As with all my balance ideas, it might be bad, but please give reasons or alternatives or just give a like to the first post disagreeing with me.
details of the proposal:
- give camels +2 PA
- give all defensive structures & ranged units except foot archers +2 damage vs camels
- give skirms + 6 attack vs camels
- give camels + 4 attack vs archers
reasons for proposal:
- In the context of a team game, where you’re likely to see scouts + archers, it would make a Saracen FC into Camels valuable
- It would make Camels 2-dimensional rather than 1-dimensional
- It would be interesting to have a unit that counters both the most popular units in the game
- It would be interesting to have a unit that is extra-weak against trash
disadvantages of proposal (that I can see myself)
- Indians would have no answer to knights+skirms. RIP Indians…
- In 1v1s camel play could become too weak if they’re countered by skirms.
consequences of ambiguous value:
- people would have to rethink their team-game composition when facing camels
I disagree. It is an interesting idea, but as you have pointed out, there are some drawbacks.
The most important one seems to me that it increases the already existing gap between civs with and without camels. Normally, camel civs have an advantage over non-camel civs when facing a pure cavalry civ. With your idea, they would have an advantage nearly always. Camels would be the go-to unit in nearly every case.
Imagine how it would be to play against them: If you go for knights, you already have to mix them with pikes/monks. That’s not too big of a problem, as you can run away, when the opponent surprises you with his camels and you don’t have enough camel counters. But with archers you can’t run away that easily, so you could only leave your base with lots of skirms mixed in which would heavily nerf your army strength against everything else. So even if you have scouted the opponent’s stables, you don’t know which units you should go for to counter them.
Other issues are that camels would dominate team games even more, because in tgs you almost never go for skirms (as they die to knights). In 1v1s however, Indians would be even worse, as you have pointed out, as they don’t have any good skirm counter. But they are a terribly designed civ anyways, so who cares if they die
Yes, it would be interesting. But I have no clue how to balance it without nerfing every camel civ heavily, which would make them all one-trick-ponys.
I very much like unconventional balancing ideas, but I really don’t see this one working too well
Really bad idea. Camels counter knights and other cavalry unit. Leave it at that. They basically armored anti cavalry units. Much more beefy stats when compared to a Halberdier. Knights have a harder time getting away from Camels than Halberdiers,
Indians Camels do a little better outside their intended role.
It seems to ruin the balance.
In most team games the meta will be flanks go archers, pockets knights or camels.
If Camels beat Archers too, then they are pretty much OP, since they counter both unit type of the enemy. That makes the game much more 1-dimensional for me. So most reasons for the proposal are not true or i dont want them to happen.