But Serjeant are not even cost-effective against champion. They are not effective against Melee Unit, comparing TK with Serjeant is not valid in this regard. TK can beat Paladin and 2 Champion.
They are slow but it is only their drawback and they have more PA than champion. If they have normal speed same as other infantry, they suddenly become better vs Archer than 2LS, champion, which is not supposed to be.
TK are not supposed to use in every situation, but they can be effective in some specific situation like matchup against Goths or Celts. Buffing TK more usable state will make other Melee focused civ have more unfair matchup against Teutons, which is definitely not good.
Slightly off topic: (but relevant to pretty much all infantry UUās as well as TK)
Does anybody think that the introduction of Supplies with DE has had the unintended effect of diminishing the viability of infantry UUās a bit? I like the introduction of a tech to make the swordsman line more cost effective, but I always saw one of the benefits of infantry UUās was that, once you had a castle up, you could create units of similar stats and cost to 2HS/Champs, without needing to go through the resource/time expense of researching all the swordsman line techs.
Pretty sure that pre-DE the cost of Berserk; Jaguar Warrior; Samurai; Woadās etc were all floating around the 60-65 food and 20-30 gold mark, which is equal to a 2HS/Champ without supplies - give or take.
For the record, Iām not suggesting that all these units should be effected by Supplies, or that they all need food discounts. More just interested in what people think in terms of whether this makes you less inclined to use UUās in favour of Champions now that the price per unit is less comparative. In the case of TK for example, you can almost get 2 Champion for the price of 1 TK once Supplies is researched.
maybe a little bit but not much. a lot of the infantry UU have their own thing going for them that gives them an edge, like berserks being stronger and having regen, woads incredibly fast movement speed, etc.
yes but TKs are much more resistant to damage at the same time. and donāt require nearly as much investment
Agreed. It just occurred to me the other day - I was in a 1v1 RM as the Japanese and had a lot of forward barracks and two castles spamming Champs and Samuraiā¦ For a fleeting moment I did wonder whether queuing up Samurai was wise when the Champs were more cost effectiveā¦ but in reality in the heat of the moment it didnāt matter - keeping momentum was more important.
samurai vs champions basically comes down to what you are fighting. if its unique units the samurai wins no matter what, even castle age samurai are a better option then teching to champions.
Well to be fair I Made a mistake, I wrote +2 but I meant they should have 2 base PA. They would still be weak against archers, specially since militia is slow.
It could be a +1 PA tech as an alternative so You can discriminante which civs could get the buff.
It would be a 20% to 30% tankier aganst archers, but still no Match for them on Open fields.
Of course there are potencial situations as celts with extra speed, but keep in mind You also have archers civs with extra Range, extra rof, extra armor.
Anyone who thinks infantry and UUs need significant buffs hasnāt forced themselves to attempt to disprove their own reasoning. Iām not saying you always can disprove it but by attempting to do so you figure out if itās actually valid reasoning.
The game is fairly well balanced to the point that no unit has any fundamental flaws that makes it objectively bad. The only thing a unit might be said to be is suboptimal. But generally because of how tech trees work thereās a lot of times where the better alternative isnāt available to a civ.
Anytime you come up with a reason that a decision is bad you should be forcing yourself to analyze whether there exist methods to turn a bad decision into a good one. I.e. are there conditions where the decision is not bad?
For example mobility is touted as a hindrance, especially against cavalry civs. Well have you even attempted to stone wall rather than palisade wall but otherwise play normally?
People claim longswords lose vs knights. Well thereās a unit which shares almost all the upgrades that excels at beating knights. Have you tried mixing in pikes?
People claim archers destroy infantry. Have you tried using siege or towers?
I fully expect people to dismiss these reasons as invalid for one reason or another. Indeed they might still be suboptimal. But if you havenāt tried it can you really be so confident that infantry suck? Or are you just rehashing what others have stated?
if u hav this eco lead that can just a castel and flood teutonic knihgts on their base than u have lost the eco and game anywasy.
but are enough countres like hand canoners elephnats siege monks cause to slow still so conversion will work
I wouldnāt mind TKs being little cheaper and maybe having 1 more PA, but both TKs and Teutons seem to be in a pretty good spot. TKs not only are the occasional perfect counter to a civ, but are strong enough without upgrades to be exellent against Pike and Ram pushes regardless of upgrades.
I get that it would start to take a LOT of arb shots to knock them out, but TKs are slow enough that it should still balance out.
Regardless, youād still be better mixing in scorpions or even crappy Teuton skirms.