The problem with that is that i think It would male catas even less used since you now have knights with splash that are much easier to mass than catas being both cheaper and faster to produce. If it applies only to paladin and not knight line as a whole then maybe yes, but that would make almost 0 impact in 1vs1 where pala are a non-factor most of the time
1 Like
You are right about the situation with knight and cata. However, another problem with knight line as byzantine is that no one in the right mind would ever upgrade knights to cavaliers, let alone paladins. byzantine 99% of the time opens with archers then go to Xbow and fast imp arbalest anyway, so even knight is completely irrelevant for byzantine, you can remove knight line completely from byzantine and are still functional. So the idea of making logisticaâs trample damage affect knight line is fine as long as it doesnât give them bonus vs infantry.
I made a mod that makes logistica affects knight line (trample damage only), they still lose to frank paladins in massive fight and barelly go toe to toe with teutonsâ paladins. Tho, I think itâs better to make logistica enable stables to train cataphracts and give trample damage to elite cataphract by default.
3 Likes
I donât know how this calculator works but if it calculate correctly, 7.47 survivor out of 40 means that Paladin beats Cataphract with little advantage. Byzantines Paladin has 2 more damage (11 instead 9), tank 13 hits instead of 12. It is possible that Byzantines Paladin with logistica take down Generic Paladin in large numbers.
From what site or app is that calculator?
I havent Seen one yet where you can Put in more than Just one unit.
2 Likes
Thatâs 18%+. Doesnât look little. Even I consider some of them have low HP, they will still have almost 15% HP. Anyway, Paladin with trample damage will be too powerful and Byzantines donât need that sort of buff.
1 Like
I tested 30 Halb vs 30 Paladin and gives only 6.3 Paladin lost. Halberdiers should take 9-10 Paladins and other Paladins has lower hp. It seems that this calculator ignore low HP Paladins and only count death Paladinâs number which calculate it wrong as well.
I made another test, 20 Paladin vs 40 Saracens Pikeman. It says Pikemen won 55% but I donât believe because 20 Paladin beats 40 Pikeman.
The problem with this website is that it only how many units survive. Not how much HP is left.
Also because of a lot of inaccuracies it is only good in showing clear (dis-) advantages.
A win-% of 77% is very close to âevenly matchedâ. If you just add 1 more Cata to that calc you will probably get about 75 % winrate or even more in the other direction. And these little differences can also be achieved kinda easily by just getting the better engagement.
1 Like
I found the best way of using that website is to find the tipping point / efficiency value, I.e. keep adding units until the win rate is roughly 50/50
2 Likes
It is good to know the limitation.
Will that be accurate though? If it just ignores injured units, this wonât solve anything.
The main point is the civ wasnât designed to use the knight line.
Looking at the stats on the cata and the lack of tech for the stable, it seems the intention was the player is meant to use catas and camels . And maybe sometimes some LC for monk sniping. I donât think itâs good to buff their knight line when we already have so many of the civs giving some or other buff to knight line
Just buff the cata so itâs more useful in more situations.
You speak like you know something and then you admit you donât. Just say you donât know for sure from the start.
Donât say something like itâs the hard truth when itâs pure speculation. It just makes us trust you even less whenever you say something else.
Like now I wonât believe a word you said about paladin beating pikes because you lied the first time.
I would trust that sim every single time over one of your speculations. Because Iâve tested it over and over
2 Likes
This is probably also the best way to âmeasureâ the effectiveness of counter units. Cause thatâs what you want to get from your counters: Less investment but fighting off the opponent.
There is also an argument of having an âequal ressource lossâ point if you understand what I mean. So if you want to counter an opponent unit you make as many of your counter units so if the opponent engages both of you lose the same amount of ressources, but you have the advantage of investing less in the first place and by thinning out the enemy numers itâs hard for the opponent to make damage wit the lefovers.
But I think in general I think the âtIpping pointâ should be representative even for non-counter matchupsâŠ
But more important is actually the reality of the engagements. Iâve seen people like talikng about unit engagements a lot that basically never practically happen cause in the civ matchups some (U)Us just donât make sense to ever make.
