Isn’t it the point of the bonus 11? 
yeah, in late castle age. for forging. think about that. the feudal upgrade for attack usually isn’t picked up until around the time you’re going up to imperial age.
and the point is that attack is inferior to defense. so not only do they have to work for their bonus, but its the worst possible stat too.
not with the nerfs that the op and geojak want, which would take it down to a maximum of +2. meanwhile other civs get +2 to defense (teutons), and extra health (Franks), and extra speed (Cumans) for FREE. other civs get extra attack (Malians) and extra attack speed (Bulgarians) for the cost of a tech and the bonus can never be lost.
nah, if attack was important they wouldn’t be waiting until late castle age to research attack upgrades.
Stats are the ONLY way to know if a civ is balanced.
2 Likes
not the only way. tournament usage and results in tournaments are pretty telling as well. but frankly nothing i’ve seen says Lithuanians relic bonus is a problem. especially when you consider other bonuses out there that civs get for free or for tech are permanent and that its the only military bonus the civ gets that applies to team games (where the OPs main complaint is).
I believe limitting it to +2 would feel very lackluster honestly… If it’s proven that +4 is too much on TGs (i’m not saying it is or isnt) then maybe reduce it to +3, but not anything below that. I guess this wouldn’t mean much in 1v1s anyway since if both players are decent the oponent should be able to deny atleast 2 relics anyway. But i’m not sure if that’s really needed tbh.
BTW, having +2 attack is way better than +2 melee defense from teutons since the teuton bonus is only relevant against melee. Just wanted to point that out. I didnt read the topic as a whole (sorry) so if someone already mentioned it then dismiss it.
1 Like
+2 attack isn’t going to kill archers or halbs faster. meanwhile +2 armor helps teuton paladins survive 1 more hit from halbs.
2 Likes
Oh, you’re right about that, completelly forgot about the extra hit from halbs.
its easy to forget stuff like that, its tricky how small numbers can have a bigger impact then you would think
They all do lack techs in one way or the other. 19 damage cavaliers are okay, because they are cavaliers. Yeah, they have a +3, but they lack armor and hitpoints, so this is not a bonus that is being dropped on a FU Paladin. Lithuanians have the best Paladins you can get in the game if you ignore the boni of Franks and Teutons. Cuman Paladins are 5% faster, so they would rank a tad bit over the Lith Paladin as well, but only slightly. And then you have Persians with their +2 vs archers, but the lack of bracers (Lith Paladins in teams with a Persian and +4 do 24 damage to archers, just saying. They two hit the majority of archers in the game). So, now tell me why a civ that has no tech disadvantages should get a +4 on one of the strongest units in the game, while all the other “guaranteed” boni come with some sort of civ weakness or lack in tech? Lithuanians do not lack any techs. Thus they would get a +2 as a bonus for their knights (these knights would trade evenly with Teuton knights and have husbandry). And it would be okay compared to the “free” Teuton +2, because the Teuton +2 is capped to the ages and cannot be reached in castle age, they lack husbandry, hussar and even LC and their archers suck. That is the justification for more armor. Why should Lith get a “free” bonus if they do not have any shortcomings except a good eco bonus for booming and the lack of arbalests? They have all the techs, so in order to get an additional +2 they would have to work for it. And that is fine as they lack a clear shortcoming in the tech tree.
If Lith lacked bloodlines, a bs upgrade or husbandry I would say “keep your potential +4”, but they don’t lack anything. All other civs sacrifice something to justify their bonus. What does Lith sacrifice? There is nothing really. The bonus they need to work for comes on top of a FU tech. That’s my issue with the Lith bonus. It’s hard to get the +4, but the +4 is a game changer once you have it and are not being outboomed. Lith also have great trash, better than all the other top Paladin civs. You simply cannot say that them losing the +4 would ruin them (they two hit villagers with +3 relics already, no other Paladin can do that, which is one more reason why +2 should be the max). It just is a bonus you have to work for without having to sacrifice anything in your tech tree. The lack of a deficit without the bonus is the reason why they need to work for it. And that’s why a +2 would be fine. If the game runs your way, you can have a +6 in castle age already. That part of the Lith bonus cannot be ignored either when comparing to the boni of other civs “that cannot be taken away”.
2 Likes
I think you need to look at the civ as a whole, not just paladin. The downside for the +4 attack bonus is in the tech tree itself. They have subpar infantry and archery range (except for skirms). Their only strong points are the stables and the monastery (which hardly matter in the late game anyway).
Franks have arguably the best paladins overall, once you take into account how smooth they play during the game, how fast you can field cav with chivalry and in general how everything in their tech tree is pretty much there to support paladins. And they pay a steep price for that: they probably have the worst tech tree in the game, without the knight line they would completely fall apart.
Lithuanians strike a similar balance, just one step below. Less specialized into paladin, but with a bit more of versatility left. I’m in now way saying that they couldn’t use some tweaks here and there (especially that horrible mess of a unit which is the leitis), but overall they are that far off from being a really well balanced civ, with well defined strong and weak points.
1 Like
I agree with you to an extent. But when you take the best Paladins in the game, Franks, Teutons, Cumans, Persians, they all have either bad trash or bad hussars or both. Lith, however, have great trash and great hussars. They are also the only Paladin civ that gets bracers and a (potential) bonus for their knight line. Spanish Paladins are FU and have bracers but no other bonus for Paladins, which is why them having bracers and Paladin is fine. Same with Magyars who might have the strongest cav in the game if you take their Paladins, Hussars and cav archers. They can have all that because they do not have a certain bonus for their Paladins on top of it. Lith inf is subpar, but the militia line is also not one of the strongest lines in the game anyway. Their Halbs lack 1 melee armor, but are 10% faster, which is not bad at all. They catch up better and I would not say that their halbs are worse than other FU halbs. They just trade melee armor for speed. And they have skirms with +10 pierce and more speed.
