Cataphracts aren't THAT good

[Pulikesi25]

He doesn’t mention whether he’s ranking from a post-imp perspective in terms of army value or from a regular RM point of view of being able to produce and use them commonly. And a lot of the placements seemed inconsistent.

You can see a lot of unusual rankings that doesn’t correlate with usage, like urumi swordsmen are probably C tier, kipchaks B tier when it comes to how useful they are in common ranked ladder games.

@Chronosphere

His rankings are obviously in context of the civ.

Even for Byzantines, you don’t have to make something so expensive to counter cheap infantry units. They have cheaper and easier options like fu arbalesters, hand canoneers. Its very situational and definitely not as useful as Mangudai, pre-nerf Gurjara uu or Coustillier.

@AbledManatee867

In late game, mostly 3 trash unit (Halberdier, Hussar and Skirmisher) is created and Cataphract counter all of 3.

When you’re making Cataphracts, opponent isn’t going to make pure trash units. And if its that stage of the game where gold has run out, halberdiers will eventually kill Cataphracts as they can be easily replaced.

@AbledManatee867

With Logistics tech, Arbalester also can’t counter Cataphract anymore.

If you make 50 Arbalesters and sit inside your walls with them and never push, sure. But Elite cataphracts and logistica are very expensive and need a lot of time. Its not possible to mass like 50+ elite cataphracts with all upgrades comfortably when opponent is playing Arbalesters. If you did that, it means you already had a huge lead and your opponent was just dragging the game. Otherwise the Arbalester player will be faster to imp and would treb down your castles.

@AbledManatee867

15 Cataphract is game finishing army because it clean all trash units. Cataphract is S tier unit because trash units in late game is too dominant now and Cataphract counter them very well.

Dozens of infantry unique units can wipe out trash units. The reason why trash units are dominant in late game is because people run out of gold. The trickle from the last mine or relics is used for siege production and people make trash as main army. Cataphracts are not low gold units to be able to keep producing for that long.

@Chronosphere

How in the world can’t Arbs counter Cataphracts? With micro the Arbs easily win with equal resources.

And this Byz dominance is rooted in what exactly? Their win rates are well well below average.

If anything they look like a civ in need of a buff.

A lot of people who play the game for their fascination of history love this civ a lot and hype it up but you’re right, its a neat average Jack of all, King of none civ.

@Green4uu

In practice, if you mix all these factors, it means that in mid elos, Byzantines are hard to play and often fall behind in Feudal. This doesn’t mean that they are trash, just a hard civ to play. They are a consistent pick in tournaments, in fact I can’t recall last tournament when they weren’t picked or banned. They are very often a 3rd pick type of civ, too which says a lot when you consider that first 2 picks are normally either OP DLC civs like Burgundians, or historically top tier civs like Aztecs.

I agree with most of your points about Byzantines being a very good and versatile civ, harder for lower elos to use but easier for experienced but they’re definitely not a 3rd type pick by any means on land maps. In some tournaments like the more recently concluded ones, half of the maps in the map pool were hybrid. And Byzantines work well in those maps when the stronger civs like Japanese or Portugese are banned. Otherwise on land they’re more like top-15 or top-20 but definitely not a top-10 civ.

[Green4uu]

@Pulikesi25

I agree with most of your points about Byzantines being a very good and versatile civ, harder for lower elos to use but easier for experienced but they’re definitely not a 3rd type pick by any means on land maps. In some tournaments like the more recently concluded ones, half of the maps in the map pool were hybrid. And Byzantines work well in those maps when the stronger civs like Japanese or Portugese are banned. Otherwise on land they’re more like top-15 or top-20 but definitely not a top-10 civ.

well yes, on Arabia-like maps they are only top 20, notably die hard to Meso and even something like Khmer probably. But aside from hybrid maps, Byzantines are good on something like Golden Lakes, or Gold Rush, too (faster Imp, + stronger Castles, + cheap Camel countering cav/CA civ that you will likely see by opponent all work nicely together here). Overall the civ is in the perfect spot, unless it’s a tournament among top 20 players, even on Arabia they aren’t terrible to roll until you are a 2k player.

