If you get lamed as Mongols that’s indeed way worse but at the same time Mongols are among the best laming civs themselves. And early tc idle time shouldn’t really happen with any civ since some sheep are usually in your tc’s los at the start. But yes, it depends on a lot of factors. If, for instance, as Mongols you don’t get deer you’ll still be up a bit faster than Lithuanians but you won’t really have more overall food after that.
2 Likes
I don’t know the pick rates for the recent tournaments but pick rate in 1650+ is ~3% for Lithuanians and ~4% for Mongols. The 2 recent Red Bull tournaments are heavily weighted towards Lithuanians from what I recall from the stats summaries they showed
In 1650+, Lithuanians are at 52.15% vs. Mongols at 48.81%. I don’t really care about lower elos but some board members seem to - in this case doesn’t matter, no matter which elo you look at, Mongols are lower win rate
I’m not advocating for a Mongol buff but I’m not sure there’s a ton of evidence that Mongols are a better civ unless you can point me to the tournament data you seem to cite
It might be but it only really seems like Castle Age / early Imperial is where they have a <50% win rate in 1650+. They are strong in the early game from the win rates over game time and strong in the late game. If you want to purely attribute this to strong trash + Leitis that’s fine, but then it means they don’t really need a long-term eco bonus
For patch reasons the best recent tournament to look at is probably the recent arabia invitational in which Mongols have been drafted in most (maybe even all, not sure) sets while Lithuanians have been picked only sometimes. I think RB is different because of the game mode but Lith were indeed very prominent there. I guess the upcoming kotd will bring some clarifications on that topic.
2 Likes
I said if they collect atleast one relic. The extra attack and armor are balanced now. +Teutons lack husbandry. If the collect atleast two, they become the best without doubt.
Moreover I said best Knights (1vs1) and not the bet Knight rush (as an army, in which creation speed and costs shall matter too).
The best knights boils down to more then pure stats. Franks and teutons both have better economies then lithuanians. Yeah lith will win 1v1 but franks can pump them out faster and teutons invests less into keeping their eco rolling.
1 Like
Ai you guys really? Just keep ignoring what we’re saying. Nevermind that you can’t simply directly compare one UU to another.
Especially in this case. But even if we do the boyar is MUCH harder to kill with arbs or ranged in general. Trains faster from castle age already. 4boyars for every 3 leitis. The leitis is specifically designed for taking out boyar and TKs. It’s like complaining that an arb is worse than a skirm and more expensive.
And on top of that… Slavs have a much better long term eco. Have MUCH better siege. Have MUCH better barracks. Have a better team bonus.
1 Like
that’s true but most tournaments don’t run empire wars.
And yet who do pros turn to in tournaments? Mongols.
Pretty much any tournament that isnt ew or arena only has mongols used more then Lithuanians.
Maybe. But the point is that despite youre claim that thry are some super great civ in need of nerfing, literally other evidence says no. Even in boa 2, a team game tournament that would heavily favor lithuanians they saw less use and a lower winrate then mongols
not to mention I’d probably take slav halbs over lithuanians halbs…
1 Like
And what is exactly the reason of that change? because they kill Boyars effectively when they are exactly designed for that task? also what is the historical reason of deny ant cavalry attack from camel?
4 Likes
We are already debated the merits of the Leitis in the other thread so not going to go back and forth here on them. They either will or won’t adjust them
I do take issue with you saying that I think they are “some super great civ in need of nerfing” - I do propose to make their monks faster or stronger through free sanctity or fervor in Castle Age which will help get relics. It’s a flat buff in Castle Age where they are weakest and if that helps them get even one more relic it’s a flat buff to their knights in Castle Age as well as an extra +1 attack in Imperial Age for knight line / Leitis. The point is to shift some power budget from the Leitis / Imperial Age into Castle Age where they are weakest rather than a pure nerf
If I thought they were a super great civ, why would I be proposing a buff? You can disagree that it fully compensates but your assertion is incorrect
I don’t see any stats on the other tournaments other than EW but I’ll take your word for it. They have been increasing in popularity from my sense so we’ll see if that continues to hold up
2 Likes
and that is still a net nerf.
no, because my assertion is that you are nerfing them, and you are. you would make it so that a Lithuanians player could get relics faster, but is that going to offset the 20-30% loss in numbers? it wouldn’t. the net result is a nerf.
well yeah, because when you’re absolutely the bottom of the barrel (where they were pre buff, being the worst civ in the game), the only place to go is up.
I don’t care to weigh in on Boyars vs. Leitis but I think we should stay away from historical reasons for things. I don’t think there is anything in the Leitis historically that let them ignore armor. My sense was that this was for flavor purposes rather than historical realism as few things perfectly ignore armor like they do in the game
I think there is ideally historical accuracy where possible but has to be balanced for flavor / variety sake
The Leitis’ armor-piercing attack appears to be based from Medieval and Renaissance soldiers who “negated” enemies’ armor by bludgeoning them with maces, morning stars, war hammers, war picks, flails, etc.
