the argument was that it was unfair that the eagle performs so well when the camel does not. my point was that the eagle has to be well rounded because it makes up for the lack of cavalry for those civs.
your argument has no bearing on that at all.
except my point was the eagle is a substitute for the missing cavalry units for meso civs, thus it makes sense for it be more well rounded.
the camel is not a replacement for cavalry units as most camel civs still have cavalry, and those with bad cavalry get bonuses to their camels.
lets use your logic then.
make camels more well rounded. all camel civs lose all other cavalry. including horse archers.
no, but why does it need 1 extra attack? it does what its supposed to do. be a cavalry counter. just because you want more then that is NOT justification for changing the unit.
So I have to train as many camels as my opponent trains Knights? I have pump out a single use GOLD unit and i have to pump them out fast enough to counter that knight rush⊠That is the issue
Its a gold counter that doesnât even do its job properly. It isnât even a hard counter(like the skirm which isnât even gold and can actually counter pikes as well as archers)
you could always use pikes, the advantage of camels is they beat knights 1 on 1, where as pikes do not.
the skirm is also the only anti archer unit in the game for most civs. the camel on the other hand is not. and unlike the pike, the camel wins 1 v 1 and can actually chase the knight down and force an engagement.
the skirm is also available to everyone.
and i agree saracens need love in general, as do ethiopians. ethiopians still have pikes for an anti cavalry role and get that upgrade for free. they also have faster firing archers. the point was that the eagle is a better all arounder because every eagle civ lacks cavalry. whereas camel civs do not lack heavy cavalry at all.
But thatâs now 3 tech lines. All the tech and buildings required.
Ironically 2 eagle races are S tier and incan are arguably A tier. While of all the camel civs only Chinese and mongols are S tier and everything else is B tier or lower.
I know camels donât force the civs into their tiers, but mesos certainly arenât hurting for their lack of cav. Mayans have their own CA with fewer counters even.
Mesos even have fewer blacksmith upgrades because of their âlack of cavalryâ allowing them to have something remarkably similar to heavy cav, and infantry and archers for only 2 tech lines.
I think my issue is also due to pathing⊠How fhe units stack up into one long line when trying to chase down retreating enemy. So yoh end up hardly doing the dps you should, allowing the retreating enemy to take a lot more hits and thereby have more control over the engagement (draw you into archers, own pikes or an uphill fight) and thus im less appreciative of the camels speed in chasing Knights down.
I think for the high cost of a Camel, they should do a bit better universally.
In fact I would also get rid of the +1bonus damage from buildings they recieve, which I forgot in the initial post
Maybe, I guess, but something should be done about Sl. I mean if someone finds a role for the SL it can be buffed according to that, otherwise I would tune it to be about cost efficient vs. the Knight, doing a bit better in large numbers and a bit worse in small numbers.
I think the power levels are fine and for these Civs I suggested only minor buffs, which I feel wont affect the overall strength of the Civ only very little but make it more consistent. For example I think that Berserkergang and Bearded Axe cost too much for what they offer.
With Khmer on the other hand, I think the Ballista Elephant is pretty bad an should get some buffs. Khmer werenât completely OP when they recieved the farm bonus and since then have been nerved twice.
If the Ballista-Ele is as viable as the scorpion the overall Civ strength is pretty much the same. Maybe my buff suggestions are too big, but like with all others it could be implemented in steps. Just do one buff and if thats not enough buff it again, but I think the BalE needs some big buff to become viable.
Iâm fine with them getting a compensation. I think a civ shouldnât be all bad but one unit being extremely strong, so their overall power level is in line with the rest.
I donât know exactly what to give them to compensate though.
Most likely, however I donât see why Jaguars should have so little HP compared to the rest of Castle age infantry. btw. I only want non Elite Jags to get +5HP
I got the anti siege condo idea from the thread here about how to fix Italians and I liked it. At least it has a role and it covers an italian weakness.
Maybe I went a bit overboard with the GC buffs but compared to most UU-archers the GC is rather weak while being the most expensive. I think there is consensus about the TT reduction, but I think they should either get better stats or become cheaper.
Could be that I went overboard with the buffs again. On one hand I want Koreans to be overall good, but especially they should join the ranks of Italians, Vikings and argueably Portuguese as a top tier water civ and I think the best way is to make the Turtle ship good. I mean the Galley line only costs 30Gold and very little to upgrade.
I was also toying around with the idea of increasing the wood discount to 25% but removing shipwright, I guess it would depend how the water and land balance turns out.
My thinking was that I buffed all other Gunpowder units so the organ gun needs an even bigger buff. Yet still I donât think a 25damage elite organ gun would be overpowered compared to a 22 damage Janissary. I mean it costs more needs to be repaired, has no armor upgrades but has a similar role. Or would a small AoE effect with less damage be a problem?
I was thinking that with the stable tech discount it would become viable to go for Paladin and Cataphract even in games without trade. With lack of crucial techs like Blast Furnace, Siege Engineers and Bloodlines a lot of Byz options are a bit weaker then compareable units of other civs, so they need to be able to always field an appropiate counter as overpowering the enemy is more difficult. With both Units available they have more flexibility in the Counter-options. In effect their Paladin is on the level of a good Cavalier, so I think its fine if they donât pay as much to get there, same for the Hussar.
The discount on the other stable techs, which are quite cheap anyway is nice but doesnât have a huge impact, maybe like 400 resources, mostly in Imperial. Blacksmith wouldnât be affected.
Wasnât the problem that at some point the Koreans Onagers had 8+3 range and would even outrange some castles? With turks their Mangos would still only have the range of a SE-onager, but worse HP, armor and damage, so I donât think its overpowered.
