The Purpose of Champions
- This topic has 22 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This has been something I’ve said for years.
The CHAMP is intended to be the showcase infantry unit yet it has no use in any meta and is best when mixed w halbs.
Nobody ever goes fast-imp champs lmao
I’ve been thinking this for a while, would it be a bad thing to move two-handed swords to castle age?
I don’t know if it changes much but a nice change for infantry civilizations.
I use champions when I don’t have any idea what to do.
They might not win against every unit, but there aren’t that many hard counters to them.
Are they a good unit?
Not really, but they have certainly helped me by being a jack-of-all-trades unit.
It’s hard to emulate in a game but:
Foot Archers didn’t roam maps in the open without fortifications or cover.
If you wanted to take territory it required infantry.
Cavalry was much more rare than is portrayed.
Especially heavy cavalry.
The game uses foot Archers and cavalry the way a real Middle Ages army would use infantry.
Essentially the game meta uses Foot Archers like they are ranged infantry which didn’t actually exist.
You forgot Druzhina Champs from Slavs.
Absolutely decimate almost all other infantry on big armies, specially on closed maps
You did not say on which map.
> Champions even lose to Halberdier and Hussar under equal resources
That’s not relevant.
You are basing your answer on a sunken market where champions cost 150 food.
By that logic, arbalesters cost 325 wood.
Champions annihilate trash units when you don’t use the market.
Champions is your best option vs
– eagles
– other infantry civs if your civ does not have arbs or powder
– onager & halb composition (if you don’t have your own SO or BBC)They also produce faster than any stable unit, and are therefore easier to mass
Well if you’re not ready for Bulgo Bagains swordsmen you will definitely lose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
