I meant it doesn’t matter too much vs foot archers, as they always need 4-5 hits to kill, while the +20% attack speed may not make one extra hit. VS melee, the number of hits will be bigger, so it is normal +20% attack speed can make extra 1-2 hits before kill.
But surely after your analysis, I have changed my mind since I didn’t consider the attack pattern of archers. The steppe lancer need to kill and moved to another target ASAP, which attack rate matter here. Maybe 65f 40g plus 2.1s reload time. Buffing bit by bit
Certainly a fan of that. Im just wondering if just reverting changes back from the initial nerf will make it a balanced unit. It still will kind of lack a role, won’t it? Or what do you think, when will it be useful, if its damage output is slightly increased. Maybe mixing some in together with knights would be good, as you increase the damage output, while not being the main targeted unit in melee fights?
May i ask how to calculate the DPM? assume how much opponent armor?
The gradient can be quite different e.g. vs 0+1 armor and vs 2+3 armor. The higher the armor, the bigger the damage output difference (ESL 11+4 vs LC 7+4)
Also not factoring the 1 range, it is hard to compare damage output. IMO with the range SL is more comparable with Cavaliers in DPM.
No, I did not assume opponents armor. Of course that varies. But the same way that higher armor is affecting high attack speed units more, the damage upgrades (in post imp increasing damage by one more than the armor upgrades) affect them less. So I think it quite balances out in the end.
And yes, the 1 range is making a lot of difference. It is really hard to quantify and I think the reason why the unit was so OP in the beginning and then nerfed into oblivion.
For my calculations I just used the formula 60/attack speed*base damage.
I think the main problem of big buff would be mongols. Their SL will be very good in castle age if buffed too much. maybe rework the bonus HP will help overall.
Reverting changes back from the initial nerf…surely they will become OP again gold-wise, even with double collision size. For 30G, the damage output is too high
Im just talking about the general things that have been changed, which was collision size, cost, damage, attack speed and movement speed (what a ridiculously long list list tbh).
Above I proposed things like adding anti melee armor, increasing pierce armor, adding anti palisade bonus damage, making it a low attack speed, high damage unit in favour of micro potential (not all together of course), which are all things that have not been changed this way, while your suggestion was to make it less expensive, increase movement speed again, and increasing attack speed again, which are all attributes that have been initially nerfed, so you want to revert some changes(partially).
Not saying my suggestions are better (although of course, I like them better, otherwise I wouldnt have made them :D), just explaining what i mean with that.
I mean it basically just replaced the knight line when it came out, so im wondering what would be its use case, if it becomes slightly better in terms of damage output again.
sure your suggestion is very realistic too, adding 1 P amor.
Just IMO it feels like it would contradicts to what the unit intend : “weak vs archers”.
Tatars SL definitely strong vs archers if the P amor increase to 2+5
And the Mongol SL can likely replace knights if they are same P armor as knights
sure no one should focus on knight line picking mongols, but for random civs/situational reasons, knight is a must in castle age, while mongol SL could be better than knights in quite a few situations if the PA become 2+2.
This is a very good way to compare the cost in practical cases especially when one unit is more expensive on food but cheaper on gold or the opposite. But I think you should not consider the farm cost. it will make the calculation more complicated. In that case you need to consider the cost of houses as well. Since SL trains faster you are more likely to be housed if you go for this unit. All of these complexities can be ignored imo as these don’t affect the unit itself directly. Also you made a little mistake at wood collection rate. It is 21.2 before double bit axe and around 25.4 after.
Or it is better than light cav in doing what light cav does and better than knights in doing what knights do…depending on situations. The main thing is the situation where SL is the best unit choice does not come that frequently.
What about give SL a different behavior? I have two ideas:
Add them a buff for high ground bonus, %35 of attack/defense instead of generic %25.
The result should be, In flat ground:
KT > SL
CH > Elite SL
For SL in high ground scenario should be:
SL > KT
Elite SL > CH
Paladin > Elite SL (but taking high damage)
Of course, same resourses invested and same blacksmith upgrades for both.
or
Exploiting the +1 range giving them a charge damage. First hit after being in movement for 3 secs will do %50 more damage. Only using attack movement feature (doesn’t work with normal movement or patrol)
Yes, Indians who does not have a knight line. And see how difficult it is to balance on 1v1 and on TG. Why? Because Indians share a generic unit line called camels with a few other civs. Devs cannot necessarily buff camel base stats because they would buff other civs than Indians. Giving more bonus dmg to camels? Make them even more powerful in TG? Prolly not a good idea either. Designing SL as replacement of knights would probably suffer the same fate as camels, except maybe most other civs don’t have access to SL.
As for battle elephant, oh yeah. Slow, costly, a bit tanky, in a meta where speed and map control is the king, idk people would like to build those “late game” units aside from Malay (mostly because their knights are literally unusable).
So yeah, unpopular opinion. But thanks for speaking out anyways.
Steppe lancers don’t use a shield, so they have both their hands available to use their lances at full strength, their disadvantage would be getting surrounded.
A Lance is not a Spear, Lances are tremendously tip-heavy, while Spears are balanced for quick thrusts.
You can also not use a Spear as agile on a Horse, as you would on foot, because you cannot change you leg stance, or even attack in every direction (the horse’s head stops you from forward downward thrusts, for example).
Lances were only effective on the charge, which was a slow and methodical form of single attack, that sought to overcome defenses with sheer power, rather that cordinated attacks.
There are brutal diference between Spear, Pike and Lance, one of which is that the Lance was designed for single attacks, and most often designed to break on contact, so the rider was not thrown off the horse by his own charge.