I’ve always found their bonus damages Vs building super weird.
The fact that masonry + architecture reduce them to similar DPS as Paladins annoys me a lot. There was other bonuses like this but they were almost all converted to Standard Building damages (Manipur, Indian TB…).
But their general non building combat stats are perfectly fine since they received 1PA.
Depends what building.
Indeed.
Vs Walls, Castles, Stone Defenses, they are better.
Which also makes them very confusing.
They’re basically meant to melt TC’s and be an ultimate raiding unit. Whether they’ve succeeded with that, I leave it up to you.
They are super annoying when running around your base, and people out there complain about eagles 11
Or maybe I’m just a sucker for fast siege hit and run buildings…
Do you think a discount in the gold department (like -10/15) would make them OP?
I’m gonna respond to all your topic here. Just make one the next time, there’s no point in doing 7 posts.
That big of a buff to a champion makes no sense
Can’t you see how strong you are making a unit that costs 45 food and 20 gold that has no trash counter?
This straight up makes no sense. Out of all the trebs techs you want to nerf Kataparuto? And its most useless aspect on top of that?
It’s already the fastest common unit in the game. This would greatly alter the balance of the feudal age (scouts arrive faster from the other part of the map, which means that they are more likely to enter, they are harder to chase down and they will be stronger against archers too) and would make no sense because in castle age you can already tech husbandy that it’s the exact same buff
Mangonels are made almost every game, be it to counter archers or to push in csastle age. they need no buff, they are already the best siege weapon in the castle age by far. “but people micro them”, use ground shot or add two mangos, i can assure you people won’t try to split against three mangos and if they try they just lose their army
You’d just make the rocky hills unpushable. Literally zero sense
Why tf would you buff keep in the first place. Jesus, I could not wait to push on map like bf into 3000 brits/koreans/japs keep that are built faster, and have more armor.
Keeps do not need a buff and do not need their utility increased. Btw, against castle drop you won’t have keeps to stop it anyway, it’s a very late tech
Huns do not need a fucking mounted huskarl.
Seriously, what’s up with your 300 random balance thread? No explanation provided, not a single one that makes sense and very close to spamming too. It looks like you wake up and drop random numbers to buff stuff because yes
he’s probably part of the design team
Tarkan is not heavy cavalry like Paladin and is not meant to be. Huns also do not need Tarkans to be as efficient as a Knight line unit. They already have access fully upgraded paladins. I see Tarkans as sturdy raiding units as well as mobile siege units which is quite characteristic to Huns civilization. If you want to fight archers with them, they can do it nicely due to their high pierce armor but no surprise as they do not do it as nice as paladins.
Another aspect is that think it other way, if tarkans are better than paladins in the battlefield, why would people even invest in cavalier and paladin upgrades? Paladins are not as good as tarkans to deal with buildings also.
It would make them to close to Keshiks specialty. If they need a buff it should be in their own specialty, bonus Vs buildings.
ETarkans DPS Vs normal buildings with Architecture is the same as Paladins. This feels wrong. This is my only problem with them.
I think it isn’t necessary. Because they are so insanely strong vs defences you just break in and raid.
I think this is the reason for their bonus design, as somebody here already said. They seem to be design as the perfect raiding unit against players who use a lot of defensive structures to prevent that.
Here. Thxs reanu.
So far what I can tell from comments and what-not / the changes that would be welcome are
Add bonus damage vs archers
Increase bonus damage vs regular non-fortification type buildings so as not to be worse than paladins in that regard.
Question: do they have bonus damage vs siege? If not add that too.
Where do you get this idea from? i don’t see any sort of support for this, seeing as they already do well against archers. most people seem to think they are fine. so if this “support” you say that is welcome is adding bonus vs archers - please show me where you got this idea of support from.
no they don’t. and they don’t really need it either.
two changes I would possibly consider - a small (very small) cost reduction of maybe 5 food or gold, or maybe a small speed increase to 1.4 or 1.45. but even now I’m saying no thanks to changes.
It would make more sense for tarkans to have a bonus vs siege than for mangudai.
but they aren’t supposed to be an anti siege unit. they are supposed to be a siege unit themselves.
And siege units love to eat siege units
and they already do well against siege as is, by virtue of being extremely cheap compared to most siege, attacking faster then most siege, and having a heck of a lot of health meaning they can soak up a lot of damage.
again, they don’t need these type of buffs. they have a clear role as is - to change that role would require making them more expensive which I don’t think most people would be a fan of.
**[quote=“HealFortress, post:52, topic:137151, full:true”]
Increase bonus damage vs regular non-fortification type buildings so as not to be worse than paladins in that regard.
[/quote]
**
I would even say that this way. If anything, just have their bonus damages untouched by Masonry and Architecture. And then, buffing Huns is always a bit dubious.
How about changing that “building” bonus to “standard building”, like manipur cavalry? That way shouldn’t be affected by masonry/architecture. Would 10 bonus damage too strong then? could be slightly reduced.
Just to be clear I’m not proposing anything, just asking opinions.
The keep-line; doesn’t mean just keeps but starting from the first one available to all civs without a variant tower type.