But yes I think the tipping point (and maybe even the deviation at that point that represents the effect of higher numbers) is probably the best way to describe (counter-) unit relations.
Isnât this a bad comparison anyway.
One is bottlenecked by a castle and costs more to tech into.
These numbers are more likely to occur in a TG anyway, and now suddenly the huge difference in PA comes into play as well.
So if weâre considering a 1v1, this is a super niche scenario and by the same logic:
âKhmer elephants go brrrrrrâ
We should nerf them apparently ??
4 Likes
faster healing and 600 cost reduction in upgrades is not huge? It makes switching into catas more feasible. And the faster healing increases the value of their army in many castle age battles.
This is extremely under-rated. You can never do a surprise attack to Byzantines because of them being able to see the opponent army 10 tiles outside their base.
whatâs the nerf theyâre getting?
This fact would be true but not because of xbows becoming ineffective. After the patch its possible that more players pick cavalry civs over archer civs and hence the win rate of Teutons, a good civ against melee units gets a higher win rate than Vietnamese, an anti-archer civ in the late game. But those stats donât imply that mid-tier archer civs or crossbows have become unplayable.
Also you need to keep in mind that mid-tier archer civs have strengths on other maps which are relatively more closed and easily wallable or are very strong on hybrid maps unlike civs like Teutons or Slavs, so being marginally weaker on Arabia is fine. Thereâs no need for mid-tier archer civs to be ubiquitous and cavalry civs to remain niche for maps like Atacama.
Xbow and Arbalest upgrade cost increase.
1 Like
Faster healing is so niche thatâs almost useless.
E. Cata upgrade even with 400f discount is around the cost of Paladin upgrade, which is unlikely to be taken in 1v1.
On top of that 2k res upgrade youâd need Logistica for another 1,4k res which makes E.Catas way more expensive than FU Paladins. Any discount is welcome obviously, but 600 less food is nothing and it doesnât make FU E.Catas more affordable at all, expecially considered how niche they are.
Underrated doesnât mean extremely good. Itâs better than nothing? Absolutely, still I retain my view thatâs something not so huge. A nice utility? Yes. Game-changing buff? It might have been if they had gotten both town patrol and town watch simultaneously with a patch buff, going from zero to hero 
Archer line cost increase. Arbalester upgrade more specifically. Byzantines had a clear and strong powerspike thanks to the cheaper (and so faster) Imperial Age upgrade into fast arbs. Now that power spike is getting nerfed and was their strongest power spike.
150f 100g extra might seem small but then you have to factor in another 300f 200g for Bracer and possibly more 300f 200g for Chemistry, on top of a civ without any eco bonus and likely with an inferior economy in the early imperial age if they want to use that 33% discount. Going up faster also means going up with less vills.
But hey, they get treadmill crane in return. 
1 Like
Itâs so they can spam those castles in order to spam those catas
Tbf I do think we could start off lower than that(like start off with a 300 reduction and see how it goes) But even if you had the 600 reduction. Do you really think catas would be OP when theyâre bottlenecked by a castle and have such a huge investment and cost more than the knight line?
People said boyars would be OP with 3PA and a faster tt. then they were buffed.
Then people said they would be OP with 8MA then they were buffed again .
Then people said they would be OP AGAIN (with a castle discount). And guess what? They were buffed AGAIN. 
How many matches are dominated by boyars? With their 25% shorter TT and more feasible tech fees than catas?
And thatâs specifically on a civ that suppliments low numbers with other cav, ie you can compliment their low numbers with knights in castle age, or hussars in imperial.
3 Likes
Wait until â4200HP faster built walls OP, pls nerf!â
We were talking about the 600f combined reduction (-400f E. upgrade and -200f Logistica) that Byzantines already had with previous patches, which is imho nice but not enough.
Even though, as I said in another thread, buffing Catas is nice and good, but I doubt it would change much since theyâre too niche, plus Byzantines already have FU arbalesters and hand cannoneers to deal with infantry.
Basically Catas are really the best option against very few civs like Goths, Meso and Malians probably (after Farimba cavaliers, not so sure).
is there any news in the pup about any sicilians compensation buff for their nerf? donjons and serjeants still suck?
3 Likes