[Prokman7582]

Cataphract desperately needs +1 pierce armor , to be at par with the Knight-line 2/2 armor/p.armor.

I believe that nobody would worry about such a buff, because:

1. of Cata’s high production price,
2. of the difficulty to mass them (as Castle unit), compared to Archer-line (counter by mass & range) and Knight-line (brute force counter),
3. Cata’s performance against Knight-line remains unaffected, they will still lose to Knights,
4. Cata is a UU, and not of any of the powerhouse civs; Byz win rate is bellow 50%,
5. through the years, the Archer meta dominates even with non-archer civs, pushing the Cataphract out of use.

And, if Knight-line is a notorious counter to Archer-line, there is no way a non-stable unit to also be considered as such (without a specialization); Cata will still lose to Archer-line, less horribly though.

Cata begins with 9 attack, misses Bloodlines & Blast Furnace (rightfully so - civ. identity), enough things in order to render it bad at raiding.

Does Cataphract have to also lack the heavy cav. standard of 2 base pierce armor?

PS: “Byzantine Castle drop to Cataphract” is a short joke in the meta of a whole lifetime.

PS2: Maybe only for the elite upgrade.

[filtercoffee488]

@Prokman7582

Does Cataphract have to also lack the heavy cav. standard of 2 base pierce armor?

Yes, they do. Catas are such a strong unit that the only that balances it out is its cost.

At the moment, there are no full counters to cataphracts. AoE2 has stuck with the general principle of having trash counters for all cavalry and archers units. However, while halbs do beat catas, it is only cost-effective by a sliver of resources. More importantly, it is not even close to population efficient. Byzantines also get cheaper spear line and cheaper skirm line they can mix in. So, what counters catas? If you make Paladins/elephants, they will add in their cheap halbs. Additionally, Paladins and elephants are nearly as expensive as catas. Catas will kill all infantry by themselves.

If you are playing an infantry or archer civ, you still need a good counter to catas. Ethiopians, or britons, for examples, are stuck with archers and infantry (and siege) for the most part. Or if you are playing goths, or vikings, catas hard counter your entire civ in the late game. If catas were cheaper, I would have been advocating for reducing their pierce armour. But they are fine as is, in my opinion.

[Prokman7582]

The only positive I find to Cataphract’s 1 base pierce armor, is that it makes you consider the Byzantine Paladin route, as another tactical option. Invaluable to the defensive civ, since Paladin is a game ending unit.

[FurtherLime7936]

Do you even realize that Catas aren’t Paladins right? Catas hard counter any sort of Infantry, and with Logistica not even Halbs can touch Catas?
So then why they need better PA so then Archers barely work vs Catas? and then only way to counter Catas is using Heavy Cavalry?

[ElectricEye]

Cataphracts are very good but too expensive for 1v1.
Cataphracts are not that good but affordable for team games.

That is why catas sometimes S tier some times b tier 11. +1 pierce armor and +10 hp; or, lower upgrade cost can put them in solid place.

[Nerathion]

Cataphracts also do fine vs Arbs once Logistica comes in and the opponent isn’t playing much attention.

They really don’t need to be buffed, honestly. At most, you can lower the upgrade costs but they’ve already been lowered I think?

[Malycos654]

@Prokman7582

Cata is a UU, and not of any of the powerhouse civs; Byz win rate is bellow 50%,

49% winrate isnt dramatic either and at very high elo they have 50% winrate

@Prokman7582

though the years, the Archer meta dominates even with non-archer civs, pushing the Cataphract out of use.

Since archers line nerf we are more on a cav meta. And with infantry buff, cataphract might become a bit more popular.