The Scorpions would get a significant upgrade though. Not sure about that. One one hand I want to give them more options against melee as I make their cav a bit weaker against them, however I want them mostly to use gunpowder in that case.
Cav Archers wouldnât be affected. Would only affect Stable units. I think their main weakness are archers, so their cavalry becomes a bit better against them, while they get worse against melee so its even more crucial to take gunpowder to acompany them.
I mean I already proposed a handcannon buff and would apply the same to the Janissary. I donât think they would be extremely powerful with a bit more accuracy and a bit quicker fire rate (I think that would be about 15%)
I would rather give them their Dark age bonus back in return. I think Trashbows are very strong in CA. In Imp other archers had more upgrades that persians donât get, so they are relatively weaker.
I would say no, but if it should then I would give Mamelukes -1 attack
Iâd be fine with not doing all of these. I was mostly going for how these units etc. are in relation to other units and techs. I mean like for example how the Tarkan performs in relation to the paladin. I think all of these buffs are minor enough to not really have an effect on the overall civ power level in relation to other civs.
It is worth pointing out though that all civilisations which get good camels in Imp lack good* Paladin. (Berbers, Indians, Malians, Saracens all lack Paladin, and Byz* have Cavelier-grade paladins.)
As a result these civs have to make do with Camel + Cavelier to try to fill out the role of Paladin. The fact that camels canât raid very well, and are pretty poor against archers & foot-soldiers does hurt these civs.
In this sense Heavy Camel is like the Eagle warriors. It has to be more than just a cavalry-counter for these civs.
Also note that non of these camel-dependent-cavelry civs are top-tier.
Also for Turks camels are the only decent Cav-counter, and it hurts Turks that camels arenât nearly as cost-effective as pikes.
except it will. throwing axeman, woads, berserks, and huskarls all see play. especially huskarls. and how you can think it wonât affect the overall power of the civ?
Goths are a top 5 civ as is, you just made their UU even cheaper, and gave them an extra point of damage against buildings.
disagree. they actually kill knights 1 on 1, unlike the other option, which is pike. and youâd also be nerfing the ability for civs to fight imp camels.
they tried that. it was busted.
and are still one of the most popular civs in the game.
i mean there are stronger UU in the game, and Leitis can only be feasibly brought out in the Imperial Age, as it otherwise affects the boom.
and yet they wreck every other infantry, hp aint a problem.
rattan archer is more expensive. TT reduction i agree with.
that would be an overall nerf to where they are right now on water. they currently enjoy 15% discount + shipwright which gives +20% more and faster training.
organ gun has more health and is better against archers (higher pierce armor). and yeah aoe would be a problem.
good thing they get cheap camels, halbs and skirms then.
paladin isnât the only form of cavalry.
berbers get cheaper cavalry in general, including camels, Indians get Imperial Camels who get all sorts of bonuses, Malians have bloody Farimba, Saracens i agree need some love, and Byzantines have so many other options is ridiculous but they still need love.
and all those civs still have cavalry archers and scout line, something that Eagle civs lack.
and eagle civs have NEITHER.
good thing they have scout line and cavaliers or other raiding options eagle civs donât then.
and camels arenât meant to raid or do well against archers. if they were, they would have some more pierce, higher base attack, and lower bonus vs cavalry. they were NEVER designed as an all around unit with a small cavalry bonus, despite what you want.
no, it really doesnât. all those civs have scouts or cavaliers or cav archers to fill those roles.
you want camels to be a more well rounder like the eagle? all camel civs give up knights, scouts, and cav archers completely. just like eagle civs do. have fun redesigning all those civs. and guarantee you Turks, mongols, Persians, Malians, Tatars and Indians would hate you for it.
and that has nothing to do with camels, nor are they, except Saracens and Indians, the latter of who is a top tier team game civ. but funnily enough Persians were top tier pre nerf, and Malians and Berbers are top 10 civs.
furthermore most everyone agrees Turks, Byzantines, Saracens, and Ethiopians could use some love.
camels are better then pikes in many regards. they actually beat knights 1 v 1 (Which pikes do not), and they can actually force an engagement (which pikes can not), and they also do better against non cavalry units then pikes do (Do to higher attack, speed, and health). furthermore iâd be fine with giving turks Pikes and Elite Skirms.
I personally would only give +1 attack to the heavy Camel, not the Castle Age Camel.
I just donât think it should be that bad to use them outside of their main purpose for a unit that costs that much.
I think it should be ok, if you can use your Camels to beat down small groups of archers or use them to defend vs. sword line or similar when in a pinch, or destroy rams in an emergency. These would still be unfavorable engagements or subpar options, but ever so slightly less, which is fine.
They do much better against their non counters then any of the regular counters do. skirms vs cavalry? terrible damage and low attack rate.
pikes vs non cavalry units? terrible damage and low attack rate.
camels? still pretty bad attack, but their attack rate is decent and they have a huge speed advantage.
how much is a small group of archers?
i mean rams have negative armor, so rams will always be bad against melee no matter what. even villagers do good against them.
or we can not fix what isnât broken and fix real problems. you have some good ideas (fixing koreans, turks, etc), which are definite needs to be fixed, but i donât think camels is one of them.
+1 carry capacity is close to be OP. The castle age farm upgrade improves the carry capacity by 1 and, as effect it increases the food collection by >4%. At least I got that from sotl farm videoâŠ
Just to shoot some ideas for a nerf to the top civs:
Aztecs: carry capacity-1
Chinese: UT provides ckn a further +1 attack and +1 range. They loose bracer
Mayans: plumes are made cheaper (40w,g) and around 10% slower. Mayans archers move 10% faster. Mayans loose cheap archers
I let the late game untouched and also the UUs, since they add game variety. Cheap archers can be given to Italians instead of all the suggestions (expect reduced GC TT)