There have recently been some suggestions about Armenians being in need of a buff.
People are still figuring them out, and It’s too early to trust in stats; but if at the end it’s in fact a real thing that they need to get buffed, I really hope they heavy cavalry gets buffed.
Armenians are perhaps one the worst designed civs in terms of historical inspiration .
Yes, I know, “aztec crossbows”. I know the game does not seek historical accuracy. But civilizations should somehow resemble some of the most iconical aspects of their historical counterpart.
Armenians were famous for their heavy cavalry, and the game depicting them with less than decent cavalry (and being a great water civ instead (??)) feels almost like an insult to the historical setting of the game. I’m not asking for them to be turned into a cavalry civ, but at least give them Plate Barding Armor.
It is being said that it’s their late game which is lacking the most, as they seem to not have many options. I’ve also read they lose too hard agains Hand Canoneer + Skirms. Better cavalry would help them in that regard.
If they want to embrance the Infantry identity better, then they need to get the Dravidians 50% cheaper Barracks technologies, look how works the 50% cheaper stable technologies for Burgundians to get their Castle age Cavaliers working, Dravidians could get instead Barrack Technologies with Gold cost removed.
They seem like strongest archer civ in closed map team games where their eco tech bonuses, mule carts and armor piercing can shine. They absolutely shred through any melee unit.
I would probably just give them Siege Ram, so they have late game option for infantry composition and don’t get absolutely destroyed by onagers or archers.
They have a weaker early game eco for open maps but its still too early to know if they need a buff. And I don’t think their cavalry needs to be buffed even further. They have full upgrades on cavalry in castle age which is quite decent. And Light cav with +4 and composite bows could be very strong.
None of the civs actually reflect history. Its awful they decided to create yet another infantry and naval civ after the disastrous Dravidians. But since they did design it that way, I don’t think the devs are going to redesign it right away into a cavalry civ to fit history.
That could be the only weakness and there are many maps where a pure ranged combination can be a disadvantage and there are many civs which don’t have hand canoneers. So we’d need to wait to see how well they’re doing on ladder.
Romans was released in between them and it was a success.
Their Castle Age UT and ship UU are based on fantasy wiki page that have been removed from wikipedia after a couple of months DOI release. And I think he mean Dravidians terrible land map performance.
A civ with full upgrades on cavalry, paladin, good monks and good mid-late game eco is essentially a cavalry civ.
Absolutely. Has no knights, bloodlines, husbandry, plate barding armor, redemption, fervor, siege engineers and one of the worst unique units that doesn’t fit the civ. Worst land civ.
I think one Idea for Armenians could be that Fereters give all Infantry except the spear line AND all Cavalry + 40 % HP.
This would compensate for not having the last Imp Armor Upgrade on their Cav, adding a unique touch to their Cavalry. Examples of the Result:
Champs 98 HP (-2)
Warrior Priest 133 HP (+8)
Light Cav 112 HP (+32)
Cavalier 196 HP (+56)
Condottiero 112 HP (+32)
CA 98 HP (+28)
Ofc this would make Fereters a very powerful tech. But looking at the quite bad lategame tech tree of Armenians I also kinda feel it’s necessary for them. Atm for me the main Reason to go up to imp with Armenians is just to get Trebs. And going up to imp just for Trebs feels very expensive.
Ofc it’s a bit weird to only exclude the Spear line from that, but 84 HP Halbs would be broken as hell in my opinion, cause it would just shut down so many Cavalry civs that lack a reasonable tool agains# ## ##### they generally have HC, but that’s a squishy Gold unit)
In theory it could be interesting when Armenians would instead miss the Halb upgrade, as higher HP Pikes could synergize well with the warrior priests healing ability. But it would be very awkward if the one civ that gets Pikes in Feudal has no upgrade in Castle age and then a basically Halb equivalent (with tradeoffs) in Imp.
I said “either”. I’m not asking for FU paladins. A civ with FU cavaliers without any bonus buffing them and without any economic bonus towards food is not a cavalry civ.
Oh, I thought he meant disastrous in terms of historical representation.
