I have the feeling that Camels, that have a only an anti-cavarly role without being good against anything else, despite their cost are not so good against Knight-line. For example in equal numbers they struggle and in sligthly numerical inferiority they are destroyed… what do you think? Have I missing something? Is their anticavarly bonus too small?
Yes, they do their job well, which is killing Scout and Cavalry Archer line units.
Bear in mind that Camels are quite a bit cheaper than Knights. So you really should never be facing them with equal numbers, but rather a slight number advantage.
From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, they’re quite good.
Not sure what you mean? Camels beat knights. No contest. And you can make them for a cheaper price. Heavy camels also beat paladins.
It also depends wich civ camel we are talking about. For example, Indian or Saracen Camels are very efective against knight-line. Even normal FU camels, like Persian ones, win even against frankish Paladins in equal numbers. But Byzantine ones lose in equal numbers against FU Paladins, but from the other hand, they are much cheaper, so you can easly outnumber your enemy.
The camels strength is it does not really have a counter that can catch it.
Well, Eagles can.
Foot Archers do not even need to catch up to them, the Camels are melee so they will have to move closer.
Yes but only like 3 civs have them.
Since camels are primarily anti-cavalry, using them against mesos, apart from playing as Saracens or Indians, is not really sensible to begin with. As Indians you get a +1/1 armor and as Saracens 30 exta hp. Still not that good obviously but not that bad either.
With Indians, you should use them regardless, as they are your substitute to Knights and even have a bonus against buildings.
I have advocated for giving Camels a small +2/+3 bonus damage to Eagle Warriors, however, since Eagles are the Meso equivalent of cavalry.
they’re supposed to beat heavy cavalry 1v1 and do what halbs can’t; catchup with them and engage.
Obviously you can’t have too large of a bonus with that attack rate and HP, or you’ll have one camel being able to deal with 2 knights. Why’s that wrong? because heavy cavalry is expensive
I don’t get the logic. Both Indian and Saracen get Champs, so why would they bother with camels anyway?
The problem with Camels is that they’re specifically deployed as anti-cavalry, but they’re hardly any less expensive than the Knight line, despite having far less attack and armor. Pikemen and Halberdiers are much more cost-effective counters to cavalry. The only advantages of Camels is that they’re better at forcing engagements with cavalry than Pikemen and Halberdiers, but unless you’re playing as Byzantines (Camels actually cost substantially less and compliment the Cataphract), Saracens (more hit points, bad Knight line), Indians (Imperial upgrade, no Knight line), or Berbers (regeneration can save resources if used right), it’s generally better to just focus on Knights.
Because Camels are a bit underwhelming against civs with no Cavalry, and Eagles are the closest unit to Cavalry in Meso civs.
sounds illogical, the reason camels get bonus against cavalry is because horses get nervous and disoriented by the scent of a camel and I imagine the height difference gives the camel rider some advantage over the horse rider.
Why would an Eagle Warrior be scared of a camel more than a horse?
It is more of a game mechanics aproach.
There is also the advantage of population efficiency, pikes don’t kill knights and halbs don’t kill cavs or pals alone, you need numbers. With camels you can have something more in the field too.
One thing i also important, besides cost-efficiency or pop-efficiency.
Knights have speed 1,35, but Camels have 1,45. So they can catch knights and almost catch Hussars (speed 1,5), while Pikes cannot. So they are much better choise when you have to kill raiding units.
I think Hera or maybe Viper recently said camels could get minor buff.
I wouldn’t be against it, but they aren’t bad either right now.