You still have huskarls and eagles, something cav archers struggle against
1 Like
I’m more excited to have anti cav Archer units. They are quite hard to counter even with Skirms. They have 6 pierce armor or 7 for Tatars. They not dying as fast as Arbalest.
2 Likes
But how would we achieve that? Give the SL attack bonus vs CA(specifically like the camel archer?) but it would also need PA due to its low hp (also higher speed?) Which then helps it vs normal archers anyway.
And part of the reason the SL has low PA is because it becomes harder than knights for certain civs to counter with melee units if the player micros them well. Thus the archer counter…
I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all just wondering on the implementation
That what I proposed before. Mangudais will die to steppe Lancers.
2 Likes
Before SL becoming an anti-archer unit, we should think about how this change affect the SL civs.
Tatars would have a very effective archer counter, and they also hace camels and flaming camels for knights… This can be a good buff for tatars.
1 Like
My feeling is that we are struggling to find a solution. Maybe we should stop thinking as SL as an independent unit that should do something different.
What about making the SL a replacement for the light cav? Basically SL civs upgrade scout-line in SL instead of light cav.
This would require a SL having similar stats and bonuses (like vs monks) than ligh cavs, food only cost.
SL civs would get a light cav replacement faster, stronger in large numbers, but weaker in low numbers.
Clearly to compensate the +1 range and the speed, SL should have slightly worse stats than light cav and hussars.
This is just an idea that would require a substantial rework of the SL, but my feeling is that we are very far from finding a place for this unit. So we may just think of using it as an alternative to the existing ones…
1 Like
How about just stick to the stat changes proposed by Szebo for a month instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
1 Like
Well, I guess that all the answers he got are just useless then.
Clearly testing is a good option, but I am not sure that here it is a matter of testing, like to understand if the right cost is x or 1.2x. I think one of the goal of the topic is try to propose some ideas for a unit which misses a role more than a balanced set of stats…
For all those people who want SL to replace something:
All you’d need to remove is Cuman Paladin.
After that SL would be in a similar spot compared with BE and Camels, where all civs with EBE or buffed HC have Knights and caveleer but no Paladin.
However Cuman ESL would need a big buff, imo.
Persians have Heavy Camel and Paladin.
They also have an Elephant UU.
I know this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion. I’ve never been thrilled about the creation of the Steppe Lancer (SL), because like mentioned above, it seemed to lack purpose (especially after the SL major nerf).
However, I always felt that with the creation of the SL, that every civ that gets SL, should not get the knight-line.
Now I know that may sound crazy, but hear me out.
There is precedent for this with the Indians (and of course the Meso civs) getting no knight-line or getting just the knight (Saracens). Meso’s are Civ-prevented (Unique characteristic for that civ) from getting the knightline. Accordingly, I think that the Steppe Civs should also be Civ-prevented from getting knights and should really embrace the “Light & Fast” Cav Civilization.
By removing the knight-line for these civs that get SL, it frees the devs to be able to buff the SL enough to be viable, and with good reason, because these civs no longer would have the knight line. Similar to how the Indians & Saracens having a decent mounted unit removes the need for knights/cavalier at the stable - having the SL as a decent mounted unit would allow the removal of knights to keep the civ unique and make more sense as to what strategies are viable as the steppe civs.
Accordingly, I think that civs that get battle elephant, should also not have the knight line for the very same reasons above (however the battle elephant debate can be a topic to discuss at another time 
).
1 Like
As you can see with BE, removal of paladin is sufficient, there is no need to remove Knights.
There has been enough room to make elephants good.
Re @JonOli12: I specifically mentioned buffed HC. All proper camel civs get HC+30hp equivalent. Vanilla FU HC is comparable with cavalier, not Paladin.
PS
Camel civs have fluked because camels have too much bonus damage and not enough raw stats
Most civs with a paladin equivalent will preferentially go for the precursor to that unit, but sometimes they will vary. This is good for variety. (I have once been destroyed by kmher Knights spam.)
1 Like
Good. Either removing knights or light cav.
no knights
In this case SL should be much stronger per unit, still weaker than knights but in large numbers it should be stronger because of the +1 range. Since Cumans depend on knight line, they should be given an imperial SL after the elite one (like Indians get imp camels).
no light cav
Scout should be upgraded in SL instead of light cav. SL should cost food only, have larger LoS, bonus vs monks but worse stats than light cav. Again, it should be weaker in 1v1 but stronger in large numbers because of the +1 range.
In both the cases, SL civs will use SL, and actually SL would have a key role. Right now it is worse than light cav in doing what light cav does and worse than knights in doing what knights do…
1 Like
If you remove the Paladin from Cumans, you may aswell as remove Cumans from the game. Cumans are actually one of the civs that critically needs Paladin.
Buffing SL to the level of Paladin would also be a huge mistake. We already have a Knight line, we do not need a regional version of it.
1 Like
What? Why? 11
Are you sure? Most pro games I’ve seen with cumans revolve around kipchak spam and paladins are rather the exception.
SL creation was already a mistake. But now we have them and no way they’re gonna be deleted from the game. If no suitable role is found for them, then I’d rather have them replace knight line instead of just occuping a spot in the stables. Not the best solution by any means, but something has to be done.
1 Like
It is the only unit that can hold them in the late game. Cumans have weak defenses, Cav Archers without Bracer, no Supplies, no Heavy Camels, and their Siege is nothing to write home about.
Without Paladin (and I am the guy that would love to restrict Paladin further, to just 5 civs having it), Cumans would have no lategame.
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Does not mean the devs have to make another mistake, and make it a proto-Knight.
Europeans also did not use Cav Archers, we used Cranequiers, but we get Cav Archers in the game.
No sense in having “regional versions” of common units, specially since it will only open the floodgates to people asking for more of them, and will leave the game in an unbalanceable state.
The only reason why AoE2 survived 20 years while other asymmetric games died along the way, is because of AoE2’s symmetry, which does wonders for balance.
5 Likes
I’m also against cumans losing paladin.
4 Likes
If anything, the Huns could lose Paladin, since the buff for Tarkans to get close to Paladin level would be minimal (+1 Melee Armour, +2 Damage) and those can be made at the Stables with Marauders.
1 Like
Cumans are always fine without Paladin. In 1v1 you never see cumans with Paladin. Kipschak, Hussar and siege rams are perfect.
Team games are another story and fast moving Paladins are a must.
2 Likes