I would make them a little cheaper in gold. They should be more viable in terms of economy, since they have the big problem of being a Castle unit
Yeah.
And remove their siege workshop as a tradeoff. xD
First, in castle age food is a lot more valuable than gold, it’s not even close. Gold is fast to mine, doesn’t require large wood investments and is in more than enough quantity for military production.
And in imp, it depends if it’s 1v1 or TG.
Yes, in 1v1 gold becomes more valuable. But not in TG, since trade is a thing. In TG, where you are in position to choose between Leitis and Paladin, gold cost is irrelevant, all that matters is total cost. So for TG, 80f 50g Leitis would be pretty much equivalent to now, nowhere near as OP as you make them to be.
For 1v1, they would become more viable. But 50g is still expensive for a frontline unit with limited production capacity.
Also, you keep quoting SotL but all he demonstrated is that Leitis are much worse vs ranged units and marginally better vs melee units compared to paladins. Hardly anything to be extremely worried about.
2 Likes
Hence why I suggested a small reduction to their food cost.
SOTL demonstrated that Leitis are substantially better than Knights in the castle age, and basically a wash in imperial age, even with their gold cost as-is. Their only real weakness was TC fire.
Reducing their gold cost by 30 is a stupidly huge buff that’s totally unnecessary.
Yeah in castle age where no one is going to go Leitis because castles are such a massive investment over stables.
And their only weakness in imperial is not TC fire, it’s all ranged units. Against arbalests they die in 38 hits, compare that to the 60 of a paladin. Or 30 vs 45 hits for heavy cavalry archers. Dying in almost half arbalests hits is not worth the massive investment into castles and marginally better results in melee.
If you want a perfect comparison, Leitis are slower to produce Boyars and do similar in fights, both being better in melee and much worse vs ranged units. And no one goes Boyars. That should say something about Leitis.
2 Likes
Exactly. The thing is Leitis (and other UU) should be better than regular units, in order to give them a reason to be. It’s not useful for them to be equally viable than regular units, because is always easier to mass from barracks/stables/ranges
3 Likes
Even accounting for their lack of outright resistance to archer units, their speed and attack still mean they trade cost-effectively. Combine that with superior results against knights and you have an overall superior unit. In fact, their higher attack and lower health means they’re easier to sustain with monks. And you’re most likely going to be building a castle anyway.
I just don’t see it. They might deserve a small resource buff, but certainly not such a massive one as proposed. 5 food or 5 gold, see how that turns out, and work from there.
One castle. Then again, you can build 4 stables with the same amount of resources (and it’s wood, not stone).
It also trains in about 2/3rds the time, and of course, castles can do far more than just produce units. Not to mention Leitis being straight-up superior in the castle age.
Its incredible how can you write so much nonsensical stuff and yet be so convinced about it. Are you seriously trying to argue that leitis have a better production that knights? You can build like 4-5 stables with the res of one castles, if you take the faster gather rate of wood compared to stone into account. This means kts are produced like 3 times faster than kts.
Like who even cares that leitis are better than knights in 1 leitis vs 1 knight??? If you build a castle and go for leitis early castle age, you will lose all momentum. It’s a horrible choice and even if you build a castle the enemy could outproduce you with knights and beat you.
“castles can do far more than just produce units” Oh come on stop being so silly, this is just as random as it gets. According to this logic i could also argue “My StaBle CaN mAkE HusSaR, StAblE SuPeRioR In LaTe ImPeRiAl” which is just non sense as well. The investment in castle age isn’t worth it, you can’t afford to mine heavily stone, build a slow castle and have no army at all the first few minutes aka losing every available momentum including the precious relics. Have you actually ever tried the strategies you are writing here in a real game?
I really dont understand whats the point to throw in 1 nonsensical argument after another just to disagree with others.
3 Likes
So don’t JUST produce Leitis? Not like you have any upgrades to worry about in the castle age, you can build both. Build the castle you’re going to build anyway, build the stables you’re going to build anyway, use both, and then depending on your enemy’s comp, either go deeper into leitis and use the stables for Hussars, or switch to paladins. Either way works.
If you’re looking for nonsensical arguments, look no further than suggesting we massively change the cost of a unit that is, at worst, slightly underpowered in the imperial age.
5 food or 5 gold. No more.
Frankly the Lithuanian workshop is quite bad already 11
1 Like
less training time is nice, 65F 75 G sounds like a good rebalance, disagree with elephant bonus and pierce armor though
So the total cost of resources would be higher than before?
If Leitis are gonna be massed, it will be in imperial where food is easily produced and gold is limited. 5 food is not same as 5 gold
Yeah lets build both leitis and knights, oh wait kts perform way better than leitis in the longrun as already explained several times by several ppl. Why should i transition into leitis and put 15-20 vills on stone to get castles up in a reasonable time for a slightly better performance vs enemy kts compared to lith kts? On top of that my unit even costs more gold, has less HP than a pala and is way worse vs arbs/CA. Killing arbs/CA/ranged units is the main task for kt line.
“Build the castle you’re going to build anyway” you just keep proposing unviable strats. Why should i waste res into an instant castle in early castle age? Its not possible to play both, without losing all momentum and the in fact the game and a transition makes close to no sence. If you play a normal game as a kt+skirm player, even in 1v1 you arent gonna spam castles like stupid in castle age. You maybe put 6-7 vills on stone mid castle age to have a castle up before reaching imp for the treb war. How are you supposed to produce leitis from that one castle, if you need to produce trebs from it?
Leitis aren’t slightly underpowered in imp, they are clearly worse than paladins, just look at Trirems posts for the maths of arrows it takes to kill a leitis compared to a pala.
Minus 5 gold 5 food will keep the unit in the same spot as it is, unworthy to justify the transition. 80 Food and 50 gold would at least be unique and give you reasons to actually switch to the UU.
But yeah keep coming up with the same silly arguments, I honestly doubt that you have ever played half of the strats you are talking about, because then you would probably slightly understand how bad they are and how nonsenseical your proposed changes are.
1 Like
Congratulations on your cost swap suggestion getting into an official release.
2 Likes