Yet it was more effective than knights before the patch
When I say imo the light cav denomination is a mistake, I just needed to ask myself this question: What is more likely, that the devs lied, forgot how the game works or that they did a little mistake? The latter is the most likely imo. The steppe lancer do beat archers… just like the cataphract and the boyar. The point here is that by “weak” they mean “less effective than your average cav” (however I’m surprised you say LC loses to archer, I might learn something new. Even cost-effectively?). For the 2nd TC, I don’t see what makes you think it’s useless now. Really, even if you start building it after you clicked castle it’s a win for you. In almost all your games you will need several TC for your eco, this bonus will always be waaaaaaaay more relevant that the feitoria has ever been. As of the kipchak, let’s make an analogy: you see teutonic knights? Wins against everything melee (save some exceptions) but lose against range units. Same for the kipchaks, except that if you don’t focus your attention on them they will get deleted so fast, unlike teutonic knights (some people have so much trouble using them they want to buff it back, which isn’t necessary either). For the comparison with AoE3, it’s true there are differences (ok biggest difference is that buildings are weaker and there are more anti-buildings options) but my point is that original bonuses can be balanced without making them useless (be it in a culture of Aoe3 or in AoE2)
A HUGE question :
is the creator of this topic a Cuman picker ?
It might not be seen as a "dirty word " these days , so I am just asking. But even if he is, he might not tell us. Cuman pickers just love the Lancer abuse. But he might be correct in one aspect /not that I care so much but … / - the Lancer now is too much weaker than it was, I mean - it is supposed to be weaker than it was since it WAS TOO OP but to what extent ??
No. The beta forums were never unsealed (for good reason) or you’d see I was vocal on how strong the Cumans were immediately, and how I thought best to handle them. I played the Cumans after every new change (nerf) and after every change I still had the same critique. It’s the same critique I level now. They should not have plate barding armor. The Steppe lancer was too good. They were overnerfed for the Cumans’ sins. How many people were around complaining about the Tatars’ Steppe lancers?
The Cumans should not have Plate barding armor because if they reach imperial they should have some sort of disadvantage to compensate for the fact that they are so incredibly dominant early. The fact that the cumans are an earlygame nightmare to deal with should now be apparent to anyone and everyone. So why do they get a fully upgraded Hussar (with a fifth of the creation time), fully upgraded Paladin, and Siege Onager + Siege Ram, albeit lacking siege engineers?
We should not care that they are a “cavalry civilization” in this regard, because they have so much going for their cavalry that even if you took away Plate barding it’d still be ridiculously strong. Much like you don’t have Plate Mail armor from the Goths and the Goths are still going to absolutely overwhelm you with infantry. Why does the Cumans, a civ with an extremely strong, legitimately dangerous feudal pressure game get access to top tier lategame tools?
You can nerf the other aspects of the civ to bring them in line and ruin what’s unique about them (because they WILL get nerfed, you either do it right or you change seven other things to avoid doing it right) or you can take away something they had absolutely no good reason to have in the first place. We need to cut Plate barding armor. That should have been the very first change. That, the cost adjustment, and the removal of the Pierce armor on the Lancer. I’ve already said it once and I’ll say it again. Removing the last armor tech on the cavalry fixes everything. It makes them really want to use that effective siege tree to help address archers, it justifies the bonus movement on the cavalry, it pushes a cuman player to make a full army including siege and gives them a real weakness to overcome, that being the weakness to Archers. They have all the tools, in Siege ram and Siege onager, to deal with it.
I am not a Cuman player. I don’t want to see Cuman balance adjustments every week for the next year. I want to make the right change now and then not have to ruin the last semblances of what makes the civ unique over the next six months. It’s that simple.
Here’s the Viper doing the feudal all-in against a top 100. The opponent got to castle age and at that point Viper was so far ahead it didn’t matter. Maybe we don’t want this to be a thing. But I certainly don’t want the civ that did this to me to hit imperial and then have everything the Cumans have right now on top of it if I survive at all.
Steppe Lancer Comparison Before and After Patch
Here is good video to see.From my understanding main point was when they tightly packed or bunched besides that everything was actually seems close normal.
