True, but its also kind of an apples and oranges thing rather than El Dorado just being strictly superior in every way. Fereters may be lackluster in TGs, but looks really strong in the low-gold lategame of 1v1s where you can make a unit with high attack and armor for only 20 gold that a lot of civs will struggle to counter without somehow having a lot more gold. Whereas El Dorado eagles for all their strength can at least be countered by units that cost far less gold. And TBF this comes at a point that’s not the primary focus of game balance, but it does seem a little needlessly strong without a drawback. Right now Armenian swordsmen mostly just look like a more broadly powerful version of almost every other civ’s champion, which just seems kind of random. And that doesn’t necessarily make it OP, but I wish they would just make generic niche units better rather than possibly going overboard on civ bonuses/techs (e.g. Roman scorpions). BTW the tech is also much cheaper than most other lategame infantry techs - 950 Res vs 1350 Res for Wootz or G or 1400 for Druzinha.
Do they need one? Between Warrior Priests and 100 HP champs, it seems like their enemies are the ones who will suffer more without specific infantry counters. Even so their Compbows don’t lag too far behind specific infantry counters when it comes to fighting high PA infantry. The tankiness of their frontline swordsman is also more helpful than probably any other infantry bonus/tech in terms of synergizing with backline DPS units. More meat on the meat shield.
That seems too much. If anything, the counterbalance should be pretty small (e.g. -5 HP or possibly even losing Gambesons). Other Armenian options are pretty limited, so their infantry and UU have to pull a lot of weight.
Can’t really say I am. Having (enough) more HP approximates to a combination of almost every other advantage - melee armor, pierce armor, and attack. There’s a reason El Dorado eagles are the most broadly powerful eagles even when competing with a civ that gets one of the best offensive infantry UTs in the game, (and it would probably remain true if it were only 30-35 HP).
If they end up being OP, I think that will come down to their healing ability. One point of reference for their cost/stats is Polish cavaliers, which have an inverted (60) food and (30) gold cost, but more HP, attack, and mobility. So they’ll surely be good, but at least they have a high gold cost and a trash counter.
Yeah, I like the tech in terms of experimentation and establishing more reference points, but ultimately I’d prefer to have it (and probably some other infantry techs/bonuses) nerfed slightly and slightly improve the baseline power of generic swordsman-line.
The main point of the comparison with El Dorado is that Eagle Warrior as a unit has always been viewed as way stronger of a power unit than Champion has, so Eagle Warrior getting +40 HP - and yes, being considered OP, but still not getting the HP nerfed - means to me that Champion getting +30 HP is… really not that big of a deal. Vikings get a weaker bonus for free, with insane eco to boot, and yet they were still played as an Archer civ.
I feel like this isn’t really a problem, as they still take insane bonus damage from Scout-line. Sure, they might win one-on-one against an individual unit (and I don’t know for sure that they do), but they’ll still be hard countered by any sort of Scout-line spam. And some civs without good Scout-line have good anti-Infantry damage. I think the unit instead will become something that higher rated players will manage to exploit more, not sure if they’ll be a unit you make a ton of or just sprinkle several into your army who start healing once there’s not an enemy in immediate vicinity.
Well, yes. But +25 HP overpowering +3 attack and +5 charge attack is really surprising for me.
Edit: Found this video.
Seems like Romans Legionary is on the same league as Aztecs Champion. That actually makes sense as +5 charge attack in 40 seconds roughly translates to +0.5 attack.
That works. But I really don’t know why the UT should be affected them. They could have their own unique upgrade.
And if you don’t have either, you’re doomed.
The unit itself is probably okay due to very high gold cost. But obviously this UU will be accompanied with Halberdier, maybe even in Castle Age and in between the protection of Fortified Church. A 125 HP unit won’t just die to siege either.
What are you talking about ? No Champions of the game are beating Samurais (even Aztecs and Slavs don’t beat them). According to this video, Armenians Champions become the only Champions of the game beating Samurais and it is suprising.
Agreee there. Before this I thought Jags would be way better in fights with other Infantry than they actually are. Probably could receive a buff there.
But it’s agains so telling how cherry-picking some parts of the community are when they don’t like something strong new.
Let’s just assume they would be right with their assessment Armenian Champs would be OP.
Where are the threads about the OP
And ofc the all-time best unit i the game, the Mangudai
It’s so weird that basicaly every time we get a new infantry and archery unit, immediately there is a thread claiming it would be OP before even seeing performing. Whilst when there are Cavalry Units that (in case of Monaspa) even beat up Camels there is absolutely nobody claiming that could break the game.
Yes, when I designed my own Georgians civ, with a tech giving Champions +30 HP, I made sure to take away Gambesons once it was introduced. The fact that the devs didn’t do that for the Armenians is concerning.
Cost effectively? Also, perhaps I’m using https://aoe-combatsim.com/ wrong, but… several Champions do beat Samurais, even with equal numbers. Generic Champions also win with equal resources if you decide 100wood/food = 17g. Samurais were never meant to be an Infantry counter, they are not your best option against other non-unique infantry units. They can be a stand-in, but your own Champions will be stronger in those fights.
Given how Royal Heirs opened a new avenue of taking negative damage from an armor class for units, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jaguar Warriors could get a similar treatment with them taking -3 (as an example) damage from Infantry class units.
In all honesty, 100hp Champions with Gambesons are strong, but not OP. Especially when you consider that Armenians don’t really have other good options. The civ has no answers to Skirmisher + Hand Cannoneer combination. Outside of their monks, they have also no options against good Siege. Your gameplan is either some sort of monk / Warrior Priest play, or Infantry + UU.
Note you don’t even get FU Arbalesters. You’re restricted to your Castle, and the Unique Unit isn’t trading the best into Skirmisher + Hand Cannoneers either.
And this is also speaking from my experience on more closed maps, I have no idea if they’re strong on open maps. Your militia line having techs one age earlier is a cute bonus, but I’m not convinced it’s going to be a winning strategy often.
So is the militia line useful now? Not just in Champion-vs-Champion fights, but also with respect to Arbalest and Cavalier/Paladin?
How is the longswords in Feudal overpowered? Note that overpowered here means cannot be stopped by a generic civ by conventional means. Specifically, how do archers and scouts do against Feudal longswords.
Is the Castle longswords/THS a viable competitor to Knights and Crossbows? If so, is it felt that they must have an anti-infantry trash counter? If not, what is holding them back?
Asking to check if the militia line is more viable given these significant boosts. If so, then perhaps the devs could buff all militia lines and infantry UU based on the Armenian bonuses to make the line actually viable.