A Study on the Comparison of the Archer, Militia, and Knight Squads

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
  • #24956

    In light of the changes to Infantry, I am comparing three gold unit lineups and would appreciate your opinion on their stats.

    I have excluded economic aspects and focused only on Castle Age since the new tech and research changes will primarily benefit this age.

    My analysis reveals that the Militia line takes longer to upgrade and requires all upgrades to be viable, which costs 1695 resources.

    In contrast, Knights can fight effectively against the Militia line without their upgrades, saving 1440 resources.

    Similarly, Archers can kite the Infantry and may not require ballistics and Thumb Ring, saving 1050 resources.

    Finally, in the Feudal Age, the Militia line requires 540 resources for full upgrades, while the Archer line only needs 250 resources.

    The Knight line falls somewhere in between, requiring 550 resources for its Feudal upgrades.

    Overall, my conclusion is that the Militia line requires the most resources to achieve viability, while Knights and Archers can compete without needing all upgrades.

    What do you think?


    Summary: Gambesons won’t change diddly.


    I think you forgot the 2nd feudal age building for militia?


    When your comfortable to field something like man at arms you can also field a mix of cavs if you don’t have much gold, like 2 to 1 light cav knight ratio.

    In return you gain mobility and hp and all you give up is basically building damage which you won’t need until siege units kick in.

    So no viable reason to go heavy on infantry unless you have a cheesy wood-gold UU in this comparison’s light even when late game.


    I just posted about this exact problem [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/124uutb/comment/je1dir2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).

    In summary, the militia line’s higher upgrade cost in Castle Age relative to knights and archers (most of which is food), its longer research time, its food-heavy unit cost, and its lower utility due to worse base stats, lower mobility, and lack of range, and the relatively lower numbers of trash units in Castle Age make the return on an investment into the militia line at that point in the game much lower than putting a similar amount of resources into knights or archers.

    By Imp, the upgrade costs even out, trash becomes more prevalent as gold runs low (increasing the value of a “trash killer” that costs less gold than knights or archer), food eco becomes more available as players finish booming (making the food-heavy unit cost more bearable), and upgrades for knights or XBows have already come in (so players aren’t choosing between upgrades any more).

    Changes targeted at lowering the upgrade cost to get FU Castle Age Longswords relative to upgrading knights and archers would allow Longswords to see more play by increasing their ROI at that point in the game without significantly impacting their effectiveness in Imperial Age.


    > Archers can kite infantry and so may not even need ballistics and Thumb Ring (Saving 1050 res)

    Actually, look up Ornlu’s recent archer vs infantry micro video.

    Post-Gambesons, it gets difficult to micro effectively, certainly so without Thumb Ring.

    In all likelihood, infantry has become more viable at lower levels at the very least.


    So my thought is that OPs thoughts are very biased.

    Knights arent gonna trade well vs longswords with upgrades.

    Just the savings are way off when comparing.

    Knights save arguable 400ish res compared to longsswords early on depending on which opening was played, less.


    Nice one.

    Piling up small upgrades on a unit does not actually help it.

    It only works for CA bc of 2 things:

    1- Being considerably fast, the CAs can easily pick fights.

    They can survive.

    2-CAs are ranged, and ranged units’ firepower scale exponentially.

    Militia line lacks both of these aspects and are still treated like CA.

    I would expect them to get the Eagle treatment, like they could train and perhaps move faster with each age.

    No more upgrades needed really.


    The Three?

    CA out here getting no respect.



    The idea of having another tech to improve longswords really doesnt feel like the right play.

    Unless their idea was to buff the champs, which i dont think really needed a change.

    I remember Sandy Peterson saying that in medieval warfare, infantry was used because it was just cheap to field.

    Therefore he dropped a suggestion saying maybe make it so that the player somehow gets like 10-20 free militia units, and then since you already have them, people will get upgrades for them and they will see use.

    Thing is, how the hell do you “give” players those free militia?

    maybe a reword to how supplies works?

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Back to top button