Everyone. Tatars would insta win as soon as they touched Steppe Lancers. Being slightly slower wouldn’t change their offensive stats.
They are still more used than knights by pro players on Cuman, they are cheaper than knights, they can kill quickwalls super fast… Go at 1:58:00 on this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XbQoMacX14 and tell me if this feels overnerfed?
They already get a bad monastery, an horrendous navy, and the single worst university of the game. Their HCA and Elite Kipchaks aren’t as efficient as normal cav archers (however the latter is still good for gold savings) and their Elite skirms are disadvantaged as well. If you still think they are too strong then an infantry nerf or Steppe Husbandry nerf feels better for the civ’s theme than removing a cav upgrade. For instance, removing Champions would make them closer to Huns/Tatars, while removing the last infantry armor upgrade would make them closer to Magyars.
Rams die to villagers dude. You need to combine them with towers for them to work, and while this combo is good, it will stretch your eco super hard, which makes it difficult to pull off, and unforgiving if you fail. Rams are so wood intensive that you won’t be able to use your 2nd TC for a while. Oh, and did I mention that said second TC delays your castle time?
Basic camels, overnerfed Steppe lancers according to you, and Paladins that go 5% faster. I don’t think these are as good as Lithuanian, or Persian. And if SH on hussars feels too good then nerf it, not the whole cav.
Are you sure? (The reason why goths are bad (+buff ideas) - #22 by SirWiedreich)
“no good reason” Like not being plagued with bad Cavaliers while waiting for Paladins?
Oh, did you read the rest of the posts? If you did, your remember my point of Cataphracts (1 pierce armor) and Boyars (1 pierce before elite) that are weak to archers while having more health than Steppe lancers? The reason for that is that they are also slow and expensive castle units. The SL is the opposite of that: a fast, cheap stable unit. Unless you nerf these aspects until it gets unrecognisable, improving its attack stats will easily overcome its weaknesses (not to mention they would be more than able to end the game in castle way too easily, before lacking an upgrade matters)
But people already use their siege (and add to that Kipchaks are less gold intensive than foot archers while being bulkier). This, minus cavalry armor, really doesn’t sound like an archer weakness at all, but like a weakness to any decent cavalry without SL abuse.
Nice vid. If you could have done the effort of including this one as well, updated less than 1 week before, it would have been even nicer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crHaOkcuniE
2 Likes
Oh look, another person who has no care whatsoever for design and wants to ruin everything unique about the civ just because they want to keep their overpowered nonsense.
Just writes off wholesale that Steppe Husbandry is an absolute powerhouse tech in Imp and instead of nerfing the bits around it, suggests nerfing the tech (again limiting unique factors in design as opposed to nerfing excesses, which is a horrible design philosophy) instead of the problem, that being they come out with full upgrades.
Worse yet, this particular person has honestly proposed that the Elite Kipchak isn’t as efficient as “normal cav archers” despite the fact that they shred frontline units (esp halbs) faster than any other cavalry archer in the game. The only reason they would say something so patently absurd is if they are comparing them in a 1v1 scenario without any frontline units. I’d elaborate why this would be a dumb comparison but that’d give this RP a chance to waste even more thread space by snipping posts.
Lastly, this particular intellectual has suggested that the Boyar and the Cataphract have weakness against archers because they have the same pierce armor as the Steppe Lancer. Oof. Must have forgotten the massive HP difference, or didn’t look up the stats prior to their completely theorycrafted opinion on the subject. Just gonna write this responder off until they have something of legitimate value to say.
Is this answer serious.
Yeah, that’s why everyone play Mayan, Persian, Briton… Because Cuman = OP!
I said either that or removing some infantry techs. Would you mind reading everything?
Welp, you’re the one who said Kipchaks are overnerfed as well, right? And I said that they are worse than normal HCA but that they are cheaper gold wise and bulkier than foot archers, and I could have added than they are better against rams than even Mangudai. They have their uses, but can’t fulfill the same role as FU HCA.
I literally mentioned that both units get more HP than Steppe Lancer. And it’s common wisdom than both of these units are much more susceptible to arrows than Knights, and less efficient than Light cav vs archers as well since they are slower and more expensive. But instead of providing actual counter argument as to why you disagree you just try to make me look dumb.
1 Like
In reverse order, because time is of the essence and your post has no structure just like last time so I feel no need to answer in a structured manner:
-
My point on the Cata and Boyar is you are claiming that they are weak to archer fire and that is simply not true from a practical sense. They take the same amount of damage from an archer, but speed and HP makes a world of difference against archers. Cavalry innately has both. The exceptions are the scout line (+2 pierce) and the Steppe Lancer (legitimately weak against archers unlike any of your other suggestions of a “weak against archer” cavalry) which is why I laughed you off. I’ve made the mistake of giving you something to snip here instead of, again, laughing you off, so I’ll stop here.
-
I never, once, said the kipchak was overnerfed. You spend too much time snipping things you don’t like to understand the broader picture. I don’t think they needed to be nerfed in the first place. I think we should have taken away the Armor upgrade instead. I think that one, serious nerf, could have made the difference that we’re trying to make with ten or so thus far and more on the way.
I’ll just give you the snip bait against my better judgement and state, unequivocally, that the kipchak is not worse than normal HCA. If you’re using the HCA in an army composition, the Kipchak is almost always better. If you use them both for raiding, Kipchaks are better in open areas (higher volume of fire makes it particularly lethal in trade) and the HCA has a durability edge in areas with fortifications and TC’s. Any other scenario is unrealistic for the Kipchak to be assumed to take. You might make the case that there are concessions to be made for the Kipchak and the rational person will state those are well worth it. If you disagree on anything I’ve just stated, you are wrong, and that’s where I’ll end this discussion (you being wrong on the subject) as attempting to convey why you are wrong is time I am not willing to commit to the subject at the time. Though, if someone is genuinely curious as to why you are wrong I’d take the time to explain it in detail. You don’t seem like the kind of person to want to learn why you’re wrong.
- I’d be okay with taking infantry techs, but I’d really need to see a serious rollback of the other nerfs they took before I’d see it as necessary once they take Plate barding away. I recommended taking Champion, Plate barding, and cutting the amount of TC’s in feudal to 1 (in beta, multiple tc feudal never saw the light of release) and that’s still the list of things I would have had done to the Cumans on day 1. I want them to have halb to answer cavalry (heavy cav was set to be a problem if they did) and champion just seemed excess to me. But again, oof, nerf Steppe Husbandry why don’t we. I really don’t care what your other suggestions were, because you missed my point (or made my point, not sure which) by suggesting nerfing the last unnerfed unique bit of the civilization because it’s a problem tech.
Here’s a crazy idea: Civs should present problems to their opponents. Sorta like how the Persians, Mayans, and Britons do. Did I just step on your opening line? Guess I did. It was just off the page.
When you are ready to acknowledge the following:
- Steppe Husbandry is too strong as is
- Nerfing unique aspects of a civ when there are other options to address them is a terrible designing strategy
then we’ll have a discussion where you deserve more than my ire and my laughter.
Both the Cataphract and the Boyars are slower, harder to mass, and more gold intensive than Steppe lancers. Elite boyar has 2 base pierce armor, but is slower, has less HP and is weaker than two Elite steppe lancers while costing almost as much gold. Only in team games will they be a better choice vs archers. Cataphracts, even with these settings, will always be worse since they lack so much upgrades, are stuck at 1 pierce armor and yet they are even more expensive to FU.
Not only they are faster, cheaper, easier to mass than Boyars/Catas but they are ranged units, so they will also be more efficient while attacking.
Ah?
Then what is the meaning of these suggestions?
I always read the whole post first, then I re-read it to be sure I understand it, and then I quote the parts I want to discuss (usually a good chunk of the tex) in the relevant part of my answer so that people can easily see what I’m talking about.
Ok ok I was being a bit harsh, but they can’t compare to say, Japanse HCA. They are better at killing rams, they are cheaper to use, but they are worse at being a power unit.
Because you’re Cuman and you lack Bracer. So you will avoid normal CA for the same reason that you avoid them on Persians: they are suboptimal, while Kipchacks are balanced around missing that tech. And that’s why I first compared Kipchaks to FU cav archers: since they are preferable for Cuman, they replace the HCA. What can the other civs do (or not) with their HCA that the Cuman E.Kipchak can or can’t do? That’s the relevant question.
Elite Kipchaks only have 5 base damage, and while they have 2 additional arrows, they also fire slower…
They are more durable in almost all matchups, since they have more HP and have 1 base melee armor (and no, you can’t micro even Kipchaks forever, especially in larger scale battles)
Ok I’m not sure what you mean here. Are these scenarios unrealistic for both Kipchaks and HCA (then the units are equal on this point) or they are unrealistic for Kipchaks but HCA have an use there (then it means it’s a downside of Kipchaks compared to HCA)
Welp, I guess that concession is having to build a castle? Sounds fair
Before getting involved in these forums, I thought Goths were almost too good post-imp and that longbow deathballs are invincible. I had occasions to change my mind on these points among some others. Another example, on the thread about Goths I mentionned, I recently suggested that Goths, along an actual eco bonus, should get Paladins to help them when spamming low pop efficiency units isn’t the answer (and they were still going to lack an armor upgrade. It fits Goths much better than Cuman to lack this) People disagreed, brought counter-arguments (without making fun of me) and since those were good enough and I was aware it wasn’t the ultimate solution I admitted it was better to find another solution.
Ok, let’s forget that Steppe Husbandry sounds like Perfusion (ie. not so unique) for LC and CA and let’s agree that it’s essential to keep it that way. And now, we take away Champion, and even their last infantry armor so that their Halberdiers aren’t top tiers. Now you can spam Light cav at lightning speed but lacking Bracer on Skirms and armor on Halbs will balance it out in trash fights, and you will have no good trash killer either.
Btw why this and not Blast Furnace? It would nerf both the late-game cav and infantry, and would make the SL having a faster firing rate more acceptable. The Hussar would be less effective at raiding and thus no need to touch SH. Their Cavaliers wouldn’t be as bad as with less armor while waiting for Paladin. Sure it wouldn’t make SL that much weaker vs.archers but since it balances so much more stuff it feels like a better change.
Yes, and as it is, the Steppe lancer can be a tool for the Cumans to do so (cf.all the game that happened between 19 December and now where they were used quite a lo on Cuman). And I brought the meta civs to the discussion because you made the Cuman feudal age look insanely strong. But since in 1v1 early game is more important than late game, then why aren’t Cuman more used on say, Arabia (their siege/TC shenanigans are much more seen on Arena than on open maps) I even provide a game where Viper uses the ram strat you deemed nightmarish vs a top 5 player and lose, while the one you show, while not to be disregarded entirely, is played vs a top 100 player so there is a bigger skill gap.
Welp, I never denied it was, the infantry nerf being a way of making the Cuman worse in another domain to make up for that
That’s why I proposed the infantry change as well
I clearly said I didn’t want both. I was maybe wrong on Steppe husbandry nerf being acceptable for the civ’s feeling and that’s all. I should also have said the infantry nerf is better cuz nerfing SH would make their HCA even worse.
2 Likes
Okay, we’re skipping the Kipchak bit, because you gave some ground on it, despite still being flatly wrong on the subject I’m not going to carry on beating a dead horse.
On the subject of dead horses, Steppe lancers are weak to archers because of their low HP. You can assert that the UU’s you’ve mentioned are “weak to archers” and then state “since you can throw more steppe lancers in for the same cost” that doesn’t make the UU weak to archers, nor does it make Steppe lancers any better. You’re just assessing it without population efficiency being accounted for. You keep writing off things that don’t matter to you, I’m going to keep writing you off for it.
The UU’s you’ve mentioned, per head, are significantly more durable to archers than the Steppe lancer. That was the point. If you missed it then, you have it now.
If you didn’t get the meaning of my statement on the kipchak changes, you didn’t read my post at all. My contention is that it never needed to be changed at all. “Overnerf” is something you spewed out because, again, you didn’t get my point. They’re still totally usable, and they do what they need to do, but they shouldn’t have been changed at all because they weren’t the problem then and they aren’t the problem now. The armor on the Cav is the problem. It’s a true shame you won’t just read what I have to say on the matter instead of finding something little to gripe about in my statement, quote it, and then force me to re-iterate the same exact context three times now.
as I said, skipping the kipchak stuff, but you literally couldn’t be more wrong on the subject and it’s ironic that I’m entertaining this discussion in spite of it.
Why not Blast furnace? Because you never read anything I said on the matter or else you’d know precisely why not blast furnace. Because the Hussar is way, way too good as a frontline for the Kipchak to be okay as is. Taking away blast furnace doesn’t nerf their ability to soak damage and attract arrow fire from what is an extremely powerful backline unit that has very little range and desperately needs effective cover. The Hussars are literally there to die for the Kipchak. If it does that and nothing else it is an effective unit for the Cumans.
Thinking Halbs? Think again. Kipchaks are the best CA in the entire game for killing the spearmen line because of multiple arrows that all get Parthian tactics bonus damage. Halbs never have a real chance against the hussar to do damage unless they are already in your base, because Kipchak melt them pretty much instantly. And speaking of cavalry in your base, it’s also an extremely good raiding unit that will cause you a ton of problems when they do get in because they’re faster than normal and still fully armored.
This, is why Plate barding armor. Take away the plate barding armor, and the Hussars aren’t as tanky to arrow fire and fortification fire, meaning a strong archer civ can trade better against the hussars and actually threaten the Kipchak because of the range disadvantage. The Hussar also doesn’t raid as well because of the higher damage from fortifications offsetting it’s extreme production rate and slightly higher speed.
As for “so what do they do about Archers” they have Siege Ram and Siege Onager. These are not problems. Siege ram, Kipchak, and Hussars is an army that anyone who’s literally ever played the huns should be more than comfortable with and can put in a ton of work, with or without that last armor. And mind you, we’re talking about a post nerf Hussar in a civ that’s supposedly really good early.
So, pray tell, since we’re talking about anecdotal evidence on the subject of Viper playing people with the Cumans, have you played the Cumans much? Against players? Against AI? Have you tried any feudal pushes with the Cumans feudal workshop, or are you working from a point of pure speculation?
I tire of having you tell me that the Kipchak is worse than an HCA and that the feudal pressure from the Cumans is anything short of dangerous. So I’d like you to tell me that your position comes from anything other than you watching games and reading the wiki. Especially in a developing meta, having some amount of actual experience means volume towards having a cogent point, which I find you lack.
I literally said than Elite Boyars were more pop-efficient if you were rich enough. Maybe I downplayed them by saying “team games only” but that’s still not ignoring the pop limit. Cost effectiveness is still going to be the most important factor for a good chunk of the game: between having a Castle producing Boyars/Catas and 2 stables pumping SL, the latter choice is going to be better in Castle and Early imp for sure. Boyars can catch up (but not Catas as of right now. Still 1 pierce armor, and Elite+logistica is so criminally expensive)
Welp, that’s swiping cost/creation speed/stable production under the rug.
Welp, I didn’t meant overnerfed as “useless”, but since you wants to give them buffs, it implies the nerf they got were taken too far and have to be partially reverted, no?
If being able to melt castles with a 35 gold archer that is super mobile sounds OK to you then ye, they weren’t a problem I guess?
Welp, I was surprised by this claim since usually additional arrows are different from the main arrow, and also tend to be less accurate.
Against an idle FU halberdier, not only did the Cuman HCA kill first, but the Elite Kipchak had to shoot 3 shots after that to finish his job. Even on an Indian Halberdier, HCA is faster
How about cost/pop effectiveness then?
I used this set-up: 2 groups of 10 Briton harbs vs 10 Cuman HCA on 1 side and 10 E.Kipchaks on the other. The HCA on the sides weren’t involved and are here to show the distance are equal in both cases.
Results:
Welp… on the pop-effectiveness side of things the HCA looks better here.
As of the cost, depending on RNG, I got either 3 full HP HCA, 1 half HP, 2 almost dead (let’s round that down to 4.5 HCA left based on HP) or 3 full HP, 1 half and 1 low (rounded down to 5.5)
So with these roundings (“weakening” the HCA’s performance since it omits we still get the attack of these 6 units, no matter how the HP is distributed), we get:
10 wasted E.Kipchaks = 600 wood, 350 gold thrown away
10-4.5 =5.5 wasted HCA = 220 wood, 330 gold thrown away
10-5.5=4.5 wasted HCA = 180 wood, 270 gold thrown away
Looks like Cumans have got a better anti-halbs solution, regardless of having a meatshield… Anyway, these results don’t change the concern about the Hussar being too good of a meatshield for Cumans, whether you put HCAs or Kipchaks behind I guess. However, just to be sure: is the technology removal taking into account the changes described in the first post or assuming that the SL remain the same as it is right now?
I never denied that. And even without that, since often skirms are worth it for Franks and Burmese, I don’t feal too bad for the Cuman skirm.
Welp, I didn’t say that it was “anything short from dangerous” but that it’s not nightmarish. The ressource investment is super heavy, spamming rams literally prevents you from using your TC bonus for a while, you need towers to protect them and most of them will still die… If the enemy manages to recover, like in the game I showed, good luck. While other feudal strats aren’t as powerful they are also much less risky, and that’s why they are often favored over the ability to raze the enemy base in feudal.
Unfortunately I can’t play that much and it’s mostly vs AI (and I’m aware those don’t really count) but understanding concepts like pop/cost efficiency, or that seeing people mostly go for SL on Cuman, and also use them once in a while on Tatars, is no rocket science. Especially the last fact, that shows they are a good enough unit to be used over the knight, is telling quite a lot. Of course, if one of these players comes in and explain why going SL was the super wrong choice even if it made them win the game then I would listen.
Dude, every decent player knows that u do archer vs Cata and Boyar. U probably watched SOTL video about cavalier/pala comparison and now think you dont need the pala upgrade because +1 Pierce armor is not worth it…
Kudos to @CactusSteak2171 for still engaging in a constructive discussion.
Ok, I’m seeing lots of interesting points here =)
But all of you guys are mainly focussing on pvp games, or general civilisation comparing. There is one tiny little thing about steppe lancer performance you’re forgetting: anyone played the Kotyan Khan campaigns on hardest setting recently? XD
I came to this topic after days of frustrated toil! The cuman weren’t my type of civilisation to begin with, but ffs!!! Playing a standard 8 player game on extreme setting is easier. Maybe it’s just my way of playing, but I dare you to test the nerfed cuman in the Kotyan campaign ROFL
Welp, the campaign before the nerf was basically playable with legit Cobra cars, of course it’s going to be harder now. Fortunately, the devs balance the campaigns on community feedback, so if you create a thread about this and enough people agree with you they should eventually adjust the difficulty.
Does the second TC for Cumans help them boom very aggressively?
It depends (on whats doing the enemy), if you want to boom you just do a Fast Castle build order and add multiple Town Centers (with no cuman nerf on built time), Feudal booming with Cumans is just a tactical advantage; you can secure a woodline or some gold piles, you can fool the enemy into invest in feudal army with 0 raiding success for him and outboom outcome for you, etc., but wont help you boom more or better really.
1 Like
“by taking away Plate Barding.”
Are you mental, paladin is the only good thing cumans have right now and you want to give them some of the worst paladins in the game?
Steppe Lancers need a buff, i want them to attack faster, or something becuase theyre useless, kipchak also need a buff, no one uses either of them for the reason they were nerfed too much, steppe lancer needs to be made fun again
Yes, both kipchaks and steppe lancers need buffs because nobody takes them today voluntarily.
It is funny that right at the launch of the game there was general “cumanism” and now nobody even consider to pick them. The best civ (the most enjoyable) out of the new ones and now it has fallen into obscurity.
I’m sorry but you two are downplaying both units. It’s not because they aren’t auto-win anymore that they are useless.
Steppe lancers:
are cheaper and faster than knight
hit harder than light cavalry
have that 1 range that allows them to outmicro enemy halbs
Also, they are often used over the knight, even in high level.
Kipchaks:
are much bulkier and faster than foot archers while being less gold intensive
can kite almost anything to death without taking damage
cost 0 gold to be upgraded to elite
rekt rams
I always figured a second TC that early would waste resources and hold them back from castle.
I was way wrong on that one.