How would you balance Bulgarians if they got paladins back with stirrups

Perhaps reduce the increase in attack speed by stirrups, adjust its cost and increase the attack speed for Konniks in order to compensate.

1 Like

There’s not really a settled tier list and you’ll probably find that there’s some disagreements even between players like theViper and Hera.

I think your suggestion of an eco-bonus is suitable, the Bulgarian economy stand out as being especially weak when almost all other civs have gotten at least one good eco-bonus or cost-reduction-bonus. Are the Bulgarian military capabilities so much stronger than the others as to make an eco-bonus overpowered? I’d definitely say no.

But seeing as how the Civ is around mid-tier I don’t think we’ll see any changes unfortunately.

1 Like

Unfortunately?
Being mid-tier is good. All civs should aspire tio be mid-tier.

No sense in fixing what is not broken.

1 Like

Being Mid-tier is not enough to be competitive when you have a dozen or more civs that are S-tier and A-tier. I think most would agree Bulgarians land somewhere between B-tier and D-tier, with no real consensus yet. I don’t know if I would say it’s broken but naturally you want to see your favorite civs be competitive and being “decent” just doesn’t cut it.

1 Like

For Persians and Spanish and Teutons (haven’t played much with Cumans, so idk) there is an alternative

EWE in TG
Conqs
TK + SO

Elite War Elephants are useless in 1v1, and not that great in Team games either. It is essentially a “make Monks” sign. Paladin + Kamandaran Crossbows are the only real option for Persians.

Not by themselves. Spanish really need Conqs + Paladin. Pure Mass Conq only worked in AoC, when they were legitimately OP.

Halb + SO. TKs are that unit you only make 10 of, to shoo away enemy Infantry and Hussar. They will not prevent the SOs from dying, and are overly expensive for such a slow and clunky unit.
Even Champions are better at it, specially now that they get +2 MA in Imp.

Teutons also do need Paladins, as they lack decent Archers, and their Skirmishers have no Bracer.

1 Like

The thing about the Paladin is that it can’t be too much stronger than the Konnik if it’s brought back to the tech tree with Stirrups. Honestly, the best solution I can think of would be to remove one of the Bulgarians’ cavalry techs, perhaps Bloodlines, while making the Konnik slightly less expensive. Losing Bloodlines would cause the Konnik’s second life bonus to make a bigger difference.

Bloodlines on cavalry won’t change much the things, but a lesser attack speed on paladins sounds fair. (Bulgarians have very good cavalry so please keep them fully upgraded)
Rocketry gives + 2 attack to Chu ko nus and +4 to Scorpions (perhaps should include +2 attack on all foot Archers to be more complete and inclusives), why not on paladins with somewhat lesser firing rate (like 1.6).

1 Like

Paladin, even without any UT or bonus, is statistically the best unit in the game, and unless any UU is just broken OP, they will always get sidelined in favour of the Paladin.

The reason why Konniks and Stirrup were buffed, and Bulgarians lost Paladin, was to enforce Konnik usage. Also, no civ that has Paladin, has a UT that directly affects it’s stats.

Paladin is just way too strong of a unit, that it will get used anyway, unless you are Celts and miss 2 upgrades. It is so stupidly strong, that it originally was going to be the Franks UU, and AoC introduced Halberdiers because civs without Heavy Camel could not counter it in AoK.

To be honest, the less civs that have Paladin, the better.
I really do think it should only be available to civs without any other strong options.

Because Paladins are already broken OP if you have all base upgrades.
Pit a Paladin against a Konnik with Stirrups, and the Paladin wins. It is just too stupidly strong of an upgrade.

1 Like

I would like if bulgarians would get paladins back (with needed nerf on stirrups effect on them). There are currently way too few civilizations with paladins (10/35 = 29%) compared to AOC (7/18 = 39%). This is very disappointing.
Paladins are a very fun and powerful unit to play with and would fit bulgarians (european cavalry civilization) nicely.

There are 10 Paladin civs, where there should be 5-7 at most.

You should know from past experience that each time you are suggesting this (you have done so many times), you will face heavy opposition from me and other players. Majority of players don’t want to remove paladins from civs. Why even bother singing the same old song again with same predictable results?

4 Likes

I do not care about how much opposition I face, I am right in this regard.

A lot of current Paladin civs could lose it, in exchange for buffs to their UUs.
Celts could even lose for nothing, and it would have no effect on them.

It is possible to have Paladins without stirrups affecting them. That’ll make them interesting since taking melee fights with stirrup cavaliers will be viable before Paladin upgrade kicks in

You also say 1v1 balance matters more and TGs are broken. Then by that logic, Paladin are only relevant in TGs with trade where you can spam them and win with pop efficiency. Against civs with decent halbs, Paladins are unviable and not worth it in 1v1. So I don’t really get your rhetoric. 1v1 its much better to finish off with what you have and keep the pressure, same does apply to TGs but to a much lesser extent.

Also I can never see cavalry UUs replacing Paladins except for Huns if they make Tarkans as good as Paladins. UUs need castles and that’ll always limit their viability

1 Like

It is also counter-sensical, since people would want to know why Paladins do not benefit from the same upgrades as Cavaliers, like they do in all other civs.
This would also make Stirrups useless, since Paladin by far outweights Konnik, and not benefitting from Stirrups would make it a dead UT, that no one uses.

No sense in researching something taht will not benefit your late stage unit.

Paladins are often seen in 1v1, by all civs that can make them, except Celts. The only necessary condition for you to see Paladin in a 1v1 match, is for the game to last into the Imperial Age.

In fact, if a civ has Paladin, you will almost never see Cavalier, since people just B-line to the Paladin upgrade, as fast as possible.

It is a broken OP upgrade as it is.

Not true, since Halbs are stuck at defending, and Paladins can just ride circles around them while raiding. Only Camels can catch up to Paladins.

I easily can.

Maybe right based on reality. But not right regarding balance.

1 Like

This is just stupid imo. xD

But it is regarding balance. Paladin is an overly-efficient unit, that is way too strong as it is, specially for the price of the upgrade, even though it is quite high.

If I had my way, only 5 civs would have Paladin:
-Franks
-Teutons
-Spanish
-Cumans
-Persians

Since those 5 are the only ones I see desperately needing Paladin in the first place.
In the past I though Huns would need it rather than Cumans, but I was convinced otherwise, since the Tarkan is only a small buff away from replacing Paladin as it is.

Any civ with good Halbs or Camels will pierce through a Paladin civ. Even the Pikeman can be useful if massed properly. Plus, if every Paladin civ focused purely on Paladins, that would make their strategy far too predictable and the opponent would know how to counter them without fail. Knowing what to expect makes a difference.

2 Likes

Few weeks back you said konniks are better than Paladin, which is it? Also nope, stirrups is still very useful for Hussars and very vital for Konniks

And I’ve seen many games lost where people wait till you get the resources for Paladin, wait for 3 minutes it to complete but get attacked and you’re left without numbers or resources. 1v1 is often risky for such gamble upgrades. And its not like Paladin is kill all unit

Then why haven’t I heard for any calls for nerfing it? Pro or casual?

Not if you wall. And look up halb ram strategy

well nice to see your pro visionary

5 Likes