Only If you literally ignore everything i have written then yu can come to this very smart conclusion.
They still aren’t European medieval kingdom
Again you ignored everything I have written. Lol
Of course there is a limit to the number of FREE spawning Kipchaks…
You should really learn how to talk in good faith dude.
Ah yes buffing 10 hp and decreasing food cost by 5 will get them back to OP 11
Yeah that’s why I proposed removing Paladin and Plate Mail armor because I want to buff Cumans 11
Very inside of fundamental analysis of you indeed 11
In comparison to what I proposed your propasal would literally nerf Cumans into oblivion without any reason at all lol. Let’s nerf faction that has one of the lowest winrates in the game even further 11
It actually seems like you didn’t even read my ideas at the start.
The best way to buff only Cumans SL is give a second imperial upgrade only for them. This can be too expensive in total as you need two upgrades. For that reason, ESL upgrade should definitely reduced which is already proposed by a lot. I don’t want Cumans lose Paladin though.
It is you had stated that you don’t like Hun and Cuman paladin since they were nomads from Asia and the nomads should not have Paladin, except for Magyars since you regard them were Europeans. Not to mention removing Paladin is as same as remove the main strength of Cumans in the late game, and the other aspects you wanna buff simply aren’t enough to fill this big hole, especially in 1v1.
Paladin is not the unique unit for Europeans.
In the game, the knight line represent the heavy armored cavalry troop, so even Asians have the possibility.
Wrong. I’ve looked at your idea carefully in the first place, and I mean I don’t think only 5 gold more will balance it out at all. Team games relatively don’t need to worry about late-game gold sources, so allies can train it without restraint once they start trading, which still essentially violates the meaning of the number limit. This change will most likely end up either remaining pointless and unused due to Kipchak’s weak basic quality, or exponentially increasing the Cuman player’s economy along with the power of allies with the specific civs to the point of being unbeatable.
You are the one who need to learn how to talk in good faith rather than use some words like Lol and arbitrarily accuse me of ignoring your ideas.
Not anymore. Cheaper Range and Stable is an eco bonus.
Why do you want to remove Paladin though? In TG pocket, they can go for paladin with feudal TC into boom and totally challenge Franks and Lithuanians. Don’t you think we need more TG civs (both in pocket and flank)?
Isn’t it 9 seconds?
Wow, that’s too big. Whole Tatars bonus + 20 HP + 1 attack? I get it is an upgrade only for SL line. But still that’s too big.
What is if the speed bonus also affect they´re siege.
5% faster rams in Feuda Age.
10% faster siege in Castle Age (or 10% faster mangonels to strong?)
15% faster siege in Imperial Age.
Dude, you are being ridiculous. You that I want to adjust the tech tree just for my taste instead of historical accuracy, any potential strategy or the balance. Yet the only reason you give is my idea of removing Paladin. This is ridiuculous. I repeat, only If you literally ignore everything i have written then you can come to this very smart conclusion. Not to mention throwing this baseless accusation is a absolutely not a good faith argument.
Wrong. Paladin upgrade IS unique to Europe. European factions overhwhelmingly have Paladin. There are no Asian factions that have Paladin except Cumans, Persians and Huns but the only reason why they have Paladin is just bad design. Period. Asian factions have camels and elephants.
Perhaps, Cuman mercenaries gold income from allies puchasing Kiphacks should be 5 not 10. But still I don’t see how even 10 would boost Cuman eco exponentially since it is an imp tech and allies would need to purchase a 100 Kipchaks to just give 1000 of gold to Cuman. And Kipchak spam can be easily countered be skirms that would nulify this advantage. And you yourself said that:
Which is contradicting your last statement of
The only change I would implement is adding EKipchaks other archer blacksmith bonuses for allies who don’t have those bonuses but hire them. Just to make them useful for those who don’t have upgrades and it actually makes sense because they are mercenaries.
Lol. Nah, you still ignored what I said and accused me first. The only reason why I am even talking to you is because I am lenient with trolls. End of discussion with you.
Mongols already have 50% siege speed bonus with “Drill” Imp tech.
And? Drill is they´re Imperial UT.
It´s like the Burmese attack bonus and the Aztec Imperial UT.
Well, yes, but how much would you save in the early game? 75W? 150W? I’d say the second TC is much more powerful. But you’re right, I tend to forget counting military discounts as eco bonuses, mostly because they’re much more conditional (don’t kick in unless you use them) compared to eco bonuses related to resource gatherings or eco techs.
Because imho it was the only way to push for a steppe lancer use, like OP wanted, desperate move because steppe lancer is imho desperate unit.
I took the number from the wiki page, might be outdated.
It’s not too big for an upgrade, it’s just +20HP +1atk +1/1 armor over regular elite steppe lancer, the Paladin upgrade offers way more over Cavalier.
It might be too big for a 70f 40g unit, though, but it was just random numbers thrown without any thinking.
Viper just destroyed dragonstar with the 2tc cuman steppe lancer spam against huns.
Games like this are just stupid, this dumb 2nd TC has to go.
This is exactly why Cumans are my favourite and I regularly do 2TC boom into steppe lancer spam. Good that this strat finally gets recognition it deserves. Still it is very punishable and can be easily countered by an aggresive player.
I watched that game and I found it okay, dragonstar just didn’t do any damage to punish the 2tc play.
We can always point at the Red Bull game where Viper lost to Yo with the greedy 2tc play as well. (though that might be proving your point as well, heh)
It’s not that dumb I don’t think. It makes them unique and enjoyable to play. Just because don’t like it, doesn’t mean everyone else also thinks it should be removed.
0 voters
Making survey is pointless. Second TC is bad bonus from 2 aspects:
Problem for players: The fact that building time of 2nd TC is much higher than the creation time in the Castle Age is both boring and shows how unbalanced this bonus is. A normal player expects the same building speed from this bonus.
This is a very valid argument indeed.
If the feudal TC is balanced, then it should have the same building time as the castle age TC.
Not at all. It has so far shown that most people actually think the bonus is fine, and could possibly be tweaked.
Would you say the same about Feudal Eagle?
Yes obviously, it’s quite obvious imho that feudal Eagles have imbalanced stats for their price and their regular training time, and devs acknowledged that nearly doubling it to fix them.
But that is something unavoidable I think, because of the design of the civs, since they lack cavalry leaving them only archers in feudal age would have really limited them, so it’s a compromise I can accept.
Cumans on the other hand can have literally any other bonus, it’s not set in stone that they should have 2nd feudal TC.
Chinese, Mayans, and Huns also have civ bonuses with built in drawbacks to balance them out