Changing the Sicilians

Not the first post on this topic, but in my opinion Sicilians should be changed incrementally (so make changes one after the other, not all in the same patch, to see the effect), in this order:

    1. Donjons -25 wood. I understand Sicilians will not get watch tower, as it is their identity, but then the Donjon has to be more affordable for defense purposes. First priority is thus to reduce its cost. And I don’t know a lot of people thinking Donjon rush is too powerful right now.
    1. Sergeants -5 gold. Possibly -10g, but let’s start with -5. Now a possibility I would be interested in is to replace to “35 Sergeants created instantly” effect of First Crusade by a decrease, bringing the unit cost to 60f 25g.
    1. A lot of people complain about Hauberk, but it gives Sicilians a quite unique knight line identity, together with the conversion resistance and the bonus damage resistance. Instead of changing Hauberk, I would rather have the bonus damage resistance brought to 40, or even 33%.
    1. Elite Segeant upgrade -150g, down to 1100f, 650g.

Now, I think Donjons might need even a bit more than -25 wood, but as I said, this could be dealt with incrementally. Another easy idea is to make them build as fast as towers (so 80s instead of 90s I think).

1 Like

Agree about Donjon Cost

I would rather increase the attack of serjeants in castle age from 8 to 10 and 11 to 12 for elite, so their price is worth (Elite Upgrade must go down to 900f), Remove first crusade extra serjeants and replace it with Serjeants being able to build castles, so finally Sicilians are pushed towards serjeants.

The bonus reduced means it will just unnoticable for other units, and no, Sicilians right now just play Knights because are quite broken, better revert Hauberk nerf, and remove bloodlines, their cavaliers are still going to be strong vs archers, but now have a drawback being worse than others (also, nerf their stupid scout rush).

1 Like

That’s great. Though the reason Donjon nerative doesnt work is because the whole Trush as a strategy has no room in the current state of AOE. Arabia is too open for an aggressive Tower move, it’s mostly defensive towers. TR Arabia however is more suitable.

As if their problem was the gold cost. Stop Keshikizing every unique unit, the gold obsession in this community is unreal. This unit has absurd stats, it should have a high gold cost. Plus- Diversity, some infantry units deserve a different price.

Identity? you mean being Both Tarkan and Cataphract? oh wait, and a Teutonic Cavalier (conversion resistance)
Hauberk has turned Sicilians from an innovative unique civ into another generic boom into Knights, have you seen recent games with Sicilians on tournaments? they’re the most boring ones, 4/5/6 TC boom into Imp Cavaliers. The most predictable yet uncounterable unit in the game currently.
Hauberk should be removed, as simple as it gets.

Fair enough, though again, why is it the gold cost? Why not just food, or food and gold?

1 Like

-5g sounds right. These “decreases” typically cost like 400f 300g (take new tech “Kshatryas” as a benchmark). It takes A LOT of units to recover the cost, if you decrease every Serjeant’s cost by -5g only with such a tech, to break even, for example, it would take creating 140 Serjeants (first moment when you start having an advantage resource-wise).

I think Hauberk should stay, Sicilians don’t have much else vs full Archers play.

sure, I agree.

agree.

No, because if you want people to play Serjeants as part of a Donjon rush in Feudal, their gold cost needs to go down. Donjons are still pretty pricey, and Serjeants have a high food cost, which impacts villager creation or uptime in the early game, so they do actually need a gold cut by about 5g. Compare them to something like the Obuch, which is an actually good infantry UU, and Serjeants are way overpriced. Stop complaining about gold efficiency anyway, no major negative change ever really makes it into the game for very long, if at all. So yeah, part of their problem actually is the gold cost.

3 Likes

How about Hauberk to be changed with +1 pierce armor, +20 hp instead?
That way it would tank 1 more halb hit (8 vs 7), but results against other cavaliers should be more or less the same (victory against regular FU cavaliers, with tiny HP left), a bit better vs Paladins (still lose to nearly all of them), but performance against arrows slightly nerfed.
70 arb hits vs 54, 47 HCA hits vs 40. It would become more similar to a poor’s man Paladin, but with 20 hp less and 2 less attack.

Hauberk is fine in balance spot, but if it has to go, how about increasing counter resistance from 50% to 75%?

Sicilians knight should at least lose the convert resistance. Or else, it it too similar to Teutons and quite broken.

Hauberk can be changed to another UT to buff serjeant. Sicilian cavalier is fine even without Hauberk.

It feels like making cavalier into paladin with a cheaper cost. Instead of affecting cavalier, I would rather +20 hp to affect serjeant.

Currently First crusade also allows you to exceed max pop by 35 and I think that is an underrated aspect of the tech. In addition to your changes, I would like to see the instant serjeant spawn effect of First Crusade replaced with something like “Serjeants train 100% faster”.

This is a shockingly bad idea tbh

5 Likes

I think noone here wants infantry with 7/8 armor and 85 HP being spammed as Huskarls

I don’t know what the exact number should be. Maybe it should be 50%. But the theme of First Crusade is to make a lot of serjeants fast. So, I want to stay true to that.

Compared to current effect, Sicilians would have to pay a lot more resources and pop space (currently they don’t need pop space to spawn serjeants if they are already at max pop) and wait longer to train the serjeants that they currently get instantly.

