Here you go, sir
Teutons are his only pick for F-Tier next to Goth. Here is a list of things Teutons lack:
- Arabalests, Thumb Ring and Bracers.
- Light Cavelry and Hussar as well as Husbandry.
- Gold Minings second upgrade.
This makes them already a disadvanteged civ on the 1v1 ladder and at times in tgs. Not being able to make a not even convincing or Half-hearted attempts at ranged units is embarrisingly bad and makes htem unable to actually counter with skirms succesfully or use archers as one of the core units of the game.
They cannot even make Light Cavalry as a support unit or core unit in late game trash wars. You are left with underwhelming skirms and Halbs.
Those do not sound like much, but are extensive weaknesses already, if you compare them to a A or B-Tier civ.
And now you want to tell me, that Teutons are a balanced civ with only an underwhelming and boring unique unit? The only real arguement you seem to lead against increasing the speed of TKs is that it does not fit their theme?! How unlogical of an arguement is that? it leaves them weak and an unbalanced unit while you try to make them be able to build towers. Who will that help them? You do not waste stone on a castle to build a bad unit to then build a building that outlives its usefulness past feudal age.
At this point the biggest thing holding back Teutons compared to the now buffed Tartars and Khmer are not the impossibility to balance the civ and TKs in particular, but the cult like following who will not accept actual good an necessary changes to an absolut meme civ and joke unit. That is what Teutons and TKs are. A civ that lose to extensive archer play in feudal and castle age. Funnily enough TKs help you lose faster in that case by being a trap unit.
The TK could be what the Mangudai is for the Mongols. A useful powerhouse of a units whichs iconic looks at abilities carries the theme of the civ. They will just neve do so, because âfansâ like you rather see them left in the dust while the enemy just runs away from them. Speed, range and eco are key in this game and Teutons horrifically fail at two of them.
Make TKs same speed as Champions. Iâll tell you what happens; Teutons lose in feudal age to a push and only get out three TKs out of a fast castle that lost them other gathered ressources that could have been pushed into knights. Said three produced TKs will not stop the game loss, because the knights raiding your eco will do the same they do to Champions snd Halbs - running away.
6 Likes
SoâŠyour argument is that buffing their speed would not help them, but we should do it anyway? 
What.
Teutons will never be a fast civ. Even if TKs were buffed to the same speed as Champs, theyâd still be slower than other civs. I think thatâs a perfectly safe assumption.
Given that assumption, then the thing they need the most is the ability to assert map control, which is the direct counter to mobility. This is historically done via fortifications. They just have one problem; they have no way to aggressively push map control, because none of their troops can effectively counter archers.
But guess what! Teutonic Knights, despite their weakness to archers, are substantially more resistant than villagers! Allowing them to build towers thereby instantly solves all their problems; it solves their weakness to archers, it solves the problem of enemy mobility via map control, it gives Teutonic Knights a solid purpose even in small numbers, it increases the chances that theyâll be nearby the fight in the first place, and it ties into a full half of their civ bonuses, all while preserving their stats exactly as they currently are.
Itâs amazing, itâs like it solves everything without sacrificing anything at all! Hard to believe anyone would think this is a bad idea when they canât find anything wrong with it other than âWaaah, itâs too innovative.â
1 Like
Dude. You are a troll. If you want TKs to be viable and that the Devs make a change, make a proposition that is realistic. They will never implement that the TK will be able to build towers. It does not fix the unit, nor the problems of the civ.
As the game was made the devs did not know what it would evolve into and a âdefensive and slowâ civ was seen as a nice design space to be occupied. Problem is, it did not turn out to be well thought out for the flow of the gamplay, when a signifcant portion of the power is baked into ranged and fast units. Giving the TK the speed of the Champion is answering the easiest way to counterplay them succesfully as in running away and letting them deal with Archers.
Maybe this change should be gated behind relics or be available is a cheap castle age tech to reserach. The point is, someone who produces ten TKs at the moment (be it TG or 1v1) is down hundreds of ressource that scarcily will get the chance to trade in their value or even succed that. Building towers is not the solution, because you are absically sinking even more ressources into the off chance of making your unit viable. This will not really reduce the movement space of the enemy, because knights with both armor upgrades will still be able to raid succesfully. Towers donât damage them enough and TKs as well as Halbs are too slow. At that point you could have simply forsaken TKs yourself completly and gone knights or monks.
