Farimba Camels not cutting it (again)

In game 2 of this series, BACT and ACCM got a lead, but ended up losing because Magudai + Paladin beat Camel Archers + Farimba Heavy Camel.
This game also showed off how weak castle-age camels are at raiding.

BACT and ACCM could have played better, but still it looked to me like they deserved to win.

Camel Archers should counter Magudai, and Camels should counter Paladin.

Heavy camels could receive a little buff, if we don’t want Paladins to remain dominant.

1 Like

Well the camel archer player didn’t micro his units enough, they would spend their time shooting palas and siege rams, while the mangudai player kept them safe and would shoot the camels without risk. I don’t think that if he had indian or saracen camels the outcome would have been much different, just because the camel archers weren’t used optimally.


yes let’s ignore that they swapped from camels to knights back to camels
let’s ignore that BACTS army was frequently not in the engagement and off doing other things. at the start of what you linked they had a combined army of around 100 units with roughly 50 each, and yet at the point of attack BACT had roughly 10 camels and a handful of monks. where is the rest of his army? even later on this true, at 1 hour and 25 seconds he has roughly 40 military but only a small handful are seen on screen. furthermore, because of this, ACCMs camel archers were spending hordes of time shooting at Paladins, instead of doing what Camel Archers are supposed to do, and shooting Mangudai. even at 1 hour and 2 minutes, the Camel Archers are shooting siege weapons while they are getting shot by Mangudai, and they aren’t microed to take out the mangudai real fast instead.

so your example of “Camels bad” is a clip where the players played bad. sounds to me like a player issue and not a camel issue.

or maybe you could actually engage with your full army instead of having half of it god knows where. Heavy Camels already dominate Paladins as is, and this game wasn’t won by Paladin vs Heavy Camel.
this game was won by good play vs bad play.

just to show how lopsided the paladin vs heavy camel engagement is
going from knight to Paladin costs 1600 food and 1050 gold and 270 seconds of research time
10 knights cost 600 food and 750 and 300 seconds of training time. so all told that is 2200 food and 1800 gold and 570 seconds worth of time invested.
Heavy Camel costs 325 food and 365 gold and 105 seconds of research time.
10 camels costs 550 food and 600 gold and 220 seconds of training time. so all told that is 875 food and 965 gold and 325 seconds of time invested.
the heavy camels cost less then half the food and almost half the gold, they also take up less then half the time.
and yet they do 24 damage a strike and kill the knights in 8 strikes. (malian camels do 27 damage a strike and take 7 strikes to kill a paladin fyi)
the paladins on the other hand do 15 damage a strike, and kill a camel in 10 strikes.

the problem you’re seeing is one unit is better at soaking up archer fire then the other one is, which makes sense, seeing as one costs more and takes longer to mass up


Man i said that like a 8 months ago, the camel archer should have more bonus vs WW, EA, arambai and mangudai, in several scenarios like that game the mangudai trades really well despite the Camel archer being a counter.

Counter units should shred those units not only beating them, is like Genose xbow vs tarkans, they lose vs them xd

1 Like

this isn’t one of those situations. the Camel Archers frequently weren’t even targeting the Mangudai due to poor play. Elite Camel Archers do 14 damage a shot after damage to Mangudai, that’s pretty darn good.

1 Like

Also the mangudais in groups do one shoot to take down camels and are easier to handle and micro, as a counter unit i think the camel archer should need less hits to take mangudais and the other units mentioned.

Anyway is not that a big deal it just feels like if you were exchanging UU’s and not counter units.

1 Like

takes 6 shots for a Camel Archer to kill a Mangudai.
takes 12 shots for a Mangudai to kill a Camel Archer.

again the problem with this game is not the Mangudai vs Camel Archer matchup.
anything in groups can 1 shot something, you just need enough of them. difference is one is far cheaper to afford. if you feel that bad about it how about giving berbers Parth tactics? they get more arrow resistance, and do better against pikes as well. (takes 16 shots for mangudai to kill).

1 Like

I am not arguing that, it is just that the unit should counter those units like the samurai counters infantry UU’s, that is a comparison that leaves no doubt they are a counter unit.

Anyway that is not a breaking game issue, just some details, camel archer was once stronger than plums, chokonus ,etc and were not received damage bonus from anti arch units.

It is like the genoese xbow losing vs tarkans, it doesn’t feel right.