[Prokman7582]

@FurtherLime7936

Do you even realize that Catas aren’t Paladins right?

And they could not be Paladins. Who tells that are Paladins, with these lower stats and these many missing techs.

@FurtherLime7936

So then why they need better PA so then Archers barely work vs Catas? and then only way to counter Catas is using Heavy Cavalry?

I said that I’m far from convinced that Archers will be unable to work vs. Catas, mainly due to Archers’ nature & way of production (ranged unit, that begins to be massed one age earlier, from ordinary building).

Also, to know that the most straight way to counter Cataphract (literal meaning “completely enclosed”) is to use brute force, sounds reasonable enough… naturally, and pure tactically (investment to an expensive unit, since Cata is an expensive unit).

There were examples of other UUs terrorizing the community because of their immense ability to raid opponent’s economy. Cata is, and will be, far from these examples.

[Thomas2Tommy]

Paladin beats Cataphracts

everyone saying paladins beat cataphracts, I remember a long time ago that people figured out mass FU cataphracts can sometimes beat mass FU paladins because of logistica unique tehcnology. (40vs40 or more), yeah the new super paladins from lithuanians, new teutons, new franks, maybe Cumans (because they’re faster) should win but i talk regular paladin.

[thieftdp8498]

@Thomas2Tommy

new franks

new frank? frank’s paladin changed?

[filtercoffee488]

@Prokman7582

I said that I’m far from convinced that Archers will be unable to work vs. Catas, mainly due to Archers’ nature & way of production (ranged unit, that begins to be massed one age earlier, from ordinary building).

So, there is something called “burden of proof”. You are the person suggesting the change. So, it is your job to test and show that archers will work against catas even if you increase their Pierce armour. You can’t come up whatever theory you like and then expect others to prove or disprove it for you.

Also, you are exclusively talking about 1v1 open map games with the expense and difficulty to mass. There are team games where massing is much easier and other maps where a lot of resources are available.

Keep in mind that heavy cavalry does not counter catas since Byzantines have cheaper spear line they can easily mix in. Or camels.

[Prokman7582]

@filtercoffee488

Byzantines also get cheaper spear line and cheaper skirm line they can mix in.

@filtercoffee488

Keep in mind that heavy cavalry does not counter catas since Byzantines have cheaper spear line they can easily mix in. Or camels.

You cannot argue that Byzantines can add a second type of unit in their army, implying that the opponent cannot do the same… nuff said about that.

By proceeding to mixed army, you reduce the portion of the army that went under blacksmith upgrades, and you essentially suggest more spending on upgrades for the second type, that will reduce even further the army size.

By mixing, you might end at a point that Byz might win by the wider tech-tree, but I’m not here to calculate all of this.

The only quick correct reply to my arguments, is that I should consider Cataphract as a defensive unit, that has to be deployed against the appropriate unit of preference of the opponent (obviously some infantry), as a response only; not deployable as Byz player’s pick to perform offensive actions (like using it with a Byz Castle drop). Consequently, it shouldn’t be used when Archers and/or Knights appear, but Archers or Knights appear literary close to 100% of the games. That’s what I pointed out in my previous posts. And that’s why Cavalier/Paladin is the choice for the Byz player who wants to win the opponent decisively, rather than by exhausting them.

At least, as someone pointed out:

@Malycos654

And with infantry buff, cataphract might become a bit more popular.

Before that happen, Cataphract’s case remains curious, because nobody can say with certainty that Cata’s potential recruitment at least, plays any tactical role.

@filtercoffee488

you are exclusively talking about 1v1 open map games with the expense and difficulty to mass. There are team games where massing is much easier and other maps where a lot of resources are available

Probably I exclusively talk about 1v1. In a team game I can imagine even more “brute force” fat units, that will rekt Catas.

@filtercoffee488

So, there is something called “burden of proof”. You are the person suggesting the change. So, it is your job to test and show that archers will work against catas even if you increase their Pierce armour. You can’t come up whatever theory you like and then expect others to prove or disprove it for you.

