militia line is soapbubbles that loose to all other ones and kinda beat paper (halbs). I think I found the solution make them somewhat good against anything. They are already good vs. buildings and trash now solve the archer and calv and tech problam and you have yourself a fine unit that actually is a nice buffer inbetween the rock paper scissor triangle. This could open up new strategies of combined armies which actually is historically accurate since there was seldenly all archers fighting all footsoldiers or all knights etc. Love my own idea here.

[@SimoneBattaglia94]

A wild suggestion to help drush and m@a comeback: nerfing fast walling. How? Making unit hit through diagonal walls. So you either have to wall 1 tile away or do straight walls. It sometimes already happen as a bug but I think it might be a useful feature. I agree on the tower discount. But another option would be maybe instead going from 50/125 to 50/110. Which forces you to have wood economy behind towers but makes them more viable. Another nerf I would propose? slightly lowering the gather rate for deer (half between sheep and boar) so they become more of an extra food than a fast food thus making early scouting a bit more viable and luring a bit less worth. I agree on xbows discount but disagree on arbs discount. Some units collision box should be also slighty changed for better pathing and engagements.

[@klip3278]

Here is how u fix Militia: Make Squires a feudal age tech and properly scale the unique melee armor bonuses.

[@Cristuuu]

you guys worry about such little things, where's war elephant +2 speed and +100 hp? or where is make onagers and bombard cannons 200 gold more expensive? or make infantry actually attack instead of walking in circles and die before attacking

[@davyw.2571]

I commented somewhat the same on Hera's video: I think the infantry line definitely needs something to make it more viable. Hopefully the pros of AoE2 can apply their influence to the devs and finally make something positive happen for this unit.

[@puneetgoyal728]

Huns horse doesn't let others explore with sheep, and steals most of the sheep from the map

[@JJBeauregard1]

Hera: "I absolutely hate double buffs and double nerfs!" Also Hera: "Let's buff/nerf this globally available unit/building but also buff/nerf civ-bonuses of the civs that regularly make these units/buildings we just changed."

[@ictchampion9329]

Why nerf the steppe lancer strategy? Didn’t hera want variety in strats? FC strats are really risky and can often backfire. No nerf needed.

[@Y2JKB8]

I think pros always forget that 90% of the players are under 1300 so things that are too strong for them could be considered weak at lower levels because of the skill difference, I think the biggest example are monks, no one can use monks well at low levels so you only see them for relics, when you do changes you need to consider how it will impact both worlds I usally play automatch with friends and we get people in the 800-1200 range and I see way too many knights because they are easy, once you have the eco running you just spam knights, avoid pikes and maybe camels and hit everything else, one of the most common things that I see are mass paladins destroying TC and sometimes even castles, they don't get much damages from arrows and pikes are too slow to catch them, the skills aren't good enough to stop that so games end like that, I would like to see the knight line (and similar units like Monaspa, Leitis, etc.) get a big nerf or at least reduce by a lot their ability to destroy buildings because people play scouts into knights all the times

[@coolblade23]

why not just give bulgars fortified churches ? it would kinda fit them historically anyway

[@atmyyoutube]

The secret for infantry is for it to be cheaper, not faster.

[@micahbonewell5994]

Supplies is already a thing, the Malay Already have their gold cost removed. It hasn't seen them be a centerpiece unit. All the best infantry unique units are fast ones: Berzerks, Woad Raiders, Samurai, huscarls, ghulam etc. I could see an argument for more melee or pierce damage, or for removing reducing the unit upgrade cost e.g. Man-at-arms, longswords etc.

[@WillyMacShow]

i want the chaos. Bring them towers back. those games were amazing haha

[@alexhu2384]

I think making Attack Move an effective tool for kiting might help Crossbows more viable tbh

[@jasonsmith1950]

I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with double nerfs/buffs, except that they are easier to get out of control and become too much. As a hypothetical comparison, I think having Monaspas cost 5 more gold, take 2 seconds longer to train and require 6 monaspa/knight per extra attack (instead of 5) would be a less serious nerf than removing all of their melee armor (which would be a very poor change, but would technically only be a single nerf).

[@iyziejane]

Nerfing archer micro is a strong buff to infantry - you can use them as a front line for an archer force, as many of the campaign missions use these more mixed armies than we see in online play. Archers are now like a light version of siege where they have to be protected.

[@hansenxavier4403]

Devs accidentally achieved nerfing archer micro by making pathing absolutely terrible in recent patch and every pro's instant reaction is "great let's go scout and knight".

[@iyziejane]

@@hansenxavier4403 That's what I'm referring too. I think they all expect the pathing to be reverted. But if it isn't changed back then I'm saying the meta might evolve to mix in infantry with the archers to protect them.

[@damiangilz]

it would be interesting to allow ppls play their own general configs, maybe first only test in offline mode against the AI.

[@Voxtrum]

I'm an idiot, wouldn't adding a new category of "bonus", i.e. map bonus, specific to each civ achieve a lot of what Hera is asking for? E.g. Huns unique map bonus; Horse on Nomad. Bulgarians Unique map bonus; Cheaper TC's on land maps. That said I'm am viewing this entirely from the perspective of entertaining draft picks in a s-tier tourney.

[@dbaz8489]

I think some of these changes happened to help out newcomers to online play. For example, they would get blasted by tower rush strat. Buffs and nerfs need to satisfy pros and beginners, which is a wide range to think about.

[@zenitsuagatsuma9075]

funny how viper didnt mention in the end how he predicted the light cav nerf

[@MoRDekai1364]

What would you suggest to make Bulgarians appealing civ? I play them all the time and they always feel so resource and time consuming. How about we add a new regional unit (just for variety ): a war boat. With different skins for the Slavic and island nations

[@another816]

Tbh, I want the militia line to be played more often. idk, make them cheaper, anything, add them armour at least against ranged units.

[@voidgods]

Although it can be argued that Hera is currently the best player overall, I trust Viper's decades of experience more, in understanding how these changes would impact the game

[@__lim494]

Just Militia line +2 damage vs all the trash line

[@WillyMacShow]

I think the militia line is actually in a decent place. Champion has its place, MAA have its place. The dark age militia really doesn't have a good place imo. And I think making it a bit faster will help. Please give celts dark age bonus back

[@donjoncraig6804]

why not make mongol get a UT for their light cav/lancer hp and make the nomads tech a civ bonus.

[@walkermyers3808]

How much SHOULD we increase militia move speed?

[@synt4x1e]

Dravidians op = viper happy 😂

[@BrageHe]

Give militia line an upgrade that applies a slow to targets