What gives you the impression I do not read books, mate? But very well, one more person who is defeated by a few words. O tempora, o mores!
Edit: I am talking about heavy cav and who musters them. I am not talking about that the lightly armored hordes of the Mongols have beaten the European Knights with their deadly arrow volleys. That’s a different story. I was wondering why east asian Civs have better knights than European ones.
Stop it Patrick! Walls of text scare him!
Your lack of knowledge…
Yeah, I expected the slow and heavily armored approach for HRE (even the good old AOE2 Teutons got their slow and heavy pala patched in^^). Apart from the MAA their units are kinda flimsy.
I thought the self heal would be bound to a more defensive playstyle (like knights healing when around a castle or tower), not a AOE2 berserk-like in-field ability. That would, as you said, be much more fitting for the mongols with their renown for smooth supply lines on campaign.
Check my edit, Sir Subotai. Please.
You cannot compare the two, Asian heavy cavalry had a different purpose than the European heavy cavalries. The Mongol heavy cavalry was armoured fully and it protected its vital areas without sacrificing mobility and speed.
The European army preferred cavalries with better armor as the horses were scarce, so the riders were too. This is why they were focused on armoring the rider.
That means fewer heavy cavalry, but the Mongols would have more heavy cavalry due to the availability of horses and people who grew riding it. Much more skilled than those were in Europe and were popular.
So you want to make the European civ’s cavalries high cost, low mobility, low attack speed, high damage, and armour.
On the other hand, the Asian civs would have medium cost, medium armour, faster mobility, high attack speed, and high attack.
You will be overwhelmed by the Asian heavy cavalries and I promise you that!
The game tried to balance both the European and Asian heavy cav at its best and to offer a simple approach. Otherwise, it would be too complicated to understand and difficult to play for casual players (pro players would be stressed too)…
Yeah this ^^ it’s a lancer after all, not a knight. It’s the equivalent of a knight, but it stilk has its differences.
Mongols ingame should have them, a less strong version at the very least in fegards to armor when compared to the EU knight
I agree with you on everything. But I think it is not difficult and quite balanceable to have East Asian lancers to be cheaper and faster, but with less HP and/or armor, then the arabic lancers to be a little bit less fast and a tad bit more expensive but slightly better armored, eventually leading to the European knight, who is the most expensive and slowest version, but with the highest armor and hp. It would not be perfectly accurate, but at least more accurate than it is now. The numbers would have to be seen for balance. It would help the civ diversity and would make the civs feel more in line with their actual identity. Why not make it this way for the game?
I told you, because of simplicity.
People just want to have fun and learn simple things to play the game after a hard working day or school etc.
Otherwise, it would be like a science class xD
They definitly could have given different stats for lancer and knight. It’s not much difficult to understand that knight is more heavly armoured but slower/expensive (i think most peaple know what a knight looks like) and it’s definitly much harder to understand than mangudai is not equal to rus cav archer.
Tbh peaple shouldn’t use the argument of simplicity all the time because it can become an insulte at this point.
Then we are back at AOE2, just with civ-specific reskins for the same units… kinda lame and not really asymmetric at all, lol.
The French heavy cavalry has high bonus charging dmg and is civ specific unit ability which makes the game asymmetric. The Chinese have fire-lancers, they have short-range guns on their spear which deals with high dmg, etc.
I understand that we are not getting a perfect asymmetric game, but we are getting close to it. I believe, DLC’s could add really unique units and civs.
I have to agree with this, the Feudal age mongol lancer is only as strong as French or Rus early knights Feudal … if it was over-powered, they wouldn’t of given it to two other civs.
Personally I would like to see a unique mongol horse unit that is melee. Maybe it has some sort of intimidating or threatening aura, or even better lowers enemy line of sight around it or something. They should be creative not just remove the early knight and “call it a day”.
They should and could be way more creative in general with every civ. I find most of the stuff really not very appealing. If you give every civ every base tech and unit in the game, then you need to be way more diverse in the process and balance the civs out equally as well. Some civs at best have 2 unique units and there are a lot of very useless unique techs, while other civs have more than 3 unique units and techs that sometimes are as good as two unique techs from another civ combined. I actually expect a day 1 patch that adresses quite a lot of issues. Some stuff, especially some bugs, are inacceptable. If stuff that is known at least since last beta was still in the final release version, I would be very disappointed. I can confirm that all of it is in the version that has been released for streamers et al. There has to be a day 1 patch.
The urgent issue for Mongol is only give them back age 2 knight (if dev really removed it).
Try to think, when French or Rus has age2 knight can rush with knights, how do Mongols defend? Pikeman? Omg they are cav civ; Outpost? they are described as aggressive civ and they need to defend at age2 now? Wall? Sorry this civ even don’t have.
So please give Mongol back age 2 knight or remove other civs age 2 knight.
I prefer a more balanced game than a more “appealing” game when it comes to competitive 1v1 RTS
this exactly ^^^ makes no sense.
like mongols back then had the saying, idk if it was Temujin, but one known mongol leader said “a mongol w/o a horse is like a bird w/o wings”. i completely agree mongols shouldnt be dependant on outpost for mobility either, and well definitely shouldn’t be meant to go pikes; rather just lancer to counter other lancers as well
Mongols are still extremely strong, even without early lancer. With proper scouting and economy, you can compete with every civ. I don’t have any problem with french early knight overall just with the healing upgrade (chivalry mb). I think that should be pushed to a3.
nah dude france needs that. it’s the only thing that keeps them alive vs mongols. mo0ngols can run and hit. and knights can’t do ■■■■
so by staying out of combat at least they receive some healing
You are being hit and run due to you use wrong units.
In AOE3 melee cav are also hit and run by range cav but never someone said range cav are op.
To counter archer cav just need to train archer or build outpost.
To be honest, age 2 knight should be nerfed a bit and get back the original status when hitting age 3. Otherwise it is too unfair to civs without age 2 knight.