Give Steppe Lancers to Huns

Not a new idea, but this is something that should be really addressed. This is literally their ingame description:

"The Huns were superb horsemen, trained from childhood, and some believe they invented the stirrup, critical for increasing the fighting power of a ####### ### charging with a couched lance."

"They were a horse people and very adept at mounted warfare, both with spears and bows."

They were well known mounted spear users, also horseman nomads, also originating from the Asian steppes, which is literally supposed to be this regional unit’s region. Steppe Lancers are also just a fun unit to use and the world would be a better place with one more civ rightfully having them.

Here is an idea: give Huns ONLY regular Steppe Lancers, no Elite ones, and apply the Hunnic 10-20% HA cost reduction to them, this way Huns would also have their unique take on the Steppe Lancers with their quantity over quality approach, which would also fit their more barbaric theme, and the more distinctly Cuman looking Elite Steppe lancer wouldn’t clash with their older era aesthetics (if that’s even a concern). SL also wouldn’t compete with Tarkans’ anti-archer speciality, and if Tarkans are moved to the third slot in stables they wouldn’t compete with icon slots either.

This way they would be also the only civ with 4 horse units in the stables, matching their horse emblem, which I think would be neat.

11 Likes

please don’t change more legacy civs. savars for persians is just about bareable. I guess steppe lancers to huns would be ok, but it would probably come at a cost of nerfs elsewhere

Would steppe lancer push them so over the edge? Even if perhaps they dont have elite?

please don’t change more legacy civs.

You can always play AoK anytime.

9 Likes

I bought DE, I don’t want the thing I bought be destroyed. Is that too much to ask?

If they keep changing DE they should at least provide an official supported mod without those changes

Funny enough I just wrote something, Is regional unit access lob-sided? - #27 by Quasibrodo, on another topic about this subject.

TLDR history is complicated but give huns the steppe lancer.

Why do you see change as destruction? That’s a very negative way to look at things.

5 Likes

Yes I support now the idea, after Persians Huns are now overshadowed as a cavalry civ, only thing they have is 20% faster working stables.

Give them both standard and elite, make the discount of cavalry archers apply on them and then you have other civ that can go steppe lancers in castle age.

4 Likes

I don’t see all change as destruction, you are misinterpreting. But adding garbage mechanics like resource generation on killing units makes Persians no longer fun to play for me (and even worse to play against). It was already bad enough when this was added to vikings, at least there it is locked behind a UT and only for the UU, but having this for all cavalry units (even CA!!) is just so janky.

I enjoyed playing this civ in the past, now I don’t.

Man Chieftains include all infantry, not just the UU

No, I am extrapolating from what you said. You said “I don’t want the thing I bought be destroyed.” implying that all changes post release are negative.

Vikings raid and pillage. It’s kinda in the name.

Plus the ability to attack and gain resources has been in DE from the start with Keshiks.

2 Likes

I even think that giving them the elite ones would not be a problem.

Somehow I’m also close to the feeling.

Resource looting is something that should be special, either as a UU feature or locked behind UT. Not only did the Persians have it outright, it was better than what were locked behind the Vikings UT, which doesn’t look like an elegant design.

Similarly, more and more units can regenerate. Camel and elephant regenerations are at least locked behind the UTs, and ship regeneration is at least acceptable due to the niche nature of naval battle, but now mounted units can also regenerate directly even at a lower rate. As time goes by, Berserks become less and less special.

1 Like

you’re probably the only person I have seen so far that complains about Persian having Savar. Most people like Savar added to the Persian, it makes no sense that they had paladins, same goes for huns and cumans.

7 Likes

my bad, but how many monks and villagers do you kill with pikemen? you are probably only going to feel this if you send zergs on raids

you are wrong. you are putting words in my mouth. A change like better pathing, fewer crashes are objectively good and I did not imply anywhere that those are bad. I am also in favour of minor balance tweaks and to an extent even of new content (especially campaigns). Just accept you were wrong, apologize and let’s move on.

Then perhaps you should have elaborated more rather than saying “I bought DE, I don’t want the thing I bought be destroyed” on its own, if you didn’t want confusion.

Also “I bought DE” reads like you are saying you don’t want changes past the base game.

1 Like

I’d like to push in the opposite direction.
Devs, don’t be afraid, proceed and, wiht the proper care, make the changes you consider proper to make the original civs funnier.

5 Likes

3 Likes

Steppe lancer are toxic. They should not be given to more civs.

No, they’re actually not. I’d like them to be given to more civs, like the Huns.

3 Likes

It’s funny that basically the only counter argument in the whole thread is "I hate change ".
No one talking about balance or anything like that.

4 Likes