For example they boosted the kamayuks damage vs elephants not so long ago, that was an adjustment probably quite exaggerated but at least they were keeping those details.

1 Like

thing is samurai has a huge advantage in that they attack much faster then standard infantry.
whereas in the mangudai vs camel archer fight the reverse is true.

well you can’t just give them insane bonuses due to the advantage they already have of being ranged, and cheaper.

not so long ago was at least 4 years ago because that buff happened during African Kingdoms, and Rise of the Rajas came out in December of 2016.

Heavy camels and camel archers eat Mangudai and paladins and with a huge difference, if they lost a fight like this then they must be did something wrong

Mangudai eat the Camels with Paladin meatshield
Mongol siege eat Berbers

1 Like


the rest of yall keep arguing in a vacuum…

yes heavy camels beat paladins(just barely, matt didnt continue the argument to the end, the camels are taking 2sec to hit, whilte the paladins are taking 1.9 sec, it skews the results heavily, its like someone pointing out how many hits a pike needs to kill a knight and this gets worse with knights vs camels)

yes camel archers beat mangudai in a straight on standing fight, but this ignores the higher speed and faster reaction time of the mangudai, meaninign it will ALWAYS attack and kill sooner, and with the right micro can actually beat camel archers.

do heavy camels and camel archers beat paladins and mangudai working together? not a chance in equal game. because not only are the respective camels not great counters, they are also not great generalisits (specifically camels) whereas mangudai and paladins are such extremely good generalists that they can beat their own counters in the right situation.

again because the game has been played a certain way for so long doesnt make it balanced.

1 Like

19 seconds to land 10 hits, thats 9 hits from a camel (9 x 2 sec), iaw if a camel misses a hit for any reason the paladin can win. that is way too close for a hard counter unit that literally sucks at every single thing else, and is literally killed faster by the paladins other counter (halbs) along with every other unit in the game

making mixed armies of generalists(knights + archers) tremendously more powerful than hard counters (which is ludicrous).

1 Like

its cheaper, faster to train, and cheaper to upgrade. thats a win in every mark.
and no, even if the camel misses a hit, their 9th hit lands (at 18 seconds, before the 19 seconds), and wins anyway.
so a camel would have to miss two hits. and if a camel is missing 2 hits, the paladin likely isn’t attacking either.
but go ahead and just keep looking at the head to head and ignore all the other things that go into the fight, like the fact that going from knight to paladin takes much longer and costs much more, or that given equal resource investments, the camels win in a landslide.

you look at a 1 on 1 fight and ignore that the camel costs 5 less food, 15 less gold, 8 seconds less training time, and most importantly, cost hordes less of time and resources to upgrade.

lets add 1300 more food and 800 more gold worth of camels to that 10 on 10 fight and you tell me who wins. oh the camels run away with the fight, easily, you’re looking at 13 more camels just on gold.

1 Like

Did you see this game?
When have you ever seen someone make only 10 cav units, especially in a team game?
BACT probably lost 10 camels trying to raid with the poor things.

Vietnam should have realized that their lategame comp is worse than what Brazil had.
Camel Archers win 1v1 against mangudai, but mangudai are quite a bit better at shredding through heavy cav. Now add to that that Paladins are waaaay tankier than Heavy Camels vs arrows (and in general to be fair).
It’s actually quite easy, because both, Elite Camel Archers and Elite mangudai deal 12 damage. A FU Paladin takes 36 shots to kill, a FA Camel takes 18 shots to kill. Now add to that that Mangudai (the guys only needing 18 shots to kill) fire faster (than the guys who need 36 shots to kill). That actually is so much more important than the attack bonus of Camels vs Paladins or the attack bonus of Camel Archers vs Mangudai. Vietnam would need to micro like crazy in those fights while Brazil does not micro at all. Brazil just need to patrol in the Paladins and make sure that Mangudai do a little hit and run.

Now this alone should be convincing, but then we didn’t even factor in Mongol Siege, which is superior the anything Berbers or Malians have to offer (as long as it is support by units).

This is not about Farimba being bad or anything else about balance. It is about Vietnam playing for a win condition (winning lategame) they never had. They should have realized that they needed to win before post imp - which to be fair is not as easy as it sounds. Having 2 counter units to what the opponent has sounds good on paper. But you need to think about how the fight actually plays out.

