Help! The Saracens have lost their identity and some other stuff

them having archers was because they needed an offensive option.

They still have the complete archer tree. They just don’t have bonus vs buildings. They now have viable camels with +1p armor.

but saracens don’t have any other offensive options do they?

and all it cost you was redesigning two entire civilizations, without any advance word and confusing much of the fan base, months of balance mess, and overbuffing Indians.

They may look quite a bit weak in Castle Age. But they are stronger in Imperial Age. Actually I would say they are stronger in Castle Age too.

Let’s recap. Lost- archer attack vs buildings
Gained- +1p armor for camels. +2 attack for heavy camels after Zealotry. They still have decent Knights. Their feudal age is almost untouched. They can destroy buildings using Camels. They still have Siege Ram + Siege Onagers + Siege Engineers + Bombard Cannons in Imperial Age.

except their camels are still laughable against archers, so them destroying buildings isn’t much of an advantage.
there is a reason Indians as they are now are a mediocre 1v1 civ.

Compare those Indians to Saracens in this thread. Saracens have better Siege (Siege Ram is a huge upgrade). Has access to Knights. This counts for something. A good unique unit. Monks. The only quirck is balancing cheaper villagers with market bonus.

How about pass camel bonuses of Indians to Saracens . Remove Indians and add some civ that is historical close and introduces a new meta - maybe Rajput or Tamil.

That’s what I said. Rajputs had good infantry, heavy cavalry and decent Cavalry Archers. Except for the name, I have described them to be that close. I am a North Indian to be precise.

Rajput as a civ will come very close to Persians. For variety’s sake I would suggest Tamils, but again they may share a lot with Malay. However I think we can differentiate them, would be easier than differentiating Rajputs & Persians.

Saracens were actually also known for their archers, at least I’ve read that somewhere.

Might it be reasonable to buff (Saracen) camels without trashing their archers?
They’re worse at camel play than Indians because of their booming economy, I don’t see any way your proposal addresses that.

PS: would be a fan of civ-renaming

I agree with the problem, but the solution you proposes is too much. I would just take away the team bonus for saracens and would put a bomus like madrash, but smaller (15% of the gold cost?) and then put an ut in aslte age for camels (+1 attack or 2 attack or 1 attack and 1 melee defense, idk). Other option is to nerf thwir archers (make the bonus affect since castle age) and then give +1 attack to camel line

I agree with you that Saracens have lost their whole identity which was intended by original devs

But at the moment, I think the Saracens have the identity that the current developers want them to have. They want them to be an offensive archer civ with bonus vs building. And only having camels as a defensive option.

You can see that due to the fact they kept nerfing the camel over and over again through the HD expansions. If they wanted to make camel a viable offensive unit, they would have done it, but this is what they did:

Spear/Pike/Halb bonus vs camels jumped from 7/11/16 to 12/18/26

image

So I think their idea was to make camels almost mainly a defensive unit, and if we go by that, then the camel is perfectly okay how it is right now in the Saracen tech tree.

Saracens are thematically fine imo. I used to see them as a generic and tastless civ, but market+archers+camels gives them a good identity for themselves. But I don’t reject any attempt of rework. The result can be even better than we have now.

As always in every post, I support an indians rework. Not exactly the one presented here though.

2 Likes

Saracens not having an identity? What are you on about?

Saracens are really, really well defined with their market. Their identity is beeing flexibel by buying/selling everything, making it possible to surprise their opponents. “saracen market best unit in the game” is a common joke for a reason.

Yes, their identity does not match the description published over 20! years ago. But that doesnt mean they lack it.

1 Like

Btw, in a color note, there’s a town in Italy called “saracen market”

1 Like

Camels used to have the ship and camel armor class until The African Kingdoms, so they took more total bonus damage from the spear line before the Rise of the Rajas changes. Having the ship armor class also meant camels took bonus damage from towers, town centers, and castles. But now they don’t, making them far better offensive units than they used to be.

Other than that, I also think Saracens have lost their camel identity. I think replacing Madrasah with another camel tech would fix this. Maybe a +bonus damage or +armor class tech for camels and Mamelukes?

2 Likes

Drastically redesigning the identity of a civilization is generally not done, otherwise there’s plenty of other civilizations and UUs which would need a rework. Indians may be poorly designed but they’re certainly strong.
“Camel rushing” is a flawed tactic in and of itself, it’d be like pikeman rushing which just doesn’t happen (the siege is the important part in pike/siege). Chinese not having 2 techs is balance etc. etc. otherwise they’d be the most broken civilization in the game and have a completely filled out tech tree.

You are wrong. It was just one class “the Camel and ship class”. That didn’t mean they took double dmg, but that they had 1 shared class. It was purely a cosmetic/simplicity change in AK.

You are correct in saying that it buffed camels by making them take less damage from towers.

But you saying that camels took more dmg from spearline before African Kingdoms/Rajas? Nope that’s just plain wrong.

My initial take was to do what Sandy Petersen was said. Indians in AOE2 are a mix of like 8 civs.

But historical accuracy isn’t always that important