You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.4 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Top 5 worst infantry civilizations.
Bottom
Topic Subject:Top 5 worst infantry civilizations.
Draco_Wolfgand
Clubman
posted 05-03-18 10:26 AM ET (US)         
So, on here, by "infantry" I, again, mean both Barracks and Academy units. I will be looking both at what upgrades does the civilization lacks, how much does the lacks of those upgrades harms the civilization, and generally how much reason do they have to use the infantry units they do have. With that said, lets get started:

#1: Egyptians.

It is a fairly small club, the club of civilizations which have neither Legions nor Centurions for their infantry. Of these four civilizations( The Egyptians, the Shang, the Hittites and the Palmyrians ), the reason why the Egyptians get the worst infantry is because both the Palmyrians and the Shang have bonuses that give then a potentially devastating Tool Age Axeman rush. The Egyptians have no such advantages going for then. Their only economical bonus kicks in on the Bronze Age, and while one could argue this should on paper give then a decent Short Swordsman rush if they feel like it, on pratice they tend to shift to Chariots by this point.

#2: The Hittites.

Once upon a time, the Hittite had solid infantry with their fully upgraded Centurions. Today, though, since they lost that upgrade... Not anymore. The reason why they are this high on the list is because although their infantry is technically better then the ones of the civilizations below, in terms of sheer brute power, they lack any economical bonuses that would give then a viable Tool or Bronze Age infantry rush.

#3: The Shang

I was indecise whether to put then, or the Palmyrians, in here. Interestingly, both civilizations have a actually really powerfull early game infantry: The Shang lower villager cost means they can get more villagers faster, thus get to the Tool Age and unlock those Axeman faster: Whereas the Palmyrian villagers, although more expensive, work faster, and they also start with 50 extra food( What is suppose to make up for their more expensive villagers, but if you want to take your chances, can also be used for a Stone Age rush. ) What holds both civilizations back is... Again, their infantry becomes useless on the Iron Age. I decided I would rank Shang infantry as slightly worst then Palmyrian infantry, because the Shang Iron Age comes with the extra downside of their powerfull economical bonus kind of stopping being relevant, as by this point the 50 food cost of the villagers is less important then the population slots they occupy. Not that you will be using much infantry with either civ by this point, but hey, worth mentioning.

#4: The Palmyrians.

It is kind of sad that the four civilizations I put in here all have shitty infantry for about the same reason, so instead of me explaining why does Palmyrian infantry sucks, let me explain why do the Palmyrians get the best infantry out of any of the "Legion-less and Centurion-less" civilizations: First of all, they do get the Phalanx upgrade. Though this doesnt seem like bragging material, Phalanxes actually do a pretty good job out of countering non-Elephant cavalry, so there is that. Granted, so do the Hittites, but as I said before, the Palmyrians arguably get much better Bronze Age and Tool Age infantry, not so much because of their infantry, though, as because of their economy. Also, they have, on my humble opinion, the best economy out of any civilization on this list. As of DE, they got Coinage: Though they lack "Plow" and "Irrigation", neither one of these affects their farming-Rate-Only the amount of food per farm, what means that this is more of a penalty for their wood economy then their food economy. So they have, from the beggining to the end of the game, both the fastest farmers and the fastest miners, what is probably what matters the most if you are triyng to mass infantry quickly. Since-All-Of the civilizations above have bad infantry on virtue of lack of crucial upgrades, I am thus forced to use their economy as a tie breaker. Palmyrian infantry... Is still going to be bad, though.

#5: The Persians.

Finally, a civilization that gets Legions. This one doesnt get Centurions, though... Or... Anything, on the Academy. Since I personally find Academy war units to be far superior to their Barrack counterparts, they could not just not be on this list. Now, the reason why they are this low is because I was triyng very hard to give Legions some credit, and say TO BE FAIR... As the Persians lack Chariots, and their archers have terrible range they have to appeal mostly to Barracks infantry as their way to counter Priests( Though I am suppose their Composite Bowman could also do... ). And, with both fully upgraded Legions and Priests, they can, on theory, probably do a Legion/Priest combination, following a similar logic to the Choson, except... You know... Not as good.

The problem here is: Who the fudge actually uses the Persians for their Legions anyway? Oh, and their Tool Age Axeman rush is also good, again, on virtue of their economy. Though probably not as good as most of the civilizations above, sans the Hittites( Who in hindsight I honestly wonder if I should put lower on the list... As the Persians have arguably the worst Bronze Age infantry, especially before DE came along... )
AuthorReplies:
chab
Clubman
posted 05-03-18 04:47 PM ET (US)     1 / 4       
this is ridiculous, persians have fully upgraded legions
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 05-06-18 06:00 AM ET (US)     2 / 4       
I agree. But this rank is a personal selection, so you should not take it as absolute truth.

I feel that Draco_Wolfgand is biased against barrack units, even though they are cheaper, faster and can cost less population than academy units. I feel barrack units are not as useless. A legion has the same missile weapon resistance as a Centurion, but the faster speed of the former allows to deal with missile units better than the centurion ever do (unless you are greek).
Draco_Wolfgand
Clubman
posted 05-06-18 06:57 AM ET (US)     3 / 4       
Yeah, I will admit I am kind of biased here . I will admit Legions are a bit better then Centurions at dealing with ranged units: In fact, with all the shield upgrades up, they even counter Composite Bowman and can circunstancially counter Chariot Archers if the latter dont have enough room to maneuver. However, they kind of need all the shield upgrades in order to do that effectivelly, and even then, you probably wont be killing many Horse Archers with your Legions. Since they cannot counter archers that are of the same age as then( That is, Broad Swordsman cant really counter Bronze Age archers, and Legion cant really counter Iron Age archers ), I cannot truly call then a archer "counter". That is how I look at it, anyway.

Also, another thing worth pointing out is, while most of the upgrades that the other civilizations on this list lack only begin to matter on the Iron age, the lack of Hoplites starts to matter straigh up from the Bronze age. What means that technically, the Persians have unquestionably the worst Bronze Age infantry of any civilization on this list, even if it is debatable whether the same goes for the Iron Age
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 05-13-18 07:32 AM ET (US)     4 / 4       
Well, considering that every civ in bronze has hoplites except the persians, I'd have to agree with them being lowest tier infantry in Bronze Age.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames