Guess I skimmed too lightly 11, thanks for the heads up.
+1 pierce armor is better than +1 melee armor, approximately equal to +2 melee armor but +3 melee armor is stronger than +1 pierce armor considering strongest units in late game are Halberdier, Hussar, heavy cavalry, Camels, Eagle Warriors and infantry units which are melee units.
Practically youâre getting from saving 0 wood to permanently saving 25 wood.
Again, in practical game this is a big buff for 95% games. And even in the 5% games, my suggestion has some benefit over existing one.
This bonus alone didnât make them strong. The bonus coupled with +2 PA made it. So I nerfed the PA.
I donât want to see a crappy UT because the civ is already too strong.
Fine.
I had it in my mind. Which is one of the inspiration to come up with this idea. Anyway, I didnât do the math. But donât think even +3 MA can put them on par with Paladin. Maybe, +4/+0 is an option and Sicilians could rely more on Donjons against archers.
Youâre right, I just didnt understand. Now I know, if you cherrypick specific statistics and weight them in ways that you make up on the spot, the donjon is trash. So is every other unit, if it fits the argument. If a civilization is given unique tools they should be ignored for not being the best at a cookie cutter cheese strat that has caused trouble every single time a more powerful version of it has appeared.
The version of the Donjon you want exists, its called the castle. Theyâre quite good, do much more damage and Sicilians even have a huge bonus building them. As for the donjon, itâs fine and the metagame will develop to excel with using them given time. Always does in RTS unless devs lose their nerve. If you cant figure out how to use a unit to fit your current playstyle, dislike it, or donât want to, then donât?
I wouldnât equate it this way. Cavalryâs purpose is to kill ranged units, kill siege in the presence of ranged units and raid. 2 extra p.armor makes them better in doing these tasks. Whereas pure melee vs melee is situational. Counter units like Camels, halberdiers get bonus damage vs cavalry, so +1 or +3 melee armor might not make the kind of difference youâd expect. Is 2+6 melee armor good? Absolutely. But is it worth 700 food 600 gold, probably not.
You could change one of the civ bonuses as a part of UT or nerf Mangudai and buff them using that UT. Like Mangudai get lower bonus damage vs siege or cost a lot more or take 30% longer to train by default and get back to current stats after this tech.
I donât like UT that benefits UU only either.
Locking SL extra HP into UT was the best solution. But devs ignored it.
1 Like
I sad onager, not mangonel. I have no idea why SoTL compare castle age mangonel to imperial age heavy scorpion.
My idea is: heavy scorpion should survive onager shot. Thatâs why I suggest 10 âSiege unitâ armor instead of +5 HP.
Same logic applies to movement speed buff. Heavy scorpion has less range than onager and BBC. Let it has same movement speed as bbc at least.
1 Like
The problem with Mangonels and Scorpions is that Mangonels are better at frighting Archers and Infantry in most situations and on top of them they also counter Scorpions.
Romans need 3 strong bonuses for Scorpions to make them viable.
4 Likes
Probably to show how bad heavy scorpions were.
Does it help? I forgot Onagers base attack.
Yeah I think with the current design dominance of the Mangonel line it would make way more sense to give the Scorps different targets.
The way it currently is with mangonels countering scorps, being better at pressuring and scorps having basically the same targets it would need massive buffs for the scorps to play more than the current role of a cheaper and faster addition. And then scorpions would be so busted against the units they counter it would make basically all archery and infantry unplayable, possibly even CA.
With this change it reduces the counter mechanic of the mangonels a bit, but mangos/onagers will still be a hard counter to scorps. So I donât really see a real improvement here in general.
Itâs a bit of a different story for Romans though. I think thieir scorpions have the potential to become oppressive in the lategame as they are so low on the gold side. Romans arenât even a bad lategame civ - I see no reason why they would need a buff there. And yes I see this in the current state basically as a direct buff to romans, as I think they are the only civ that want to use scorps until the very end. Even Khmer would only use it for the big snowball army and not when they run low on gold.
I think you might be on to something.
Maybe Scorpions should be anti cavalry.
Make them benefit from ballistics for ever civ and then give them come bonus damage vs. Cavalry(+Camels). They already got a bonus against Elephants.
This would make them pretty different to Mangonels which are pretty bad against cavalry.
3 Likes
Skorpions are so bad that giving access to ballistics for generic skorps, just like romans, shouldnât be OP.
Regarding the âautofarmâ feature. It looks nice and friendly, and I hope it gets limited to single player only.
