Do Malay need Karambits as their UU

Feels like, with everything that Malay has being underperforming, besides the monks trebs/arb bbc FI on Arena, Karambits are no exception. We haven’t yet had a rework, or replacement, of UU, only UTs, but what exactly is the point of Karambits in the current meta and state of Malay?

You usually go for the archer line, occasionally elephants as a transition in castle to throw your opponent off guard, and by the time you have eco for infantry you are much better off making the trash two handed swordsmen (that recently got some huge buffs with +1 armor and cheaper techs).

Karambits, outside of their speed, are in no way better than THS, 15 gold is a hefty sum, and the malay army is rather immobile to begin with.

Do malay need a FU infantry unit besides trash THS and halbs? I don’t think they do…

What replacements would be viable for this unit we almost never see except for the memes?

Something ranged? Something more mobile? Something on horseback? Some light siege unit?

Malay mostly struggle against ranged compositions, especially if they involve cavalry archers. Would a Kamayuk-like high pierce armor infantry with bonus against cav be more appropriate? Or a ranged unit that is good at dealing with other ranged units, or has high base damage and range or pierce armor?


karambits used to be pretty strong and seen all the time. malay used to be a top tier civ before they nerfed it to the ground with the up bonus and karambit nerfs. they just need to revert some of those nerfs for it to be good again


I proposed long time ago that Forced Levy could affect them as their stats aren’t that good to cost gold, but remember that at rajas release, they were broken.
Karambits are just fine right now and Malay don’t need buffs tbh, they are s tier arena civ and Karambits can completely snowball really hard.

1 Like

I agree that Karambits are rarely useful. I can’t really think of an alternate unit that Malay need though. They are such a versatile civ, with great infantry and archers, and IMO the best elephants in the game (for 1v1, obviously others are better in TG’s). They also have decent Siege with BBC + SE and a very good navy.

The one niche I’ve found for Karambits is filling rams without using much population space. This also works well when villagers break a ram since karambits are a good raiding unit to unleash in a town, and the opponent likely won’t have defensive buildings focus fire each one while other rams draw fire.

It’s not about the unit being buffed or not, it’s a design flaw, the unit rely solely on a gimmick of being half the pop of a normal unit, creating 1 pop of Karambit is equal to creating 1 pop of Teutonic Knights, Karambit are officially the slowest Infantry to mass in the game alongside TK.

You cant really buff their creation time, they’re already too similar to Shotels to being with, it’s an edgy territory when it comes to diversity, and you cant really make them cost just food, first it’ll be OP, secondly it will kill the purpose out of the LHS which is perfectly balanced. You cant give them pierce armor (so easy to balance every infantry unit this way) for obvious reasons, and giving them damage would make them broken- cancerous to deal with.

If you have an unit which solely rely on 1 dimesional concept you have to at least implement it wisely, the key is their collusion size, it has to be much smaller in order to truly benefit from this low pop aspect, and have a very clear and solid identity.

This way they’ll still do somewhat poorly/decently against mass CA/Archers, however, they would at last could give a fight to any melee unit, including buildings. It’ll increase their damage availability in a very indirect way which would still remain balanced, and increase their vulnerability to Scorpions and Onagers.


personally I love karmabits. I think they can be very effective


Karambits are useful. They are definitely better than longswords in castle age and still useful in imp, and their elite upgrade is almost the same cost as forced levy anyway so they aren’t hard to upgrade at all. A mass of them can even annoy archers as their numbers means microing them down leads to massive overkill, and they are almost as fast as woad raiders so speed isn’t an issue either. The issue with Malay on open maps is the difficulty of using their faster age up, not their UU. Also I’m curious what your metric for “weak to archers” is, They have flawless arbs, skirmishers and siege engineers onagers.


Yes, Malay need Karambits as their UU. Malay are like the Spanish - Underwhelming in 1v1 open maps, but decent to very strong in every other setting, making Malay a balanced civ overall. I think having a situationally useful UU like the Karambit is a part of this balance, and buffing Malay with a stronger UU replacement would easily upset this balance.


If malay need a (small) buff. It’s just in wanter, to be a s-tier water civ again.