The entire point is; please think of something else, that has the serious potential to change their performance and the devs are willing to implement.
6 Likes
So, basically, âI donât like it and therefore the devs donât like it and it will never happenâ?
What a silly argument. Nobody thought the Khmer would get their farming bonus either, but look, it happened! And it worked!
This is by no means the purpose of towers, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that purpose. By that measure, towers would never be built, âBecause they canât stop knights and are therefore completely useless!â Except, of course, towers are built regularly.
Think! What is the primary weakness of Teutonic Knights?
Archers!
What counters archers VERY effectively?
Towers!
Archers canât take them down, and are very vulnerable to them in turn. Attempting to take down towers with archers is a guaranteed recipe for very unfavorable resource trades. And the Teutons have FOUR bonuses to their towers and units garrisoned inside! And when the enemy tries to take them down with siege? Teutonic Knights inside! Itâs a perfect synergy!
Besides, the Teutons already have huge garrison space in their Town Centers that MORE than deals with raiding units.
Seriously, I have yet to hear a SINGLE good reason why this would not solve all their problems.
Iâm 100% serious. If anyone could actually come up with a legitimate reason why this is NOT a solution for all their problems, Iâm open to discussing it and potentially being convinced. But Iâm NOT going to be convinced by people saying âthe devs wouldnât like itâ or âIâd never use itâ. Which is, thus far, all youâve offered.
Because those are not good arguments. Iâm kinda perplexed that people think Iâm the one being silly here, when youâre the ones constantly trying to remove everything distinctive about the unit and the civ while Iâm doing my darnedest to come up with a functional solution that preserves it.
1 Like
You are derailing basically every discussion in this matter. I mean look at these discussion and see for yourself how many people are still participating after you stifled the discussion.
No. Building towers does not work. Additional ressource sink for a bad unit to not make them viable. Easy as that.
5 Likes
By that measure, towers would never be worth building in any circumstance. And yet, towers are built commonly, even at the highest levels of play.
So clearly towers are not too expensive. In fact, they offer amazing benefits for the price. And Teutonic Knights especially benefit from having a tower nearby, as it short-circuits almost all their counters and provides massive synergy with both them and their civ bonuses.
The only reason they donât currently work well together? Because Teutonic Knights canât defend Villagers from Archers. Allowing Teutonic Knights to build their own towers allows all the benefits of offensive towers and map control, without the massive vulnerability of riskily positioned villagers. Daut Towers would never happen, and thatâs amazing.
But to sum up:
Towers work, and are cost effective.
Towers solve the weaknesses of Teutonic Knights.
Without their weaknesses, Teutonic Knights are worth building.
Problem solved.
The only discussion I short-circuit are the ones that are ridiculous and clearly do nothing to solve the fundamental issues faced by the unit. No need to thank me, I consider it a public service.
1 Like
Keeps are never built in high level except for a few civs like Japanese and Koreans and I guess Britons, generic keeps have bad dps for their stone cost and its not a secret. Worse yet, Teutons donât get bracer so their towers are even more obsolete. I still donât know where the stone is coming for all this? assuming youâve 3-4 castles for TKs and defense and maybe crenellations with your stone and the neutral pile, itâs still not enough. Unless weâre talking about TG trade and buying stone, then this discussion is worthless. Then youâd rather spam paladins and siege than this meme strat
3 Likes
Bear in mind, Teuton towers are on the same tier as other civs; they have four bonuses, after all.
That said, Iâve seen several high-level streamers building towers even on normal civs lately.
As far as production is concerned, Teutons can cover the same area with 2 castles others can cover with three, while still having 250 stone left over, thatâs two free towers right there. Given their 8-second production time, you definitely do not need a huge number of castles to produce enough to fill their niche completely.
Bear in mind, Teuton towers are on the same tier as other civs; they have four bonuses, after all.
No theyâre not, aside of free murder holes, everything is related to garrison gimmicks, theyâre worse than most civs because of the lack of bracer
Teutons can cover the same area with 2 castles others can cover with three, while still having 250 stone left over
yeah thats not how defense works, youâre just accounting range and not damage and hitting multiple units, by that logic Turks only need one BBT instead of three because they have two extra range
Given their 8-second production time, you definitely do not need a huge number of castles to produce enough to fill their niche completely.
