Maybe. But I don’t see why Eagle needs attack bonus vs cavalry. At least why more attack than LS?
How? I barely see LS play. Even after Gambeson, things didn’t change much.
1 Like
Eagles are a pretty weird unit to be fair, but Aztecs and Mayans really depend on them. You can’t change them without severely hurting those civs, without some other tweak.
1 Like
Zelley kinda addressed something important, about the Villagers on Food and Gold, and Pop. How many Eagles (25F 50G) equal to Kdays (60F 75G) in resources?
And yes, it’s a lil bit frustrating to have my base surrounded by 20 Quicksilvers, they run everywhere. Could make these guys literally fly like an eagle above and around your base.
They get an attack bonus vs cavalry to be xost efficient against them. Eagles perform way worse against every unit except pikes/camels/monks.
If eagles lose the +0/+3+4 bonus vs cavalry, the eagle civs die to a castle age knight+skirms/lightcav+skirms spam, whike having a bad trash game due to missing the light cav line.
I tjink you didnt get my point. I said:
- look at the meta without LS. T doesnt feel that eagles are out of place
- look at the world with LS: you dont see much LS. What does it has anything to do with eagles.
And imagine aworld without eagle civs. You wouldnt see more LS. Actually you would see fewer of them because LS is mainly used against eagles.
So again: why would it be the eagles fault if the LS are underplayed ? Why not the knights fault ? (one coukd ask why they hot more melee armor than LS ) or the xbows fault ?(one could ask why they are faster than LS)
Eagles do not “need” more anti cav damage than LS. They just have anti cav damage and it feels balanced in their design. It is more the LS than needs to be buffed to be up to the level of the other units than the eagles that should be nerfed down to the level of LS.
Eagles are supposed to give an advantage to eagles civs compared to knight/lightcav civs before 1v1 trash wars and team games 200pop with trade fights.
They also perform more cost effectively against archer and siege. And why they need to be this much cost effective against cavalry?
I’m not against them being cost effective against knight, just not as much as it is now. I will say +0/+2/+4 will be better. So just the Castle Age EW is slightly nerfed. Also since all 3 American civs have some crazy good bonuses, both economy and military, they will be totally fine against LC+Skirms. Only Knight+skirms will be a big weakness which is the weakness of all bad stable civs anyway.
Yeah. I misunderstood. I thought you meant LS is not out of place.
1 Like
They don’t “need”, it may be subject to nerfs it too oppressive. But given the drawbacks of lacking stable units, it is fair to make them cost effective. Even it is after an accessible tech like you suggested.
I guess it would be okay.
Currently eagles vs knights[BL] goes in 13[15] hits (2s cooldown) vs 6 hits (1.8s cooldown). With the -1 damage vs cavalry, it would be in 15[18] hits vs 6 hits, making a BL knight win vs 2 eagles instead of losing.
Eagles would win against noBL knights like they currently win against BL knights, however they still have the advantages of having light cav perks, and have the pikes transition basically for free.
True.
1 Like