Karambits are okey. Their attack is good when compared to their cost. They can snipe siege better than other malay units, and they’re amazing to raid

According to my observation, Karambits are relatively common among infantry UUs.
Comparing to them, the samurais and Teutonic knights are rare.

If we need buff infantry UUs, the amurais and Teutonic knights should have the priority.

With recent buff, Samurai is fine I guess. It is by far stronger than longsword (+10 hp (+16.7%), +1 attack and 11% speed) in Castle Age and its elite upgrade is cheaper on food and faster than Champion. Teutonic Knight is still trash though, it need +1 PA in castle age and +2 PA armor in Imperial to be useful. If TK didn’t get buff in last patch, I would say it need +2 PA in both age but TK got huge buff in Castle Age like other unique infantry units, thus I am saying +1 PA in castle age enough.

1 Like

TK are supposed to be anti MELEE units, not ANTI ALL units. they do not need insane pierce armor. Make them cheaper so they are a realistic option maybe. They cost effectively beat even Paladins 1v1. there is zero reason to make them tanks against archers too.


Decreasing cost is also an option but if its cost remain same, it need +1/+2 (elite) PA. TK wouldn’t counter archers with +1/+2 PA for simple reason. It can’t catch archers due to slowness, Serjeant can tank 44 arbalest arrow, it is faster than TK, even little faster than arbalest and Serjeant is countered by 30+ number arbalests. 4 PA Teutonic Knight tank 50 arrow (little more than Serjeant) and it can be easily killed by arbalest. Hand Cannonner isn’t effected by +2 PA armor as much as arbalest even. Currently, HC kill TKs in 5 hits, with +2 PA it will kill 6 hits. Siege units also counter Teutonic Knight very easy.

In conclusion, +2 PA for Elite TK is not OP at all. In reverse, it will balance the game. Of course, there are tens of way the buff TK and save from its miserable state. Devs saved unique infantries with recent patch. I did say in this forum that "all unique infantry units need +5 hp, +1 attack and 0.5 speed (except Gbeto, TA, Huskarl, Teutonic Knight (+2 PA instead), new Obuch) in Castle Age, in Imperial Age they are fine (0.5 speed remain of course) and no one didn’t agree with me. Finally, turned out that Devs even realized infantries in Castle Age are trash and they buffed infantries similar to my proposal (Samurai gain +10 hp +2 attack, Woad Raider gain +2 attack, Berserk gain +3 attack, Shotel gain +5 hp, Jaugar gain +15 hp etc.).

1 Like

but the problem is archers are supposed to be the counter to TK, seeing as ZERO MELEE UNITS counter them EXCEPT THE LEITIS. and if a castle age TK has 3 base pierce armor, with upgrades, they are sitting at 5 PA. which means its going to take an archer 40 SHOTS to kill them. an elite TK will take 50.

that isn’t a counter. it’s a soft counter at best. slow or not no unit that is SUPPOSED to be weak to archers should have that kind of durability.

Teutonic unique infantry unit. Slow and powerful. Strong vs. melee units. Weak vs. archers and Scorpions.

if being slow means they are weak to archers go tell people elephants are weak to archers. i dare you.

Serjeant also can’t fight high end cavalry cost effectively can it? Serjeant is a LOW DPS unit that is supposed to tank damage and outlast its opponents. that’s literally it’s role. it has high armor but bad damage.

no, it will make TK literally friggen tanks against units that they aren’t supposed to be tanks against. whether or not they can get to the archers doesn’t matter. 50 shots to kill means that archers are literally going to have to kite hardcore to kill an incoming flood of TK. not to mention how much better it makes them at just literally being dropped on an enemy base. what do you do then?

and yet the units still aren’t bloody seen are they? why? because they require a bloody castle to mass up.

and still completely unseen in castle age. yay for your useless buffs. they did so much to make castle age unique units seen in castle age didn’t they? oh wait. no they didn’t.


