Simply because they cancelled a wasted UT slot for something interesting that could actually be used, and that enables them to make a Halbs + SO push with a unique bonus, which Is interesting.
This is the differenze between a strong tech and a interesting tech i was talking before. While counterweights is not strong, it allows saracens to add something unique to a strategy they previously had nothing unique for
you can simply place the castles in a more offensive way and have this UT work for you. also like many suggested here that we can simply buff it and no need to remove it altogether.
I think of woads as a knight replacement without a weakness to pikes. they are pretty strong in that role
Imho a buff to this tech should also do something for, or have some to del with, infantry as well, since celts are an infantry civ.
Also placing castles more offensively does not really change the fact that without bracers and so on your castles are still not that dangerous
If like âinfantry garrisoned heals twice as fastâ could already be something more sinergic
Iâll take this one
and call it a day. Making the tech more useful while keeping the them and neither buffing nor nerfing the civ.
And 40% less HP, and -2/-1 armor, and needing a Castle, and 1800 res to upgrade compared to 600 cavalier, Itâs not as simple as that sadly
If celts had FU cavalier we would never see woads probably, which does not mean wods are bad. Simply they are decent.
Slavs and franks arent defensive civs either but both have bonuses that make their lackluster defenses a little better
Exactly.
And yet still a decent all around unit. No clear weaknesses.
In Late Imperial yes, Woad Raider is decent all around unit but is it so in Castle Age? Both Crossbow and Knight simply counter Woad Raider. Woad Raider is bad at raiding due to low PA, too. In Castle Age, it is very bad unit like other heavy infantries except Huskarl, Ghulam and Obuch, Celts lacking Bloodlines 100 hp Knight is better, thatâs why Celts Players goes Knight instead of Woad Raiders. If Celts would have FU Cavalier, we wonât see any Woad Raider until gold runs out.
Iâll take Heraâs opinion over yours and his opinion is the unit is decent against archers. yeah knights will beat it 1v1, but the unit is cheaper.
furthermore, your complaints are ridiculous because pretty much every castle age unique unit is handicapped in general by the castle requirement, so of course knights are a better option.
I do think the elite upgrade is a bit too expensive, but other then that the only thing i would change about celts is maybe making Strongholds a little stronger. wouldnât change the tech to some completely new tech though.
I didnât complain about Castle requirement, what are you talking about. Knight is better stats due to having Pikeman counter but power gap between Knight and Woad Raider is too large, thus 100 hp Knight become better option than buffed UU.
Crossbow counter Woad Raider. Why does Hera think âWoad Raider is okay against Crossbowâ? Woad Raider has only 1 PA and 65 hp. Even 120 hp Knight struggle against Crossbow if second armor upgrade isnât researched.
In conclusion, heavy infantries including Woad Raider are unfortunately useless in Castle Age except 3 of them, Ghulam, Huskarl and Obuch.
Crossbow are only good against fast units if they keep the numbers down. Thats why. Its very easy to spam woads in late castle age and beyond due to their cheap gold cost
25 Crossbow beat any number of Woad Raider. Woad Raider is more expensive (less gold but a lot more food) than Crossbow as well. Woad Raider is pretty weak unit against Crossbow if you ask you me. Steppe Lancer (+15% faster, +23% hp, more damage output due to 1 melee range, only slightly expensive, +22% in total resources) is stronger than Woad Raider against Archers but even Steppe Lancer is known weak unit against archers.
assuming htey can magically keep kiting them forever, which wonât bloody happen.
not in the late game itâs not. that 25 gold is downright cheap.
a huge weakness to spears, which you frequently see archers accompanied with later in the game, which woads donât haveâŠn2m steppe lancers cost 40 gold each. Also I love how steppe lancers somehow magically do more damage due to having extra range but Woads donât due to smaller hit box and more up front attackâŠ
Guess your logic is not very logical.
But then again youâre the guy who thinks Knights and Light Cav fill the same roleâŠ
anyway, ignoring you from now on. Again, iâll take the opinion of a tried and tested pro over yours any day.
I donât want to overextend this discussion. It is clear that Woad Raider is weak against archers, they arenât trash like Champion but they are very weak. If you think Woad Raider is okay against Crossbow or Arbalest, you should show a game where Woad trade okay against archers as a proof. Woad Raider like all other heavy infantry is late game unit, even Generic Cavalier is better stats despite its higher cost. Even legendary Berserk is late game unit, if Vikings had plate barding armor and Bloodlines, Vikings would also go Cavalier instead of Berserk until gold runs out.
