+1 pierce armor (9 after all upgrades)
+3 bonus damage vs foot and cavalry archers
Increases viability and utility of the Tarkan over the knight-line vs non-melee types.
More or less similar to a Huskarl and a reverse Boyar with less armor yet veered to anti archer/building proportions
All you’ve done with these series of posts is indicated you don’t care about balance, nor empirical evidence, nor modelling. All you care about is changing numbers to fit some more or less arbitrary criteria of “These stats look good on paper”.
Please, just stop. It’s bordering on spam.
Tarkans don’t need buffs except maybe in the price range. It already has 170 health and 8 pierce armor. How much better does it need to be against archers. It takes 85 shots to kill for an arb. That’s 21 more then a frankish paladin.
Tarkans have a much less of a fire rate than the Knight line - a damage bonus increase against archers would help greatly to offset that with their generally weak attack.
The pierce armor increase compounds that while the change needed most would be the damage increase through bonus damage.
They are already all but impossible for archers to kill. They don’t need a damage bonus on top of it. At 9 pierce armor you’d have a unit that takes 170 shots for archers to kill and utterly destroys buildings on top of it.
They currently do worse than knights in the same situation due to their low attack rate
Pierce armor aside, the bonus damage increase will go a long way in helping that situation.
First of all this type of analysis should be in the original post.
Second of all units have tradeoffs. Bloating the tarkans already strong raiding potential with this buff would require a cost increase, and probably a training time increase.
It would make the unit too expensive to field.
The trade off is that against melee types they suck.
Yeah and it can level castles and gates incredibly fast which basically no other non siege unit can do as effectively. Even elephants are significantly worse at this.
You’d have to increase the price.
Then increase the individual unit cost to that of the cataphract.
You’re just throwing numbers out there again.
Why should anyone even bother responding if you’re just going to make flippant comments?
Cataphracts, elite upgrade aside, are individually hard to mass due to their high cost - having the same cost of the individual unit as a cataphract would more or less be a substantial cost and would fit what you’re asking.
Worse offensively? Yes. Way better survival though. 60 food and 60 gold for a unit that survices over 40
% more shots against arbs then a paladin does?
Where as paladins can keep up with pikes in equal numbers - tarkans lose horribly. Whether it be vs pikes or other melee unit types.
Almost like the tarkan was designed to raid. Not fight melee units.
Exactly - increasing their ability to fight against archer types gives them a utility beyond just raiding.
They already have that. They survive 85 arrow shots. A huge increase over even paladins. Who cost a lot more, cost a lot more to upgrade and longer to train
Only to act as a meat shield for archer types of the huns’ own since their low attack rate and attack means they spend more time in battle vs the archers and lose more units in the long run.
Do they? I doubt it. Paladins. Which cost a huge amount more to reach and use only have 3 more attack. On the other hand they survive a lot less. And fyi survival is far more important. It’s why attack upgrades are researched last.
Paladins kill arbs in 3 hits. Tarkans 4. Tarkans cost 600 less food and over 500 less gold to upgrade. Not to mention the massive 45 second to 270 second less research time. Tarkans train 9 seconds faster. Tarkans survive 42% more arb fire. They are more then fine against archers.
Knights attack at a rate of 1.8 seconds while tarkans attack at a rate of 2.1 seconds