2 Likes
This⊠I proposed this several times⊠Scorps should be the anti-cavalry option of siege workshopâs rosterâŠ
Even I would sign for these changes if scorps gets its base damage and pass-through damage reduced and recieve a cost increase.
Romans could gain free balistics bonus in return but maybe lose Crossbow upgrade.
3 Likes
I still think the basic problem with scorpions is that they only really come into their own in the very late game when there are lots of enemies to hit at once. Especially in the early game, getting a few partial hits isnât worth very much; Archers still do the same amount of damage even with one HP.
Thatâs why I think scorpions should do a huge amount of damage to the the target, far more than they currently do. If you could guarantee killing the thing you are targeting, then that would give guaranteed value to scorpions. You still wouldnât be able to instantly kill an entire group of archers, like a mango, but you could do consistent, meaningful damage.
I would double the damage of the primary projectile, but cut the pass through damage to a quarter, keeping it the same. If you can hit the target, you will basically kill it in one shot, but all other units will take normal damage. That would allow you to, for example, Focus down a small number of cavalry, compared to right now where you damage the Cavalry by like 50% but lose all your scorpions doing it.
2 Likes
I am not fond of making scorpions anti-cav. How do you counter mass onagers+scorpions? Against halbs+ onagers, champions is still serviceable but not against scorpions+ onagers. Strong siege civs have both strong scorpions and onager-line. Anything that is strong against both knight and xbow can potentially upset team game balance.
5 Likes
Champions in rams? Bombard cannon?
The combo scorps+onagers would be super expensive and slow.
1 Like
In team games, it would still be worthwhile even if it was just +1 pierce armor. In 1v1s, it would be situational.
The temporary wood savings may still be more valuable. It can be invested back into economy (potentially getting more than 25 res - either through an eco tech or getting a TC up earlier). It can be invested into defenses (potentially saving more than 25 res). It can be invested into aggressive gameplay (potentially causing more damage than 25 res). Thereâs also the potential issue of getting housed if you lose a Donjon. You might need to spend the wood to get a barracks eventually (with the way Donjons currently work), but resources tend to become more abundant as the game goes on (175 wood in castle age is much less investment than 175 wood in dark age).
Iâd also note that most of the techs available in Barracks arenât ones that Sicilians would need in early castle age. Pikemen is a bit of a large investment for a few spears (monks are a better counter, and have the potential to collect relics as well). Squires is nice but not urgently needed (main benefit is infantry will start outpacing archers, something that you can do with cavalry easier than infantry with squires). Arson is only needed against buildings (something that might not even be relevant). Supplies/gambesons only affect the Militia line (something that Sicilians donât specialize in). Several nice techs, but I think that Blacksmith techs give better value (meaning that theyâre better to prioritize)
Some sample options for the temporary wood savings: Spend the wood to get an eco tech and a house, spend the wood to build 3 farms, spend the wood on a blacksmith, spend the wood on an extra stables/archery range.
I always like to get the farming techs, especially before I transition to farms (or make a large number of them). The Sicilian bonus as it currently stands encourages and rewards that. Your proposed change would create less value in that. So the way I like to play, it would be a nerf for most of my games. It should be noted that the main benefit of the farming techs is a temporary (but delayed) wood savings. Eventually, those temporary savings can turn into permanent savings (especially for Sicilians who in a game where every player gets all the farming techs, would have farms that last longer even than opponents).
One thing about faster building fortifications is that it would then be harder to punish Sicilians for greedy play (like, for example, getting all of the eco techs, including farming techs). So it looks to me like Sicilians may be getting designed as a civ that can try to use repeated temporary savings (from Donjon and then from farming techs) to its advantage.
Will increasing the projectile speed help? I mean we all know they need Romans civ bonus of ballistic but maybe that wonât happen.
Only in closed maps. In Open maps waiting 90 seconds in Feudal to start building a range/stable only means calling for a lose.
Great. Maybe after this change you will save the tech and spend on DBA while also have more than half of the benefit of the tech.
That would help.
Not sure if itâs to late to change the identity of a core units but it might be interesting to make Scorpions an anti cavalry unit (with less damage vs. Infantry and Archers then now) with faster projectiles and ballistics.
Knights currently dominate the meta so having an anti cavalry siege unit would be pretty interesting.
But we have to consider the overall balance. Scorpion plus Mangones might turn out to be an OP combination.
They are trying to push Ratha play. And BE play if that becomes 0.01% more viable in 1v1. But taking away one military option whose arsenal is already empty in terms of meta units, is reminding me release Khmer.