Um yes they can, look at Frankish or teuton Paladin which is by definition better than a regular paladin. The thing is they are only better by a thin margin and the same should be true of the Iron Pagoda(basically a Paladin for a civ with no knight line). Iron Pagoda is weaker vs archers right now as it has less HP than a Paladin. So what I’m saying is it doesn’t even need to be better than Paladin, but at the very least, it should beat Paladin. It can be worse against archers if it at least outperforms Paladin in melee combat. But right now, Paladin outshines it in every way.
IP has more HP, Attack and PA than them.
Had they cost a bit more gold, I wouldn’t mind them beating Paladin.
Leitis costs less gold and beats Paladin, Boyar costs less gold and beats Paladin, Konnik costs less gold and beats Paladin(in equal numbers of 60), Monaspa costs less gold and beats Paladin. All of these units kill Paladin but have their weaknesses, save maybe the Monaspa.
Yes it may have certain stats that are better but really it’s just a slightly better cavalier. A Bulgarian Cavalier performs just as well in every scenario as an iron pagoda, save vs arbs. In fact Bulgarian cavalier beats Iron Pagoda. Thus a unit which can be made from a stable, has a cheaper upgrade cost, and performs the same against Paladin beats a unit which takes 650 stone to unlock, is more expensive to upgrade, and loses hard to halbs.
So all in all, since you can only make the iron pagoda from a castle, they should be both slightly cheaper and better than Paladin in some way. As of right now, Paladin is better in every situation. In short, the Iron Pagoda is just a worse Paladin in every way. Though slightly better than a cavalier it really just feels like, if I want good heavy cavalry, I’m playing franks, Georgians, or Lithuanians.
They could also just rename it a medium cavalry unit which wouldn’t be historically accurate but would reflect their role in the game.
Maybe that was the intention all along. Or Jurchens would have their own Paladin. Design team wanted to play SL as Jurchens and locked the weaker Paladin in Castle at lower gold cost.
1 Like
I don’t think so because the description literally says heavy cavalry but they are really medium cavalry. Also the reason they didn’t get Paladin is because it doesn’t fit an Asian civ to have what was essentially a European unit. The unit just feels generic though and lacks any especially good situation unlike similar units like the Keshik.
140 HP and 3 PA is nothing but Heavy Cavalry.
I liked that. But I’d love more if Grenadier was the castle UU and IP is trained from stable.
Also IP being food heavy and low gold makes them a competitor of SL who also have similar food-gold ratio on cost. This doesn’t happen with knight line and Tatars UU Keshik is just straight cheaper than SL.
1 Like
Doesn’t make a comparison between elite steppe lancers and elite iron pagodas. My own testing determined that 16 elite steppe lancers will usually beat 13 elite iron pagodas. So late game, it looks like the elite steppe lancer is a more cost effective melee unit than an elite iron pagoda. However, iron pagoda is still more pop efficient (winning 14v14).
And didn’t compare them with Paladin against some other units either - Heavy Camel, Elite Boyar, Elite Coustilier, Elite Urumi or Champion.
That comparision would be pointless as Iron Pagoda is clearly weaker than Paladin. Still an UP unique units even when compare to other cavalry unique units
Want to see gold cost comparison.
Which is refreshing to see. Every single new cavalry UU beating Paladin in 1v1 or for Monaspa’s case in 30v30 is disgusting.
1 Like
Monaspas, Imperial Camels, Leiciai, Iron Pagoda, Konnik, Coustillier, etc… so many new cavs are just way too strong against Paladins in one way or another. If that’s not power creep, I don’t know what is. Same goes for the new archers, gunpowder units, or infantries that are just way better than the old ones, which is incredibly sad to see.
Franks’ main power unit having just 6.7% more HP than generic feels way too modest, even negligible, compared to the kind of absurd bonuses/units the new civs get.
Almost all the new civs I mean other than the AoK + AoC civs should be nerfed properly.
Reason why they’re stronger than Paladins is because they have to be made from a castle and not a stable and thus you will have fewer of them.
1 Like
Why Janissary is weaker than Castle Age hand cannoneer then?
Because Jannisary doesn’t require chemistry while castle age HC requires a university, double archery range(for equivalent production to jannisary), and a castle.
2 Likes
No, because of power creep. Simple as that.
No Castle Age gunpowder unique unit requires Chemistry anyway. And Bohemians have Hussite Wagons.
Can we not turn this into another jannisary black hole thread!?
4 Likes
@II.Selim May I ask you to please not turn every discussion into a Janissary discussion?
2 Likes
It’s not about Janissary. It’s about why almost every new cavalry UU has to beat a Paladin when the similar dynamic doesn’t exist between an old UU and its equivalent Imperial Age counterpart.
In imperial age, elite Jannisary does win against handcannons so this is wrong.
Also we are talking castle age not imperial age. In castle age, handcannons is really hard to get into for the bohemians which is why we rarely see CA bohemian guns.
Furthermore, the question arises as to “what is the unit supposed to do?” And here is where we can get back to the Iron Pagoda which is a “heavy cavalry”. Now, heavy cavalry is expensive and powerful but having the worst than paladin vibes that it does, it just makes me either want to play steppe lancer, or play franks instead altogether.
Then why did you bring up Janissaries?
2 Likes