Since the ignore armour ability was unique only to the Lithuanians initially with the Leitis. It seems the whole argument about identity and uniqueness is thrown out the window. So, many techs, and civ bonuses can be crossed over.
Here’s an example, the Burmese have terrible archers since they only get one armour upgrade. Could they not steal someone else’s archer bonus now? Since uniqueness does not matter anymore? Like Burmese Archers and skirmishers having more range (Britons’ bonus, not affecting the range of the skirmisher), and attack (plus 1 attack per age) but still being glass cannons with only one armour upgrade.
This feels like a really bad argument. Is the Huskarl not unique because Malians have extra pierce armour on infantry? Arent Magyar Huszars just more hussars? Longbows are oiterally just better archers
The Leitis is a heavy cav unit that benefits from a relic bonus and ignores armour for free while Dradivians need to pay to have infantry and ekes who ignore armour.
Tbh I feel like Wootz Steel should only affects barracks units but it still doesnt change the fact that the UT, while boring, it is fine
So many techs, bonuses were already crossed over - Garland wars/Burmese attack, Persians team bonus of Knights +2 vs archers/Burmese’s current Manipur cavalry, Silk Armor for hussar/Turkish bonus/previous Indians bonus in castle age, celts halb/Lithuanians halb speed, Britons skirms/Aztecs skirms both getting an extra range.
Although by mechanic this is similar to leitis, in practice its similar to Garland wars and Chieftains against most generic units.
No uniqueness is lost unless two units become copy-paste of each other.
And that didn’t happen. Leitis is fast, cheap heavy cavalry that has innate armor piercing mechanic, viable for raiding and extremely good at killing enemy cavalry. Dravidians infantry and cavalry are terribly slow, they can’t raid anything at all and they require a super expensive imperial tech.
Imho two units that are copy-paste of each other are Britons’s arbalests and longbowmen. Too tiny difference between the two, expecially in the range.
Or Aztecs and Burmese Champion, but at least missing halbs and having Eagles make the two civs quite different.
I bet when Boyar came out some people complained that it was a mounted version of the TK, stealing its uniqueness as high melee armor unit.
I believe leitis no longer pierce siege armor and clearly they didn’t give good cavalry option to dravidians and mostly just infantry. ele are slow and its likely not as useful as if it were on units like cavalier.
I’m really tired of all the worry of a little overlap. God forbid by civ 80 we have a bonus that’s the stone version of relics generate food. Either we need more convoluted mechanics or find new ways to divvy numbers on the ones we have in ways unutilized as of now.
We have a 10+ melee armor infantry UU, a 10+ melee armor cavalry UU, one day we might have 10+ melee armor archer unit, why not.
Obviously I’m not sure how useful would that be, but it’s just an example.