And maybe to make my point about this not being about Farimba even stronger: I am very confident Farimba could give +10 attack (which is obviously a terrible idea for balancing in general, so don’t take this as a balancing suggestion^^) and the lategame fights would have basically the exact same result. It’s so much more about ranged damage than about melee damage in those fights - and that’s why Mangudai are so good in ultra lategame, even against Berbers.


So I agree, but I don’t think that Berbers and Malians are strong enough before post-imp for it to be “fair” that they need to win there.
Given that they need to win before post-imp, it seems that Mongols+Huns have a significant civ advantage, which seems like bad balance.

Just buffing their castle age would make them OP on maps which are decided in castle age, so the best balance solution is to make them stronger in post-imp.

The problem isn’t farimba, it’s Heavy Camel and Paladin, in my opinion.
Something in the general direction of

  • HC +1 pierce armour
  • HC +3 attack, -3 bonus damage
  • Paladin -10 hp

Would help

Or maybe we should allow the players to own their misplay and not blame the civilization or the units for losing the game.

Heavy camel comes in way earlier than Paladin and they sat on it instead of trying to push when their advantage was at it’s peak. Once Paladin comes in, the most vulnerable part of the game for the Knight player has passed as that’s an extremely expensive, extremely slow upgrade. Mangudai is a similarly expensive and slow unit to upgrade, and both of these units will not be upgraded by the time you have Heavy camel rolling if you commit with the camels immediately.

Since they didn’t push, they allowed the enemy team to amass one of the most expensive, most roundly-efficient armies you can possibly field, in Paladin+SO+Mangudai. When you’re against that, you lose. Nothing counters it. This isn’t a case of a unit imbalance. This is a case of a team deciding to sit on an advantage against an enemy with a strong lategame composition. Even T90 said as much.


yes i did, and frequently there was only around 10 melee cavalry on either side, (including right where your video links too) until the close out fights either way, the fact is that camels are CHEAPER, they also Train Faster, and they are CHEAPER TO UPGRADE. all of which gives them SEVERAL ADVANTAGES OVER THE PALADIN, and yet you are only looking at the 1 ON 1 FIGHT.

yes let’s give the civilization with +3 PA Infantry that laugh at skirms, and +7 attack Light Cavalry that beat most hussars in the game, a better post imp, what could possibly go wrong? Malians have a far better post imperial age then you give them credit for. at most, i’d give berbers Parthian Tactics, which helps them with fighting Archers with their Camel Archers

yes because the Heavy Camel doesn’t already beat the Paladin as is, and is cheaper, trains faster, and is cheaper to upgrade as well. oh wait. the problem ISN’T THE HEAVY CAMEL AND THE PALADIN. the problem is you expect something from the Camel that it isn’t designed to be. this is a YOU PROBLEM.
and now that the heavy camel is more of a generalist unit, you have to increase their cost and training time too!
oh and now that paladins are worse, gotta reduce their upgrade cost as well!


the camels take 14 seconds to kill the paladins.
the paladins in that time do not get to get in any extra hits, and land 8 strikes, doing 120 damage. the extra attack speed wouldn’t matter until you get to after the 10th hit (because the first hit isn’t on a timer). with Malian camels they kill the paladins after the 7th strike at 12 seconds and the paladins do only 105 damage.

for a unit that is cheaper, trains faster, and cheaper to upgrade. seems like a win on all fronts.

and still takes twice as many shots to kill a Camel Archer. but go ahead, give berbers Parthian tactics.

they aren’t generalists at all. and the situation where they can beat their own counters is when one side is playing significantly worse then the other. because that’s exactly what we saw. frequently BACT without his army in the engagement, ACCM not targeting the Mangudai with his Camel Archers, and they didn’t push their advantages when they had it.

so your argument basically sounds like “I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY BAD AND STILL WIN”

just because you can use a game with terrible play to make it look imbalanced doesn’t make it imbalanced. even the casters called them on their bad play. and i’m sure if you asked BACT and ACCM about it, both would admit that they did not play well (in that game).

i could make a game where i go archers and lose them all to move commanding them into knights and not fighting back, does that make archers bad units?
does the fact that a pikeman loses 1v1 to the knight line make a pike it a unit that needs buffs?
does the fact that a halb loses 1v1 to a paladin make it a unit that needs buffs?

1 Like