First - I like to play Slavs and I also agree with the developers, that the Boyar should have a slight change (although it´s not an urgent problem). I even agree with some posts I´ve already read, that Boyar is very similar to the Teuton paladin and as a result not really unique any more. Concerning this, a buff to the Boyar can really be taken into account.
The only problem I see is what gets buffed. The +2 melee armor will turn Boyar argueable into the strongest 1v1 cavalry unit . Anyway, I don´t really see the point in that. Even now, Boyars in melee are just beaten by Lithuanian Cav (and Slavs have lots of great counters against Lithuania so thats a fight that usually does not happen anyway). So the planned buff just enhances an area, where the unit is already a powerhouse.
What Slavs really lack is a good answer to archers (even that is more than often discussed here). As a result, I ask myself why Boyars get their buff to the melee armor and not to the pierce armor. With + 2 pierce armor instead, FU Boyars would be something like a mounted Huskarl. That may sound a bit op in the first place, but would most likely be not at all. Even with such a buff, their creation would still be cost intensive and limited to castles. Besides that, Boyars still keep their weakness to anti cav units like the spear and the camel line. Both of theese problems don´t apply to Huskarls. The only thing that would really change is the point that a small troop of Boyers could be used to soak up arrows a bit similar to a ram. That would not change the world but Slavs weakness to archers would no longer be that severe. Besides that, the Boyer would even get quite unique this way and no longer remain a castle made version of the Teuton paladin.
To cut it short - I would propose to buffs Boyars pierce armor instead of their melee armor.
because the boyar is not supposed to be a mounted huskarl. furthermore how do slavs have no good answer to archers?
they have elite skirms that lack only bracer, so you could argue in imperial age they are slightly lacking, but even then they have onager, hussar and boyar.
the boyar takes 50 shots as is to take down. that’s incredibly strong as is. not as strong as paladin but stronger then most units in the game.
yes because an 8 PA unit that takes 75 shots from arbs to kill, and can already beat most paladins in the game, what could possibly go wrong?
I don´t really see a Problem in a 8 pierce armor unit. FU Skirms and Eagles also reach that value. Maybe the example with the mounted Huskarls was a bit bad, but I still don´t think that high pierce armor on Boyer would be a real problem. A unit that is limited to castles, very expensive and countered hard by a trash unit should not break anything at all.
Besides that, the thread should not be about the power of archers and Slavs weakness against them in generel. It is just a about the question, if the planned buff is a good idea at all and/or if there should be done anything instead.
no, with his change they wouldn’t get the extra melee armor. they would just
beat most paladins 1v1 and still be better against archers then every paladin ever. you know. something that would be totally busted in team games.
That’s along the line of the joke, yes. Teutons don’t get light cavalry, Celts don’t get bloodlines or the last armor tech, Slavs get all the things, plus a strong siege workshop, yet I generally don’t see Teuton players complaining about archers.