Ah yes, having TKs produced from base and have them walk to enemy base for 3 minutes, excellent
2 Likes
âGarrison GimmicksââŠthat benefit the most from Teutonic Knights? That also, in return, benefit Teutonic Knights the most? Whose main limitation is the inability to get them built in the first place because of the lack of a unit tanky enough to build them aggressively enough to be useful?
If you actually have a unit that can benefit from their assortment of bonuses, they become one of the most heavily boosted tower civs in the game. Isnât it silly that a civ can have so many bonuses and use so few of them regularly? Wouldnât it be great if they had the opportunity to fix not only that, but also their Unique Unit, in a single stroke?
As far as travel time is concerned, thatâs really not an issue. The problems only arise when they have to run away. By building their own defenses, they can shorten that distance dramatically!
There is a ton of discussion about the viability of Keeps but Teutons get Bombard towers right?
how is it not an issue? are you not going to face losses and need re-inforcements? Or are you planning to only use them for building random towers in middle of nowhere? Because right now, theyâre terrible as base raiders because they die to fortification fire and canât even catch up to vills
they do, with one less range and something thatâs not viable in 1v1
Indeed this is funny, you make your bombard tower and then the enemy makes theirsâŠright outside your range, but leaving you still inside theirs. <_> xD
3 Likes
I agree, and disagree at the same time. I like the idea of TKâs being faster, but not as much as a champion/halberdier. I think they should be affected by monk speed and hp upgrades while also having a CA unique tech in the same fashion like Persians do for War Elephants speed (keeping their natural actual speed) and maybe giving them a natural staggered Crenellations for both siege and infantry units (TKâs not included). This way they keep their infantry/siege deathball feel to the civ (slow unstoppable melee force) but having a really nice buff to all over their possible go-to options for an army. And maybe give them access to husbandry.
I wouldnât call them âGarrison Gimmicksâ - they can fire twice as many arrows as any other Civs towers when garrisoned. That also gives them huge raiding resistance if there are defensive towers at home - resistance to raids is a strong point with the Teutons. TCs garrison way more, towers garrison way more - 2 TCs in Castle with one tower gives you 60 garrison space. Thatâs a LOT, and you can spread it out. They canât be destroyed with Knights, either, due to Murder Holes.
2 Castles would give you plenty of raiding resistance. Yes, 3 can target more units, but youâre forgetting: 2 castles with massive range plus 2 towers? I think thatâs a pretty good setup. You can choose where to put that stone. Youâre also forgetting Teuton castles are impervious to BBC, which is a strong bonus.
I think the main point Demiser is trying to make is this: the entire civ is built around having the best fortifications in the game. The problem with their UU is that theyâre hard countered worse than any other unit. Give the UU the ability to construct said fortifications on the spot, and the bonuses all work together to create synergy (as he stated -itâs the perfect word for this case) between the weakness of the UU, the strength of Teuton fortifications, and actually allows the UU to push. Push with towers, which are some of the best in the game due to garrison space allowing them to deal a lot more damage (which would actually be used, since TK would use them consistently as they push).
We donât know how well it would work without trying, but I could see it as a ground-up strategy for the Teutons for sure.
Also: Iâm not against giving TK a speed boost. They are INCREDIBLY slow. But can we have some specific points as to how this would solve the issues with the unit while still keeping the identity, and keeping them unique from any other unit such as the Champion?
The UU should not REPLACE other unit choices that would typically be strong in the hands of a generic civilization.
1 Like
o Garrison space bonus affects Siege Tower.
o Crenellations affects Siege Tower.
Hey, they may be a unit, but they still have âtowerâ in their name 11. Half-joking aside, buffing Siege Tower is another option for Teutonic Knights. Teutonic Knights + Siege Towers for sniping buildings does work! But itâs also a meme strategy because Siege Towers are too expensive for what they do in comparison to every other Siege Workshop unit. Therefore buffing Siege Towers to make them an attractive option for fast transportation of infantry is a way to make Teutonic Knights move faster without changing the Teutonic Knight itself, or making anything else OP because the Siege Tower is already a niche and underpowered unit. And itâll also be really, really, really hard to convince me that a speedy arrow-shooting tower full of man-sized tank armor is a boring idea.
1 Like
Many civs donât even get the champion and persians only get longswords. Apart from malay and bulgarians, 2 handed is a somewhat underwhelming unit, but especially the longswordsman. Now why shouldnât the teuton militia-line be underused in favor of making their UU better?
4 Likes