Armenians need something other than just purely infantry

They just suffer in teamgames at the moment, 100hp champs still dies to anything even with numbers. They have the worst siege in the game, and not a great counter to any specialized infantry like Obuchs or ETKs. Their monks are fine, buts so gold intensive and guess what, still dies to any cav civ. Having infantry available an age earlier isn’t the best, imagine if a civ got paladin the feudal age at full price. They’re not like Goths who have an answer to archers, you see Goths and you kinda don’t want to be making archers in late game. At the very least armenians need better cav or siege, because at the moment they die wtih just pure infantry.

I think the Armenians need improved cavalry AND siege. Not only is that more historically accurate, but it also gives them better options.


100 hp champs die only to 1-2 units. It kills everything but HC. Not sure about Heavy Cav Archer., but in Imp microing can’t fix the flood forever.

They need their mule cart discount increase to 50% just like Japanese.

SOTL just posted a video about woodcutting and mule carts. Basically comes down to Armenians being the best wood gatherers in the game because Celts lack the last upgrade. So Armenians should be a great archer and water civ i imagine.

Give them FU paladin and SE, maybe even SO.

I’m tired of devs forcing all kinds of infantry bonus.

So I’m not saying that Armenians 100% for sure don’t need something, but their win rate has risen about 5% since they’ve been released. I don’t think that’ll rise all the way to 50%, but I wouldn’t want to over buff them, then they get figured out, then they be OP.

It’s not like the Bengalis that were awful and remained awful until buffed. Armenians and Georgians have improved a lot in a short amount of time w/o buffs.


Their weakness to both archers and siege doesn’t need more proof.

Yes their win rate climbs a bit, likely because more ppl play all in infantry push. But it’s like Sicilians having good win rate just because of YouPudding. It’s an unhealthy state.

Overbuff is much less an issue than overnerf, because it attracts play rate instead of pushing it down. And sample size is the most important to make informed decisions.

Give them full Paladin without Bloodlines.
New civilisation bonus is that the Knight Line costs Wood instead of Food.

That won’t make them another knight civ in mid game but gives them some late game options.

Recently there have been a lot more cavalry bonus and Cavalry Civs than infantry. How did you get tired so easily?


It’s Armenians in particular because there are more historical base on their cavalry usage than infantry, while in game it’s the opposite.

I like the Romans infantry though. I don’t mind Dravidians either, although they still feel weak.

Like others, I’m really just not a fan of how the civ is designed. I understand the desire to emphasize cav from a historical perspective, but apart from that, I think it pulls them in a weird direction. It just feels janky to give paladin to the civ with uber-infantry, warrior monks, and armor ignoring archers. Not because I think it would be OP - if anything I think paladin would come too little, too late for most purposes - but because it’s just scattered, unfocused, and doesn’t lend itself to a clear gameplan or an interesting identity.

Problem with the civ, as OP alludes to, is that they’re not really an “infantry and…anything” civ apart from their UUs. Bad cav, siege, and their generic archers are meh. Another option for the civ might be to give them Thumb Ring, but nerf Compbow’s fire rate accordingly. They already have base accuracy of 100%, so they don’t need thumb ring for that. But that at least makes them a credible infantry and archer civ, like Japanese. But I understand the desire to make them a non-terrible cav civ, and I think just giving them the last armor would do the trick, as others have suggested. Or to emphasize siege as per their history.

I would say that Compbows are a great counter to these and almost all other “specialized infantry.” I struggle to envision a civ that would have a hard time countering Teutonic Knights anyway, unless they missed almost all archer upgrades. But if so, then they’d have much bigger problems than TKs.

I think that’s extremely likely to make them a knight civ in midgame. Wooden knights would be extremely easy to mass, and take advantage of Armenians’ wood and gold bonuses. Missing BL I don’t think is enough to neutralize the huge advantage of not having to invest time/res into farms.


I would start by buffing their team bonus. +2 LOS is pretty mediocre on cavalry archers, let alone infantry. At 9 LOS, they’re only equal with siege onagers and khmer scorpions, which still leaves them at a pretty major tactical disadvantage. If they could see them first, then they could at least change formation or navigate around them.

Upping it to +3 would have them seeing most ranged enemies before they can shoot, which should make a significant difference in survival rates.

After that, I would buff the durability on the Mule Carts. They’re too much of a weakness right now, especially to raiding. Give them some additional melee armor to help them out especially early on.


We don’t make knights as Armenians because they don’t scale well. But with paladins available, they do. That’s also why Japanese knights are FU in castle age but not usually the go-to choice. Armenians would have the most generic paladins, but they solve the problem of weakness to archers AND siege.

Could the same be spoken for Celt or Byzantine paladins? You could call it scattered, or you could call it versatile. For the current Armenians, you could call it clear, or predictable. Having paladins makes them a little less predictable, but most importantly, solves the archer/siege weakness. It is like the role of Mongol arbalesters: not the go-to option usually, but solves their weakness to camels.

Slavs has left the chat.

Slavs have cheap siege

Which all die to BBC (that even have more melee armor)

Well, you can snipe them with monks or Hussars. They can, in fact, counter TKs, maybe Teutons steamroll them, but the TKs wont do it alone

Either way in that case Celts would also die to Teutonic Knights, and probably many civs more

Good call on monks. I don’t have much experience with monk vs BBC myself, but microing vs 12+1 range and conversion resistance seems very hard? Hussars would be costly because Teutons would surely have halbs guarding the siege.

No units alone in the game can steamroll. It’s always about compositions.

True, even harder. I forgot them. But Celts die hard to most HC + BBC civs.

Isn’t Knight + warror priest comp strong in castle age? I think warror priest counters pike, monk and camel.

Especially in imp, Armenians need supporter for infantry (scropion or skirms). Is it ok to reduce scorpion training time?(eg. 30s->26s)

Depends on whether you also give them Plate Barding. If not it’s a questionable investment and their cav, like the civ in general, will still be weak to stronger archer civs.

Call it what you like, but those civs having paladins is more of a minor quirk than core aspect of their identity; similar to the Korean Hussar. Put another way, if Celts had mediocre siege and were in need of a buff, and Byzantines had poor defenses and needed a buff (and assuming both had no Paladins), it would make a lot more sense to buff their siege and defenses, respectively, than giving them partially upgraded paladins. Any buff helps of course, but some types of buffs just make a lot more sense to me given their current civ design.

1 Like