Compared to huskarl, serjeants are more expensive and slower and have less pierce armor and no bonus damage. So, they should not be as much of a problem as huskarl.

I know, but as I said losing the extra melee and pierce armor and get flat HP should net similar results to the current cavalier vs melee units, while being less strong against arrows.
It’s not really innovative, but assuming First Crusade is reworked somehow, mantaining focus on Serjeants, I didn’t want 2 UT on the same unit.
If not Cavalier, the UT should affect other units, like skirms/arbs/siege/infantry/light cav.

Actually, what if gave +2 pierce armor to Siege weapons (and maybe bonus dmg resistance), changing the name though, as Hauberk doesn’t make sense for siege weapons?

But still you are ignoring it last longer in battle, and can also add more buildings to produce more serjeants, not to mention it is a massive overlap with Royal Heirs.

I think they should reduce bonus damage resistance down to like 25% to make it consistent with banglis. The fact that their cavalier can just wipe out Byzantine halb spam is just ridiculous.

I aplogize for the length of this post as I was thinking about my own thread. I agree that serjeants and Donjons need a buff though I don’t agree with your all of your solutions

I both agree and disagree respect the bold design decision however it is one that limits the Donjons. Rather than the Donjons being intermediary defense halfway between Towers and Krepost with added benefit of automatic upgrades and being built by a UU. It is forced to fulfill the role of a tower and it often fails at both. Dropping a tower to defend your gold is a serious commitment, it means you will not have the stone for a Tc or another tower unless you go to Stone. Dropping donjon is even more of a commitment and in most scenarios a tower is perfectly fine. -25W would make the Donjon more viable and better able to replace the tower. but at the cost of their identity. I would rather Sicilians got watch tower but not guard tower. that way you are forced to use Donjons or Castle in CA or Imp. I would focus on making the donjon more Powerful than and distinct from the tower. you also could accept lacking the towers as weakness and stop trying to make the Donjons a more beefy tower though I prefer the former. All of this put together be way too much but picking and choosing, the increasing cost and removing the Stone bonus is always an options

  • +250 more Hp in Castle and Imperial they should have more Hp than Guard tower and keeps
  • +1/2 Dmg in castle/imperial compared this might seem insane but they actually only have 5 base damage across all ages, also increasing the attack also increases the requirement to fire additional arrows. yes, I’m aware they fire an extra projectile, but they have they would still have one less attack than Guard/Keeps meaning the deal one damage to mangonels
  • +1 vs siege that way they deal +2 to mangonels same as Guard Towers
  • .75 Minium range this would make it harder to rush down and camp under Donjons.
  • Serjeants heal faster in Donjons.
  • Serjeants shoot arrow in Donjons this is likely to be contentious as it has not been tested with opinions varying heavily based on how viable you want Donjon rushes to be viable, if it is too powerful and can be added to first crusade because ripping off Teutons is fun.
  • Assuming the last suggestion got vetoed +1/1 to units building or repairing.
  • Donjons are affected by castle age building speed buff also +100% is ridiculous but that is an entirely different discussion.

Reasonable and badly needed personally I prefer plus 65F 25G

[quote=“Horapallas, post:1, topic:204841”]
“35 Sergeants created instantly” effect of First Crusade by a decrease, bringing the unit cost to 60f 25g.
[/quote]’
While being able to breach the pop limit with 35 instant units is unreasonable paying for a unique tech just to make barely viable unit decent is not it is basically Corivinian cavalry except it for a unit that you will a make significantly less off also it is bundled with the Teuton team bonus. I would prefer if just allow you to create 35 Serjeants for free.

Reasonable Something has to be taken wether it is the Nerfing Hauberk to +0/2 or +1/1 either the conversion, or bonus damage resistance.

try 700F 400G. Seriously, 1,100F 800G do the devs think Elite Serjeants are a power unit almost on par with Paladins

1 Like

love the thread! btw here’s what i would do

  • Donjon -25 wood probably won’t be enough but it’s a start so i agree with you. other options could be +1 attack, so they actually do more damage than a tower and are worth the cost, and do not suffer as much as now from PA in later stages when additional arrows just get less damage than a regular tower sometimes depending on the target. and it’s not like donjons are used for offensive purpose even later in the game…

other options could be 5 population space, or 0 minimum range from the start, or serjeatns able to shoot arrows when garrisoned.

or simply, add the watch tower, and no upgrades, to the sicilians tech tree. lame, but effective

  • Serjeants -10G. simple as that. other options could be -5 food and -5 gold which is a little less strong and help a bit to play them in feudal, which is using their cool niche which i like. atm they are just a generic champion with more armor and less attack and bonuses, at much higher cost. being this generic means they need to cost less, otherwise they need a defined role to be worth investing into. i feel simply making them cheaper is the way to go

  • Serjeants elitè cost i agree need like -200 res total minimum. atm it is the most expensive of UU for infantry, it’s just crazy at 1900, costs more than all militia line upgrades

  • Hauberk nerf to +1/+1 and cost changed to like 400F and 300/200G to compensate for other buffs

Reducing Serjeant gold cost won’t solve anything about the unit because the stats are simply not worth the price, especially their attack.

1 Like

I agree. If they are designed as mid-ground between huskarl and teutonic knight, serjeant deserve higher attack as both huskarl and TK have high atk.