Everytime I go berbers, I want to monk rush. Then I realize that I am missing both sanctity AND block printing, which means my monks let enemies get close, and then when they are close, they murder my monks.
Sigh.
I know berbers shouldn’t have it all. They shouldn’t be given more than one legitimate strategy with camels. But it feels so awful having my monks K.O.d so hard. Compare them to saracen monks. Its disgusting how well saracen monks do compared to berbers.
I want block printing and sanctity so bad, so that my monks can at least snag enemies. That said, there is one monestary tech that berbers could do without. Herbal medicine could get DELETED and i wouldn’t care at all, cause of berber healing passive from their monks.
That said, I’d love to see ANY light cavalry/heavy archer civ that has decent monks with a full tech tree, not including herbal medicine. Best civ that even comes close to this description are byzantines, but they are not a light-cav/cav-archer civ.
And then of course there are the spanish, but conqs are not true cav archers.
On other notes, notice how FEW civs are lacking herbal medicine? They all have it. Also majorly disgusting Sigh… At least vikings dont get herbal. Civs that get passive healing dont deserve herbal medicine. >:(
Why pick Berbers if you want to monk rush?
If you want to monk rush, why not pick a civ with good monks or one that lets you get monks out earlier?
That said, I’d love to see ANY light cavalry/heavy archer civ that has decent monks with a full tech tree
You listed one already, Saracens.
Their HCA are actually better than Berbers too.
Lithuanians would also fit that description as well and their monastery works faster too.
Honestly, I’m a little bewildered by your post.
You monk rush as Berbers and say that the closest thing to the ideal light cav+HCA civ is Byzantines.
You also complain about too many civs having herbal medicine, even though that tech rarely gets used by most people.
Strange.
No, the saracens are not a cavalry archer civ. The cavalry archer civs are as follows:
Mongols
Tartars
Cumans
Huns
Magyars
Berbers
Saracens might have ok cavalry archers just cause they have the upgrades. However, their main push is not dedicated to cavalry archers unlike the others I just named. You might say- but wait no parthian tactics = not cavalry archer civ? Aaaaand you would be mostly right. Except camel archers replace cavalry archers int he berber lineup and they provide genitors to the cavalry archer civs which are a required unit, so they count.
No, the saracens are not a cavalry archer civ. The cavalry archer civs are as follows:
Mongols
Tartars
Cumans
Huns
Magyars
Berbers
Japanese, Saracens, Indians and Turks are some other civs with fully upgraded cav archers but they don’t count?
Because it’s not their “main push”?
Whatever you are determining this “main push” to be, this is something you are determining and not the game.
However, their main push is not dedicated to cavalry archers unlike the others I just named.
So, a Saracen player is typically going to go for foot archers or camels. How does that not set you up to make cav archers later?
That said, I’d love to see ANY light cavalry/heavy archer civ that has decent monks with a full tech tree
Remember this is what you asked about originally?
Fits Saracens completely and it’s something Lith can do too.
Doesn’t matter if you disagree with it, these civs objectively would be better at monk rushing than Berbers.
Everytime I go turks, I want to spearman rush. Then I realize that I am missing both halb and pikeman upgrade, which means my spearmen suck, and then when they fight, they get crushed.
Sigh.
I know turks shouldn’t have it all. They shouldn’t be given more than one legitimate strategy with gunpowder camel hussar CA. But it feels so awful having my spear K.O.d so hard. Compare them to japanese halbs. Its disgusting how well japanese halb do compared to turks.
Yeah people are totally missing the point of balancing suggestions. It is not about what your favourite civ is and how you can buff them so you even enjoy them more. Sorry but these arguments are trash.
Is the next thing we are gonna read that britons should get better cav, because only archers are too boring and people want to have other options? Or Franks with better archers?
If suggestions like these suceed we will only have civs with full tech tree soon.
Maybe think about that: Burmese probably struggle the most atm and you want to take away the one of the few things away which they have if you give every civ full monestary techs.
As I understand it you’re going cavalry/camel archer, and you want to use monks as a support unit to take out any counters they come up with, mostly pikemen, skirmishers and/or camels. Is that a correct description of your base game plan? What is the reason that, playing as Berbers, you would want to use monks for that support role, rather than say skirmishers, archers (if they’re not using skirmishers), scorpions, mangonels, rams (just to have some kind of a damage sponge in front) or longswordmen? Monks seem like a really big investment if your purpose is to defeat pikemen. People mostly use them against expensive units like knights and elephants.
If we understand your reasoning we might be able to agree or offer advice.
Personally, I would not give Berbers any kind of buff right now. They’re one of the strongest civs measured in win percentage yet not overpowered enough anywhere that people complain about them. Their balance is great, they should not be touched until the meta around them has changed enough to unbalance them again.
