Simple question here on units like War Elephants, Shotel Warriors, Condottiero, Teutonic Knights, Turtle Ships, Steppe Lancers and Siege Towers which are almost never used in ranked 1v1 play.
Considering that this game is supposed to be balanced around ranked play, and it is built to be played mainly that way, and that we also have these 7 units which are basically never seen, there is a responsibility to make these units viable for serious use in ranked play.
TOPIC OF THE THREAD:
So the question is, will lowering their cost slightly really break the game? Will it truly have grim, negative consequences? If Yes, why, and do you suggest buffing in another way? If No, why must we avoid doing these steps?
Let us discuss.
You can choose “Yes” or “no” for each unit seperately if you want
.
War Elephants : 200F 75G to 200F 60G.
Intentionally left at 200F, to ensure they basically can’t be massed even after buff.
Never ever seen in anY serious 1v1 or TG, around which the game is supposed to be balanced. NOTE : This will not buff the persians, it will only make their totally unviable(in a serious non-DM setting) unit slightly more viable, but still hardly used.
Shotel Warrior, Condottiero : 50F 35G to 50F 30G.
Both cost double the gold of a champion right now, hence rarely seen. Even in situations where the civs should really go for these unique units, we still see only generic champs, LC and halbs. A small -5G change, nothing too much.
Teutonic Knights : 85F 40G to 80F 35G. (Need I explain this one? xD)
Turtle Ships : 180W 180G to 150W 150G.
They are never seen in actual play, even in situations where they could shine, due to the still prohibitive cost. So we again end up with generic Galleons/Fires practically every time.
Steppe Lancers : 70F 45G to 70F 40G.
Not risking them becoming too powerful by suggesting a small -5G change. We should atleast get to see them
Siege Towers : 200W 160G to 150W 90G.
The only unit more hopelessly broken than Elephant Archers right now. There is literally no downside to reducing its cost. Think about it. This change will only make games slightly more interesting and agressive in fully walled maps!
Topic to discuss is as above in “TOPIC OF THE THREAD”
I hope you are not part of NCBW (No Changes Because Winrate) or NCBMW (No Changes Because More Work) blocs.
Could work, also for condos, in another discussion, I suggest to buff them by letting them be affected by pavise, so they would be more tanky for Italians, but a t the same time they would be the same unit for allied civs.
First: what is this doing in “general”? Wouldn’t this be at home in “AoE2DE discussion”?
I will let you judge:
Ethiopians are going to have trouble going champs. Same with Italian and halbs. Anyway, neither are anti-cav so they can’t replace halbs, and they haven’t got the same role as champs. 2 handed swordsmen can’t run and 2 shot villies like Shotels do. Champs can’t survive getting shot by HC like Condos do. Unlike condos you need tons of upgrades to get champs up and running, you can’t just reach Imp, plant 2 barracks on the enemy island and start wrecking havoc like with condos.
I can’t found the games anymore but there was a tourney where Turtles ships would just own everything. Basically, their strenght lies in the fact that you can get them out as soon as you hit Castle, while the enemy only has fire galleys. And of course, feudal ships can’t do jackshit to them.
We do see them in castle age, for picking villagers and siege. The elite upgrade is the thing needing a cost reduction maybe.
I don’t think it would change a lot, neither for bad or for good, you will go for WE only when you will have a solid economy and a lot of food, a lot of castle to produce them and you already have an advantage on the enemy and you are trying to put the final nail on their coffin. WE will always be a unit for super late game.
It still wouldn’t resolve the problem of the TK, also 5f with teutons farms is neglectable.
For what is worth, it could be even less, but I think that their biggest problem is that, unlike the rams, they don’t have an immediate ungarrison button/hot-key that let you immediately empty them wherever you are, now you can only manually ungarrison every unit, or use their ability on walls.
War elephants and turtle ships should not be buff. Some units are not intended to be uses in 1v1, rather in TG. This 2 are a fine example. Buff them and they could be op in tg.
Condos, well, they could be buffed, I guess, but again, could be to op for vikings, japs, burmese or malians. I’ll preffer something for italian condos.
TK have been recently buff. I don’t think they need further buff.
Shotel, I think, should be slight buffed, as other UU (karambit, samurai, mameluke and probably a few more) Indians elephants should be reworked
EDIT: SL are fine right now, not per sez but because tatars have silk armor and mongols +30hp. I think cumans should get some attack bonus for theirsz and that way, SL would be at the same level of eagles and BE: regional units that are buffed by each civ in particular in a different way
And siege tower is a meme unit. Should be completely reworked
So you say there will be negative consequences with these changes? I repeat the question being asked in the OP again: In that case the question of the topic is "will it have negative consequences/break the game ? If yes, why, and do you suggest buffing in another way?"
And again, If you say there will be no significant negatives, then the question is "If no, why should we avoid these steps?"
You can choose “Yes” or “no” for each unit seperately if you want
That why I suggested to lock the buff for the Italians condos behind pavise, only they could have access to the tech.
Agree.
Again, agree.
It should have the same butto to instantly ungarrison it other than the button for bypass walls, it could be used as a faster rams than can carry more units, but without the ability to attack.
condos need some change but I don’t think cost is it. The lack of demos is the big drawback for Koreans in water, turtles are good with their pop efficiency. And lancers could get a gold discount, too expensive for the light cav role they have now. Yeah siege towers should be as cheap as rams
I could totaly open a thread asking if adding +5 HP to outposts would have negative consequences and demanding from people a yes/no answer. Of course the right answer is neither of those, but rather: why bother with such inconsequential stuff? They already work the way they are.
So is ANY effort in making these units (at least seven of them) viable in ranked games in inconsequential stuff to you? if yes why?
If no, why avoid making an effort in making them viable in ranked games?
And another thing I dont get is, just because you think it is “inconsequential stuff” doesnt mean it is inconsequential to everyone. It may be inconsequential to you.
And since you could not argue for any negatives that could happen with these changes to you, you cannot oppose arguments for such changes by saying they’re inconsequential to you.
You’re speaking like they are 100% useless, which isn’t the case. Only ones on the list that are indeed useless is the elite steppe lancer (and why I mentioned a cost reduction of this upgrade) and siege towers outside of Arena (but since reducing its cost might make it OP on this map…)
Guys, this thing is going out of control, and out of topic, so let’s calms down a bit, ok?
Those units aren’t useless, some have a really specific context of use, other are simply difficult to field, what Parthnan I think is trying to say is that he likes (and I agree with him on this) to se those units more often, especially on ranked games.
So in ordering to achieve that some need a buff, others a rework, that it, one can agree or not about the changes or about the need for them, but we can’t discuss the fellings/sensations or personal ideas about this units (for example I don’t agree on every change he proposed), if some of us think that those units aren’t seen enough or think the countrary, can just express is opinion, no need of cap locks sentences or to reapeat things over and over again.
There is literally no downside to reducing its cost. Think about it. 
