So I just want to discuss with you about camels in general. Well first and imo I really think the camel bonus damage vs knights should be a little bit better, the camel line have +9 attack vs cavalry, in 1v1 fight (generic camel vs generic knight), the camel barely win with only 20hp left and as you know of course the camel easy die in 1v1 fight vs a pikeman unlike the knight who win with almost 30hp left but the pikeman kill the camel with 20hp left. in 1v1 fight, the generic camel die to cavalier too. So what I want to say, is that I really think the camel should deal a better damage vs knights and taka a little bit less damage from pikes.
Camels get +12 damage vs cavalry (was +9).
Pikes deal +14 vs camels (was 18).
another note: Pikeman/halberdier have a bonus damage vs ships and imo this thing should be changed and reduced.
so what do you think? do you think the camel line should be better or stay as it is?
I don’t see the need for a buff vs knights.
they still win 1v1. they still win cost effectively. and as for them losing to cavaliers, that’s not really surprising seeing as you’re comparing a castle age unit to an imperial age unit.
why don’t you see how the heavy camel does against the Cavalier?
as for pikes doing less bonus damage - i’m okay with that.
well except it is not, with only 20hp left this mean a group of pikes vs knights is much better than group fight of camels vs knights, even if the pike group have less numbers it will deal much better with costs comparison, but camels with less numbers are really hard fight for them and lose, 6 camels vs 7 knights, camels will die with like 4 knights left, so you have 2 options, give them a better bonus vs knights or reduce the gold cost for camels. (all these comparisons without micro of course)
1 camel costs less food and less gold and less training time then a knight. and wins 1v1. that is a cost effective fight. yeah pikes are going to be more COST EFFECTIVE then camels, but to say that camels aren’t cost effective vs knights is a straight up lie.
the camels are more supply effective (only requiring 1 unit to 2 pikes to win), and are better at forcing an engagement then pikes are as well.
6 camels cost 330 food, 360 gold, and 132 seconds of training time.
meanwhile 7 knights cost 420 food, 525 gold, and 210 seconds of training time.
do you see why this is a TERRIBLE COMPARISON?
you’re literally giving the knights every advantage you possibly can. they train almost 80 seconds SLOWER, they cost 90 more food, and they cost 165 more gold as well. so the knight player invested more time, food, and gold into his army and won.
what was the camel player doing during those 80 seconds where he was waiting for the knights to finish making? nothing?
why would you give the camels less resources, time, and units invest?
if the camels go engage at 132 seconds, they have a 6 on 4 advantage against the knights and can easily wreck any knights that are already on the created. even if they get there at 150 seconds they still have a 6 to 5 numbers advantage over the knights and WIN the fight with ease.
so again - what was the camel player doing after making his 6 camels at the 132 second mark? did he pick his nose for 80 seconds?
your “TEST” is so biased it makes my head hurt. any smart player at that point isn’t going to stand around doing NOTHING for nearly a minute and a half. hes gonna take those camels and go do something with them.
who cares or talked about the stupid time comparison?! I said as a costs trade, when you put (for example) 6 camels vs 7 knights, all your camels will die with 3 or 4 knights left, so by this they are a joke. Keep talking about sending more or TT or whatever is useless here.
as a costs trade 7 knights costs a heck of a lot more then 6 camels, so of course its going to win.
because that’s how the game works. in your comparison the camel player is done making units at 2 minutes and 12 seconds. the knight player gets done at 3 minutes and 30 seconds?
so what was the camel player doing for over a minute with his units?
the camel player invested less time, resources, and supply. and lost. the knight player invested more resources, time, and supply and won.
according to your logic then you should be arguing to buff pikes too because if pikes invested less time, resources and supply they get wrecked too. 1 knight survives 1 pike, so 7 knights would beat 6 pikes and win with 0 deaths.
Give the camel equal resources or equal construction and they wreck knights hard. that is how you actually perform tests. not this biased crap you’re pulling. tests are done assuming equal conditions. look at any of the videos posted by guys online - they all assume either equal supply or equal resources. you’ve given the camels NEITHER.
according to your logic i could do a test with 6 arbs vs 1 elite skirm and say “Elite Skirms need buffs”
Yes I agree with you but you are not talking here about after fight but before, for example 7 knights vs 6 camels will win by 3 or 4 knights left, so here is my comparison 6 dead camels vs 3/4 dead knights, did you get it? Well whatever, just reducing the pikes/halbs damage vs camels will be enough.
and because camels are not trash counters they have a huge mobility advantage, the ability to actually force engagements, and unlike pikes/halbs, the ability to win 1v1 vs knights/cavalier/paladin/etc.
which gives them advantages in mobility/forcing engagements, less supply used (compared to pikes/halbs), and less construction time used. the downside is obviously that pikes/halbs cost a heck of a lot less and are more disposable.
well I can say the same about light cavs and hussars, they deal well vs archers and they have mobility and they cost no gold. Well as I said if they reduced the pike damage vs camels it will be enough.
debatable - they require a numbers advantage to be effective and are still pretty easy to be picked off.
but fact is they don’t do any bonus damage to archers do they? yeah they can overwhelm them but the archers can still take hugely effective trades vs them. the only way knights are going to take effective trades against camels is with a reliable numbers advantage.
I think you are right, I think I overestimated, I agree with you. Well at least we agree that the pike damage vs camels should be less than it is now. But of course there are special cases, for example Lithuanians knight with more relics can kill camel, same for Burgundian cavalier in castle age, same for Bulgarians knight with their 33% attack, same for Teutons with more armor, all those civs trade very well against camels in castle age, you will need a big numbers of camels against those.
1V1 Yes. equal cost? no. and frankly you could say the same thing about the other end o the spectrum, with saracen and berber camels being even more cost effective then normal. but again - those are all special cases.
In castle age berbers no, Saracens with +10hp and not that much, it is like they can only hold 1 more hit from a knight. I didn’t try what a heavy camel can do vs Lithuanians paladin with more 3 relics for example, all my speech was only in castle age
but the point is that different civs are different, just like lithuanians, burgundians, teutons, etc have advantages with the knight line, other civs have advantages with the camel line. which was my point.
Camels can slightly outrun knights so I think it’s fine they don’t shred through knights. They win 1v1 and they are cheaper so it’s still a good trade. Sure if both players add pikes that changes but tbh then it’s bad strategy/execution from the camel player. Either you don’t add pikes but archers (most of them have good ones) or cav archers (which is even better because cav archers is the perfect answer to knight+halbs) or you just don’t engage and take advantage of your mobility. That depends on how the game looks like at that point ofc. If your base is unprotected you do the former, if it’s well protected you can chose between both options.