Ideas for Changes to the Sicilians

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

I don’t think that this is a good idea. If the UT would affect the champs too, those would probably overshadow the serjeat even more.

Maybe the UT could be changed even like viper suggested, which is to have that 35 serjeats (could be even 50 again at this point) for free but trained at a building. I personally don’t really like it, but I can’t deny that it would be still a good tech, since you would pay almost anything for what you are getting back.

I see it more related with the papal state, since the norman kingdom always had close ties with it. Onestly both historically and balance speaking, having a bad monastery for the sicilians makes no sence. I get it that it doesn’t have to be top tier of FU, but the most important techs sould be there.

Yeah it wouldn’t be that bad, but neither OP, basically you save the roughly the same time as half fishing ship. I don’t think that they would be that far ahead of spanish, malians or persians.

Yeah I agree, it’s betther to give them either hussar or good monks.

Yeah but hussars would’t be that broken, and onestly LC is enough when you have at least good archers.

You will still better off with 2 wood buildings, so then you have the stone for extra TCs. And if you donjon rush, you probably already have the blacksmith for fletching and the market for balance your eco, or a range to support your Trush.

Mmm it would be nice for halb upgrade, but overall having FU infantry it’s more than enough, since if you don’t have buffed stats for them you don’t really see infantry play.

That is actually less than a tower, I get that the cost is prohibitive, but that’s broken. Maybe they could cost 175 stone, or 160 stone, but I wouldn’t go even near the 150 stone cost. I’t better to simply give them extra starting stone.

22

Not really. You’ve gotta take resources one way or another. You already don’t need to take as much wood because of your farm bonuses, now you have to take even LESS wood if you play ideally, and since you want to rush to 5 TCs for First Crusade, plus dropping even more donjons, you want to be prepped for taking stone heavily anyway.

It all synergizes quite nicely. Maybe not 100% of the time, but that’s okay.

23

-Give them Hussar
-Give the thumb ring (maybe also last archer armour)
-Make the Serjeant cheaper/faster/maybe more attack (feel underwhelming for the cost)
-Elite serjeant upgrade cost reduction
-Better monk techs (at least redemption)
-Another water bonus (dont really have a good idea here but would make sense tbh, maybe fish last 20% longer)
-Donjon cheaper (150 stone)

4 Likes
24

If you do a donjon rush, it’s unlikely that you have the resources to perform a fast castle, and since you’ll have a blacksmith for sure (for fletching) at that point you are better off by adding another building, especially since you have the extra wood. That could be either the market, to better balance your eco and go to castle age faster, or a military building like a range or a stable, to switch into another unit type and keep the pressure on.

So even if you could age up after a donjon what benefits would you have? If you go for an FC you can’t rush (too late), if you go for a rush you can’t go for an FC (not enough resources), and in the mean time, it’s likely that you’ll need other buildings. If you are Trushed, while trying an FC, then maybe you can make use of such bonus, but at that point the main problem becomes the lack of stone for repairing the donjon, building more donjon, or building more TCs when in castle age, so you would probably still age up later on…

I mean, such change wouldn’t make them OP, but it wouldn’t address their main problems either, so it doesn’t make any differences if they implement it or not…

25

Agree, though maybe they don’t need hussar, given that they already have reduced bonus damage.

I would like sicilians to get siege onager, as I think they can be a good infantry+siege civilization.

1 Like
26

You’d be saving a substantial amount of resources. This civ basically NEEDS to go for donjons, so being capable of skipping the market and going for a donjon instead, either offensive or defensive, and then jumping straight to castle age potentially still on one lumber camp, saving you another 100 wood(since you need less wood still from the longer-lasting farms).

Honestly, I think they’re quite potent already. They get huge free power spikes in castle and imperial age from the upgrades to their serjeants and donjons, they have the resources to last lategame, and then they can drop Scutage to get a huge lategame power spike.

All they need is justification to build a donjon in feudal age to actually get to their lategame power spike. Allowing Donjons to count as a feudal age building dramatically increases their resistance to raiding, which gives them exactly what they need.

27

What if you change their imperial UT

You could call it norman knights and give a buff to their cavalier, since they don’t have paladin it wouldnt be so bad.

You could give them extra hp, maybe it could buff both cavaliers and champions

They would still be weaker than a regular paladin, both in melee or against archer, but it could be similar to the bulgarian UT, just trading attack for hp

2 Likes
28

Can’t have hussar, they would get only half damage from halbs because of their bonus
Thumb ring would make them very similar to italians

I like alll the other chages

29

But you are better off with that building. If you build a donjon offensively you won’t have the resources for a FC, and by the time you’ll have them, it’s better to have those buildings.

