I don’t think Armanian’s Champions suppose to be that strong… This is clearly OP, they win even vs Roman infantry, Aztecs Champions or Slavs Champions.
Eh, the entire civ is kinda OP. They’ll tune it down once enough people buy it.
For another example, the warrior monk will always get the relics. They beat a scout cav 1v1, and can’t be converted without atonement. This is not even mentioning their ridiculous archers.
I personally think the Georgians are more OP, though I haven’t played the Armenians yet. Their late game towers are absolutely insane, Monaspa are quite clearly OP, and their cavalry in general are very strong. Plus, they have a really good eco with only a few Fortified Churches.
What do the Armenians have? Infantry that’s basically useless until the late game, even with getting them an age early. The Composite Bowman is also pretty weak until the late game with all upgrades, and an expensive, powerful infantry unit that’s still countered by Light Cav. Of course, I still have to play the civ yet, but to me, it seems like the Armenian strengths are all situational and either easily countered or arriving very late. The Georgians, however, are strong in all stages of the game except the very early game.
Change the Fereters effect from + 30 HP to self regeneration (somethibg like 15 HP per minute), powercreeping Viking Champions by a large margin is stupid.
Perfectly said. Marketing such a marketing.
Isn’t that just making them similar to the Berserk instead though?
But Berserk get that for free + extra attack vs cavalry with Chieftains.
Also HP recovery isn’t explored yet on Champions and halbs for instance.
Also with the UT the Warrior Priests get even more HP than Elite Teutonic Knights and Mayan elite eagle warriors with El Dorado, is silly and makes them beyond good in melee.
But Vikings also get the HP for free?
I wonder why no one considers what the Armenians will be like with an Italian ally.
New civs are always OP. Ever heard about pay to win? First we have to hand over our money, then the devs will properly fix the civs.
Nah this is fine, its like Garlabd Wars vs Burmese inf. Its not like if Viking infantry was that good anyway
Techs giving a more powerful bonus than a passive civ bonus has been part of the game’s design since… ever. So I disagree that this is ‘powercreeping’ Vikings. Didn’t Hera make a short about like, 30 Armenian champs vs 30 Slav champs and Slavs won, btw? So I wouldn’t say they’re OP.
+30 hp is insane, lol
Slav champs are pretty much hands-down the best in large-scale battles though. So being nearly as good as them in melee while also being far more resistant to ranged units and buildings may be too much. I’m leaning towards thinking the tech isn’t OP, but I’d be more comfortable with +25 HP.
Also, even the fight Hera showed is something that should be tested multiple times to account for minor variations in pathing that can swing close fights. I would be surprised if in several such fights the Armenians didn’t win a couple.
Oposed to most other Infantry Civs, Armenians don’t have a specific Infantry counter.
Therefore from the matchup with other Militia Lines I’m not converned about these results.
They barely beat them from a cost efficiency perspective, but give the others just slightyl higher numbers or add their anti-infantry units and it will swing against the armenians.
Pwerfectly balanced fights rarely ever happen and even if it’s interesting and nice to see how they would end, the selective view of the matchup with other civs counterparts hardly ever tells the full story.
And for me I actually see a healthy balance there, as I explained above: Armenians don’t have specialised Infantry counters. They have Scorps, Arbs and the Composite bowmen. Which can all do good work against Infantry. But they all die to onagers and don’t have a high enough damage output against infantry this wouldn’t matter as much.
The only matchup where I see it can become an issue is against Romans which don’t have the best anti-infantry tools either.
I mean, getting +30 HP on Champions isn’t going to make them OP. Mayans get +40 on Eagles and it has been this way since Conquerors, right? You can argue that El Dorado is OP, but clearly the tech isn’t even in the same ballpark really.
Mayan + 40 HP was very OP and it was hard to stop at the timing, this is why it got nerfed afterwards.
Champion + 30 HP can counter a lot of civs that don’t have HCA or HC. They can trade well against paladin, archers, and infantry can’t kill them either. They might be fine on the open maps , but I am sure they got big advantage on closed maps.
I don’t mind if their champion strong, this may actually push the dev to further look into militia line as a whole and buff them further for other civs. I find their composite archer are way more problematic, even downright broken OP
Is Aztecs Graland Warrior not a power creeping Burmese because it is just +1 attack?
I actually like +30 HP on champion. I always wanted to see 100 HP champion. In fact I proposed this in “Unique Bonus for Hypothetical New Civs” thread probay multiple times. That was long before Gambeson was introduced. So maybe remove Gambeson from Armenians.
Maybe it can balanced by losing Blast Furnace. Then it can perform still very good in most occasion but worse in some niche situation like vs Teutonic Knight.