I can easily get past inaccuracies of that kind. Those are the kind of things you can answer “It’s a game, not a history book”. But at least in-game Dravidians more or less depict the civilization’s historical main features, even if it leans a bit into pop culture: Rashtrakutas had good infantry, Cholas were a naval superpower, and the Vijayanagars had their elephants (BE are bad, but it’s compensated with top tier EA).
That’s broken. Btw the extra % applies before bloodlines, so its 188 hp for cavalier and 104 hp for light cav. Light cav hp is fine but 188 hp cavalier is too strong imo. You’ve got to realize they also have full upgrades on monks, 130 hp warrior priests, composite bows etc. And usually if Armenian player is able to get to Fereters they should be able to win, so it probably might not be the necessary buff.
Don’t think its that bad. They miss plate barding armor and canons, but have +4 and bracer for skirms, composite bows are decent in many matchups, best champion in the game, monks have full upgrades. They can use multiple churches to protect against light cav raids and to guard the last gold or stone mine.
Not a top tier late game but not terrible either.
Oh my bad. It might be nice then but I’d still think that its not the best way to buff them for balance. They just follow the pattern followed by other infantry and naval civs of missing last armor on cavalry but just have inferior early eco. Maybe the discount on mule cart should be 40% or the extra benefit from eco upgrades should be 33% or something like that. Those might be a better buff imo.
Historically it makes sense, but I like the way they play in game now, and there are far too many heavy cavalry civs already.
The problem is that they’re heavily an infantry civ, and infantry in AoE2 are terrible. Perhaps a ‘Logistics’ tech after gambesons that makes the militia-line take 2/3rds population (inspired by AoE1)?
How can something be broken that is already better in the game and nobody claims it would be broken?
Don’t forget that the Cavalry still misses the last armor, which brings their cavalier behind 2 atk, 1 melee armor and 3 pierce armor behind paladin. Ferters might be a comparably cheap tech, but it’s basically half a Paladin upgrade cost and guess what? We also have a civ that gets the full Paladin upgrade 50 % cheaper.
Also we already have a civ that gets extra HP with missing the last armor upgrade on their light cav - but for free!
Also don’t forget that it doesn’t make sense at all to go both militia and cavalry at the same time. It’s not at all synergizing. So when you pick up this tech you then get it either for the same thing as rn (hp on Infantry) OR to upgrade your cavalry. Meaning in the end the Cavalry part I propose here is just for the Cavalry play with them which is - as mentioned above - far from broken. As the bonusses are already in the game for older civs, but better. It’s really only to make their Cavalry somehow scale in the lategame so you aren’t completely lost with it after the opponent clicked imp. (Fereters isn’t super cheap either, it’s almost twice as much as plate barding armor which gives basiclaly the same against archers and CA (but less against melee units).
The Resut for their Cavalry with my Proposal for Fereters would be they get for some more investment something a bit better than FU cavalier and FU Hussar. This wouldn’t make them a full Cavalry Civ. But it would allow to play cavalry in the midgame with them without having to fear falling behind too much in the lategame.
That’s for Mongols, which description of the bonus is misleading.
I made the list of the affected units to clafiy what I mean. Also the Warrior Monks Sanctity stacks with it.
Ahm no? I’ve seen a lot of times Amrenians going fereters and lose badly. Cause just having high HP infantry doesn’t translate into winning games. It’s jsut annoying to deal with when they break your defences at one point. But as long as you can keep them up (which you can most of the time as armenians have terrible Siege), fereters can’t cut the deal for them. As the tech is designed rn.
Damn, even Huns have better Siege than Armenians 11
Oh yeah, it’s that bad. Terrible Siege. Below average defences. They have so many weaknesses there to exploit almost every other civ can find ways to kill them. And their only hope is to somehow break your defences somewhere despite having that bad Siege to somehow swarm you.
And btw their Infantry span is subpar to goths even, as they miss that super arrow soaking unit like the huskarl. Yes bec of the extra HP their Champs can soak a bit more arrowfire. But it’s just not comparable with the real deal.
A lot of people (including myself) already proposed this kind of idea. And I still like it. Imo it should affect all kind of foot unit - meaning also archers, skirms, HC … That way we also affect the infantry counters that otherwise might have issues keeping up with the sheer mass of Infnatry that might come their way (Goth spam greets).