If you are building the donjon defensively instead, the need for 2 feudal buildings is the last of your problems, since the main problem will be the need of stone for repairs, new donjons (for defending from other towers) and new TCs in castle age.

Wood is still more accessible than stone, and it’s require a mining camp, so skipping a second LC doesn’t make sense. You already save wood form farms, so it doesn’t make sense to stretch it too thin just to save 175w, and by that renounce to the benefits of having a market or a stable.

Meh, the imp UT is fine, it’s first crusade the main problem.

Hussars would still die to pikes, and the sicilians arbs lacks the last armor, so with their 50% less bonus damage perform the same as normal arbs, and Italians arbs will still be way better, also thanks to cheaper ballistic and chemistry.

30

if anything this just justifies why it is ok to make the donjon count towards feudal… since it is very unlikely it will be abused, but what it does do is for the very niche scenarios where you only go blacksmith + donjon, you skip the rax and stable or range (potentially 350 w saved) yes you can still build the market later(or 175 w saved) but now you’re building it for the sake of having a building, maybe you rather want to spend that excess wood on mining camps or farms instead of selling it at the market… who knows… or maybe you are mining stone and getting ready for more TCs…

either way you would have the option… but as it stands you dont… you have to build a market if you do a donjon only drop

and this is also in conjunction that sicilians need a buff anyway, i dont think the donjon change would be a buff since it is very niche… so whatever the buff is it would be on top of this (thumb ring, monk tech etc)

2 Likes
31

A buff of the tech tree is necessary, but also you need a buff for the donjon (cheaper cost, more starting stone) and the serjeant, since both are kinda of useless and weak compared to similar units.

2 Likes
32

yeah defo. whats weird is sicilians were OP on release, but with the nerf to their siege and then 1st crusade, they suddenly became underpowered… and now they need buffs to make up for the loss of their oppressive mechanics…

either way ive been using them again, and some opponents still crying about 1st crusade, and cavalry OP bonus damage absorption… :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:

before i avoided 1st crusade since it was actually OP… but now…

2 Likes
33

I feel like sicilians only have two good moments during their games: when they scout rush and when they research first crusade. All the rest they can do is pretty much average or sub-average…even Viper is calling them a bad civ, which is a first for him. He was fine even with turks pre-buff.

4 Likes
34

Maybe reduce cost of Serjeant? It’s pretty expensive and isn’t particularly powerful, its only novelty being the donjon construction, which in all fairness is cool, but at 200 stone a pop, it won’t be utilized all that often in a game.

1 Like
35

yeah that is pretty hectic… i really like using them, ive always wanted to use more infantry, and sicily gives me the chance, i still manage to win half my games with them, so can only imagine how nice they’ll be with a little buff

the irony that so many people were saying the sgt was OP when it was first released, because some people couldnt put the stats and the price together, they just saw the stats and didnt realise how expensive it worked out…

i think the sgt should be cheaper, but i also think it needs more dmg v buildings (at least the elite) it does 3 less dmg than a champ 17 v 14 before upgrades. thats hugely inefficient considering the cost.

like they’re this cool armoured package with nothing to do except counter halbs…

2 Likes
36

Yeah. The farm bonus of the Sicilian civ is amazing, but that only kicks in very late in the game, and the serjeans and donjons would be most useful in the early stages imho. (feudal/castle)

37

the irony that so many people were saying the sgt was OP when it was first released, because some people couldnt put the stats and the price together, they just saw the stats and didnt realise how expensive it worked out…

Yeah, it can be hard to keep up production of serjeants against an opponent who is countering with scouts/M@A and archers. Maybe if they dropped the serjeants base price to 60f 30g, and then also changed first crusade to further reduce their cost to 50f 20g, make them train faster, and increase their movement speed?

38

I think the first drop for sure. But with the UT change then imo it would need to not produce any free sgts either otherwise its doing too much for one tech. And if its only reducing their cost it might also have to be a cheaper upgrade.

I wonder when it would pay off though. Someone might have to do the math. But i think you would have to produce a horde of sgts before the new UT balances out with the old UT.

Or i guess the bigger advantage is you wouldn’t need to boom 5 TCs to maximise the UT if it was like that…

1 Like
39

Yeah, serjeants need either better stats or some kind or clear defined role to fill, like anti-building unit (I think you suggested that one). At the moment they are really not good enough except for first crusade gimmicks.

1 Like
40

Serjeants, Donjons and tech tree need to be buffed. All of them.
I like this civ, but it’s bad at the moment.
Serjeants are nothing like TK and too expensive for their durability and strength in combat.
Donjons too expensive, with ok stats but terrible as tower replacement.
In my opinion they should add something to the archery range: thumb ring or last armor is necessary.
They have terrible skirmishers and terrible arbalests, no HCs, no HCA.

1 Like