Samurai, Jaguar Warrior, War Elephant also counter TK. In range, siege units, gunpowder units, cavalry archers, unique archer units except Genoese Crossbowman will be still hard counter to TK. TK is very expensive unit, it wouldn’t be countered by archer-line harshly which is most common unit in the game. Battle Elephants also weak against archers but they are weak due to speed, TK is both has low armor and slow speed. Combination of low armor and slow speed is merciless for 85 food 40 gold unit which is one of the most expensive unit in the game.

jags and tk both do 13 damage a swing to eachother. that means a jag is going to die on swing 5 and a TK will have 15 health left.
samurai ill give you.
war elephants? good luck winning cost effectively. good luck even affording them.

gunpowder usually requires imperial age. siege? a few mixed in scouts will laugh at. cav archers and archers? yeah. those are intended to be the counters to TK. good job. but with your change they aren’t so good are they?

TK is also very resilient, even against archers, by infantry standards, as is. it has 4 PA in castle age, taking 3 damage from a crossbow and requiring 27 shots to kill. compare that to the samurai you mentioned earlier, which takes 18.

which is why i say make it cheaper. and no. it doesn’t have low friggen armor. its an infantry unit with 2 PA baseline. that is above average. 3 unit lines have more PA. Eagles, Serjeants, and Huskarls. none of those has more attack. none of those has more melee armor. one of those has more health and it requires a civ upgrade.

1 Like

Samurai, Jag and War Elephant destroy TK in equal resources. War Elephant iwth 50% trample damage annihilate Teutonic Knights.

In Castle Age, TK is more expensive than Knights due to high 85 food cost. Knight tank 40 crossbow fire, 3 PA TK also tank 40 crossbow fire but crossbow will destroy TK because it is too slow. Monk also will be very good in Castle Age. Civs doesn’t need gunpowder to counter TK in conclusion in Castle Age. You overestimate Teutons Scout power. Of course enemy will defend their siege units with Halberdier or another unit against Teutons garbage Scouts.

Still Samurai is 1000 of time better than TK against archers. Samurai can catch archers and kill them when it catch them outnumbered while TK has no chance against archers. Tanking 27, 25 (elite) hit from crossbow, arbalest is not impressive considering TK is 35% more expensive than Samurai and twice cost of Longsword.

2 Generic Champion tank 28 hits from arbalest while 1 TK tank 25 hits and Champion is +12.5% faster than 1 TK. TK is terrible in terms of PA even comparing to generic Champion. 2 Champion die to HC in 8 hits while TK only tank 5 hits. Bulgarian THS for instance do same job of TK and stronger than TK. TK wouldn’t be less useful than THS considering it is created from Castle and has more expensive upgrades. In conclusion, +1,+2 PA isn’t OP and only balance the game.

1 Like

so you have 4 total melee units that can beat it. assuming equal resources. which is never a guarantee.

early castle age yes. late castle age food is less of a problem. but hte problem for unique units is more the cost of a bloody castle to beghin with. which is why i said earlier that the whole castle age buffs to unique units didn’t matter. how many infantry unique units did you honestly see in castle age that were buffed during kotd4?

neither is a good option against archers. but if my goal is to have them tank shots, say in a siege push, TK are absolutely great unit to use. couple them with some cheap pikes and you have an army that can be hard to counter. what would you do against a TK + Siege push with your changes? there is no answer.

no it really can’t. if you’re catching and killing your opponents archers with samurai you already had an advantage to begin with.

and depending on what you’re fighting the TK would be the better option no matter what.

and i already said i’d be okay iwth making it cheaper didn’t i? but its not intended to be used against archers and is already supply for supply better against archers then most infantry units can ever hope of being.

in conclusion you ignore that the TK is supposed to be good against infantry and bad against archers and say its not op.
you are looking at a small portion of the picture to highlight why it isn’t a problem but IGNORING WHY IT IS.
it would make siege + infantry pushes that utilize your new extremely tanky TK almost impossible to stop, for example.

1 Like

Karambits are very annoying to play against when massed. They are like ants… they arent useless


I also think Karambits are way better than their state.
The Issue with them is maybe that they are actually not that easy to “mass”, 2 karmbits that equal 1 pop space take 12 second to train from a castle. So to really mass/spam them you need multiple castles.

But once you have a mass of them they are actually very hard to stop, they have incredible damage output for their costs and move fast.

Maybe if the training time of karambits was just reduced to 4 secs or something like this malay would be much stronger on open maps I could imagine.