They serve a purpose, which is why they are cheaper. They are production Building for UU. Slavs can spam cheaper castles to have boyar production, while Franks can use their 25% cheaper Castles to ease a throwing axemen switch when paladin/cav stream ends. If they had different bonuses outside of cheaper they would be extremely less useful for the civ
Tbf, It seem kinda biased to just pick and opinion of a pro and end a discussion on It, especially since Hera Is known to be one of the most opinionated pro that often gives pretty questionable points that are not shared by other pros
I think that if celts had access to FU cavalier, you would never see woad raiders. They have weakness to archers and ranged units in general, cause they are fast but 1 PA speaks for itself, and are also not Amazing in melee over regular Champion.
Basically they have much higher Speed over regular Champion but much higher cost as well, so you should not overstate their advantages.
They are consistently valued as âaverageâ (B tier or so) whenever a UU tier List comes out from a pro, so letâs not pretent they are this amazing unit. They are no Obuch
Also elite upgrade costs 1800. Not cheap at all, second only to trash serjeants
Yeah, this one can be a bit cheaper. Some of the infantry UU got their upgrade cost reduction in a previous patch. But WR didnât for little to no reason. It should be 1000f/800g â 800f/700g
Woad raiders and/or petard moves even faster. maybe not necessary for WR but definitely more useful than faster attacking castle without bracers.
Which civ does have the best cavalry ? Franks may got 192hp paladins, but teutons with +2 MA beat Frank paladins in a 1v1. And lituanians with + relics too. And Persians also got Heavy Camels that beat cost effectively Paladins. And this is without the fact that Franks light cav is subpaar.
The civ with the best siege depends on what you focus on, of course. But I think you are not denying that they have great siege units. Celts may not beat Bohemians and Mongols head on, but get better siege-oriented match ups against many other civs. After all, Bohemians do not have Siege onagers and Mongols do not have halberdiers.
Yes the Celts have fewer options than most civs, but so what ? Do you play Celts hoping it to be a well rounded jack of all trades ? You are picking the wrong civ, sir.
I bet you never made a Saracens Halbs + OS push⊠Maybe a very expensive SO + Mameluke ? Pikes are not that good against cavaliers btw.
Yeah, I totally understand what you say. You basically say that:
(1) Celts are ânot interesting enoughâ for you,
(2) and the castle age UT has a lot of potential to make Celts more interesting.
I fully agree with (2), but I do not think that (1) is a strong argument for it. If Celts had a âlow play rateâ, it would âshowâ that the civ is ânot interesting enoughâ for the community, and (2) would be entirely fair to consider.
Just like here for instance about Woad Raiders:
I agree that woad raiders lose to both crossbows and knights (even without bloodlines) in castle age. Should it be buffed ? Not necessarily.
For me it goes down more to the question âAre Celts very weak as a civ ?â. Which would be âshownâ to some extend if Celts had a âlow win rateâ (of course not the only criterion, still the main one for me). I currently feel that we should not really just buff Celts alone.
Some civs have very strong UU, some civs have weak ones. What matter for me is how well the civ fares overall.
Just like the arguments of type âit wouldnt be OPâ is not enough for me because it then just sounds like saying something like âMy favorite civ is only the 25th best, so we can buff it to make it the 11th best, nobody should complain if there are still 10 better civsâ.
Just like not every civ can the best, I find it fair no not touch âmiddle of the pack civsâ. If Celts have to get buffed, Iâd have no problem with that as long as there is a fair reason, such as potentially âno strong cavaliers and no arbalest make them way too weak in open map team games, which are (hypotically at least) the most played game mod in the game, so they need either a buff for one of these units or of a alternative Celt unit (scorpions or woad raiders)â.
But this is not what we are talking about in this thread.
So as long as there is no deep diving into details, my replies are:
I never said that
I said that their Castle Age UT not only is weak, but does not suite their playstile as well, making It further pointless, which Is very different. I never said celts are not interesting enoigh as a whole
That said, a more interesting tech is Always a good thing
I said woad raiders are not an outstanding unit for what should be their âPower unitâ, and they are not even raiders with weakness to arrows and no particuar bonuses or traits to raid (like keshik) or ability to do damage fast (like tarkan)
Thus why i proposed a UT to address Just that. Itâs not like woads would become the new zerk with +1 PA and +2 bonus vs buildings, but they would be more cost effective and better usable as raiders