It’s not my job to test any buff. I came up with the fact the current Cata loses horribly to Archer-line.

I just focus into that, searching if it’s truly a necessity, since nobody really feels terrorized by the current Cataphract.

[filtercoffee488]

@Prokman7582

You cannot argue that Byzantines can add a second type of unit in their army, implying that the opponent cannot do the same… nuff said about that.

No, not enough. You need to consider every other civ and see if all of them have viable combinations which can counter this combination. For example, ethiopians, mayans and goths.

@Prokman7582

Probably I exclusively talk about 1v1. In a team game I can imagine even more “brute force” fat units, that will rekt Catas.

You ignored the other point, where I mentioned maps with more resources than 1v1 arabia.

Again, you keep forgetting that the principle of AoE2 is that there should not be any units which are only countered by brute force. There should be trash counters to every non-infantry unit.

Not every civ has such a brute-force unit. Most infantry and archers civs don’t. For example, how are mayans and britons supposed to counter this beefed up cataphract?

@Prokman7582

The only quick correct reply to my arguments

This tells me that you have fully made up your mind as to what other’s response should be. If so, why are you even looking for replies? 11

@Prokman7582

Cata loses horribly to Archer-line.

Firstly, they don’t. Secondly, you haven’t explained why that is a problem. Lastly, I have explained why that is not a problem.

@Prokman7582

I just focus into that, searching if it’s truly a necessity, since nobody really feels terrorized by the current Cataphract.

Very interesting choice of words there. “Terrorized”. You want people to feel “terrorized” by cataphracts. Meaning, you just want your favourite unit, cataphract, to be as OP as possible so that you can use it and feel good about terrorizing other people.

I have my favourite units too, but I’d never advocate for something like that. Balance is much more of a priority for me. That leads me to believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation, as the two of us are interested in different things.

[Prokman7582]

@filtercoffee488

Byzantines also get cheaper spear line and cheaper skirm line they can mix in.

@filtercoffee488

You need to consider every other civ and see if all of them have viable combinations which can counter this combination. For example, ethiopians, mayans and goths.

Do you say that Ethiopians and Mayans might have tough time to counter the Byzantine Cata+Skirm combo?

@filtercoffee488

You ignored the other point, where I mentioned maps with more resources than 1v1 arabia.

Yes, I went with the team games, in which the resources can be infinite. Infinite is bigger than the simple “more resources than 1v1 arabia”. My thought was: The richer the map/mode, the more expensive units will appear to stop Cata.

@filtercoffee488

@Prokman7582

The only quick correct reply to my arguments

This tells me that you have fully made up your mind as to what other’s response should be. If so, why are you even looking for replies? 11

Well, quote replying the beginning of my statement, having emptied it of its content, can be considered an action that shows you didn’t seek to reply to it. 24

@filtercoffee488

@Prokman7582

Cata loses horribly to Archer-line.

Firstly, they don’t. Secondly, you haven’t explained why that is a problem. Lastly, I have explained why that is not a problem.

Firstly, we agree to disagree. Secondly, I have mentioned:

@Prokman7582

through the years, the Archer meta dominates even with non-archer civs, pushing the Cataphract out of use.

Being out of use, feels closely related to useless (assuming that there is no hidden tactical role by… just being available to train). I’m eager to see how the recent infantry boost will go, tho.

@filtercoffee488

You want people to feel “terrorized” by cataphracts. Meaning, you just want your favourite unit, cataphract, to be as OP as possible so that you can use it and feel good about terrorizing other people.

I have my favourite units too, but I’d never advocate for something like that.

That’s your personal assumption.

What I say is that only units that are terrorizing people are certainly not a subject of buffing.

@filtercoffee488

Balance is much more of a priority for me. That leads me to believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation, as the two of us are interested in different things.

I’m not even the original poster .