This helps the Leitis defeat any heavily armored foe such as Teutonic Knights and Boyars outright, which possibly mirrors the Polish-Lithuanian alliance’s victory against the Teutonic Knights at Grundwald as well as some Lithuanian successes against Muscovites.
3 Likes
I assume you are only looking at the gold cost? If so, it would be a 16.6% reduction in Leitis numbers (going from 50g to 60g is a 20% increase in price but a 1/6 reduction in numbers, e.g. you go from 6 Leitis to 5 Leitis if you have 300g) but you are not taking into account a few things:
-
They save 120 / 140g initially on the monk tech which is worth 12-14 or 8-10 of the Leitis in terms of the incremental gold cost if their gold cost is increased by 10g / 15g. So it’s only a gold nerf if they make more than that. It doesn’t affect knights at all which are more heavily used in Castle Age
-
Getting even one extra relic is +1 attack in those reduced Leitis numbers so the Leitis is a bit better on an individual basis than before
-
Getting an extra relic would a flat buff across both Castle Age / Imperial Age knight line and the monk tech is a flat buff to their monks
-
The extra relic is generating gold which partially offsets the increased Leitis cost or is a flat buff to knight line production. Pre conscription, an extra relic would generate 9 gold during the Elite Leitis 18 production time so would almost completely offset a 10g increase. Post conscription would still offset the majority of a 10g increase
It’s possible that it’s a net nerf but you have no idea at this point. Needs to be tested
I don’t know if this is necessarily true based on the long-form description in actual history. Your description appears to come from the AoE2 wikia vs. actual historical texts. It appears that they were armed with spears from the picture below as well as their in game models which have spears / lances
If they had the armament that you suggest, why is it that the Konnik has a flail and not the Leitis? In any case, this is a pointless discussion - my overall point is that game balance should supercede historical accuracy otherwise the Indians would have battle elephants
Leitis is not a counter of something it is just a really powerful unit, that kills even battle elephants, less 1 pierce armor means nothing, it kills any unit faster than boyard or paladin, the comparison is about why boyar cost 80 gold while having weak specs, it has the worse UU design, strong vs champs and eagles, still worse than paladins and gets destroyed by halbs and camels, until the last 2 patches it was even weakervs ranged units, ppl like you were crying years ago when boyar had 15 attack and was winning vs most paladins, now that leitis was introduced and inflicts way more damage than battle eles, somehow the unit its ok and it was mereley invented to counter tk and boyarm check your logic pls, leitis needs to be nerfed and boyar buffed a little, cause the unit has +6 years existing being nothing special.
For the guy that tested heavy camel, try with imperial camel, 10 stables porduction vs 2 castles, cause that is realistic, by the time you gather enoguh catas, you wont have town, as byz you would go for ur own camel trash or halb, stop playing custom scenario, play ranked games.
cmon because Slavs have much better eco bonus than Lithuanians (Fast working Farmers), and just look at that monstruous armor of 9/7 which in some cases is way more powerful in battle, they need that cost for a reason. Lithuanians don’t have any eco bonus outside of the extra food at the start which only for single use and they lack Gold Shaft mining.
1 Like
Ahh so this doesn’t apply to Leitis, gotcha
3 Likes
I mean, i want to keep this polite, look, knight cost 75 gold, leitis 50 gold that is 25 gold you save for a unit that has more attack and hits harder to every single unit that knight does, the only disadvantage is to mass production at EARLY castle age but leitis start with 12 attack that is like having cavalier in castle age that cost less gold, once in imperial you can produce way more leitis than paladins for the same gold, for a unit that has more attack it is simply broken.
Leitis kills everything faster, it fights great vs halbs, even vs imperial camel, can you say the same about boyard and its 80 gold cost?, slower TT and weak attack plus low HP, the stats like i said only help vs militia line, few UU and eagles, other than that knights are better, boyar loses to camel and to halb, the armor doesn’t help them at all, it is visually impressive, but guess what, aztk champions beats ETK cost effectively, so high melee armor is not that much when you have units with HIGH attack, even without the ignore armor thing the leitis with relics would kill etk, same like aztk champions do.
My complain about leitis is because i have abused them for so long, they kill battle eles,boyar doesn’t or paladins, i have only lost vs larger numbers of imperial camels, but i can always produce more, their economy is good they have full eco upgrades, slav farmers are only 10% faster, just add more farmers and you will be even, lithuanians have a great tec tree, the guy saying that they were bad few motnhs ago, i don’t think that guy was here in november with their 4 mins drush and hussar with +5 attack.
Yeah I think that says enough about credibility
3 Likes