If you take all that into consideration, Lithuanians have one of the best trees of all the Paladin civs in the game. And yes, the Leitis will always be a problem unit due to their weird mechanic. Weird for a game like AoE at least. Which is why Leitis are hard or maybe too hard to balance. They are either overwhelming or underwhelming, but there is no possibility for them to be just fine with their armor ignore.
And if you look at Teutons: You do all the cav upgrades and they only count for the knight line because they don’t even have LC. So once the gold gets low they cannot make use of any of their cav upgrades anymore since scouts are a waste of resources. Even Teutonic scouts with a +2 on melee get two hit by halbs, so they cannot be used for anything at any point in the game once castle age is reached. Their archers suck, their skirms don’t counter cav archers, Lithuanian skirms do. The Teutonic Knight is very niche and you cannot play knights and TK as that is way too expensive. With the lack of LC you can actually never make use of the TK, because you need cav to counter their slow speed, but you cannot afford knights and TKs. TKs would become so much more viable if the Teuton could pair them with at least light cav, but they can’t. Teutons are left with very good halbs when the game is lacking gold but nothing much else. As Teuton you can either go knights and support units like scorpions or halbs and onagers. Anything but that is not too viable, esp not their UU which might be the coolest in the game in regards of style, but not in regards of viability.
Teutons only became a somewhat good civ with their armor bonus. Without it they do not offer anything special really.
So when it comes down to what else there is for the civs aside from the Paladin, the Lithuanians are not getting the short end. They have the widest tech tree of all the Paladin civs. They are also the best Paladin civ to counter cav archers and mangudais since their skirms really put in work. In the end I want to contradict your statement that the Lithuanians do not offer much aside from their heavy cav. They offer more than the other Paladin civs esp. when the Paladins or any other gold heavy unit become harder to afford.
2 Likes
except only one of those civs has to work for their bonuses. the others all get them for free. as in CANNOT BE DENIED. and the one who has to work for it? it can be taken away too. sounds like TWO HUGE DOWNSIDES YOU CONTINUALLY IGNORE.
Lithuanian Hussars are completely generic, to call them “great” would be misleading at best.
Berbers, Bulgarians, Burmese, Cumans, Huns, Magyars, Mongols, Tatars, Turks, Malians and Sicilians all have what i would call a better scout line then Lithuanians hussar. that is 11 total civs who have BETTER scout line units. another 6 civs are tied with them.
they are also the paladin civ with the weakest long term economic bonus.
one could argue persians, byzantines, spanish, and magyars all have better tech trees.
let’s list the bad things (a niche unique unit, which lithuanians have too), bad archery range, bad scouts, but ignore the much better long term economy, the sturdier barracks, the better defense, and their incredible siege.
but your argument about the paladin issue earlier was because team games - you know. where gold isn’t an issue.
or pike + siege, but hey lets ignore that. tell me though - what real offensive comps do Lithuanians have? knights are an option. but their infantry siege is subpar at best.
and what do Lithuanians do without their relic bonus? look at hte video above! oh wait. wrecked hard.
they are also the worst paladin civ with regards to siege. and since you literally said yourself earlier that franks had “Crap Siege” that must mean that Lithuanians siege is worse then Crap, even though earlier you literally tried to say it was just “kind of weak”.
also i find it hilarious you say Persians has bad trash.
they literally have decent skirms missing only the final attack upgrade, they have fully upgraded halbs, generic hussars, but they also have trash bows. i am sorry, but if you truly want to tell me that is bad trash…wow.
2 Likes
And do you realize that all those have much better eco and booming potential than Lithuanians??!! Especially at closed maps.
i’m also confused how he says they all have bad trash or bad hussars.
teutons i could agree have bad trash.
cumans get elite skirm just missing bracer, fully upgraded halbs, and hussars that they can spam out fast as can be, not sure i’d call that bad trash, since the weakest unit for trash is the skirm, and the best is the hussar, and they can churn those out like crazy, and they get extra speed to boot.
Franks have bad trash but they also have the ultimate anti trash unit the throwing axeman.
and Persians trash has literally the trash bow. and they have hussars just as good as Lithuanians.
furthermore all of them have far better long term ecos then Lithuanians bring to the table, and their siege is better then Lithuanians. also their bonuses are free, cannot be denied, and cannot be taken away.
Actually it does, the extra +2 makes their cavalier to kill archers and halbs as if they we’re paladin, 1 hit faster.
Same with knights against crossbows and pikes
As Hera said un his hussar civ list, they should remove the hussar upgrade for liths, they have way great trash with the Best knights in the game
2 Likes
but the argument for the nerf is because of the paladin.
Franks have the best knights in the game. they have a better eco to support them, can pump them out faster, and they get free bloodlines, not to mention faster research on the paladin tech which is a huge boon. Lithuanians might have a hypothetical better top end but it requires a lot for it to happen, can be lost, and Franks can always outspam them.
1 Like
oh i also want to point out that the OP ignores Teutons greatest bonus for their knights.
the conversion resistance bonus. which he completely ignores. which is again, free, passive, and can’t be denied, and helps them against arguably the knights biggest enemy in castle age.
2 Likes
It’s the only crap part about them. I often stated that.
And when I say great hussars I mean that they have all the techs for it.
Lithuanians can counter mangudais and other top cav archer civs with trash, no other Paladin civ can do that (that is with or without gold a great advantage for Lith, esp in TG). And Byz Paladins are together with Celt Paladins the worst in the game. Magyars have a good tech tree, it’s really solid, but they have no bonus for their Paladins, not even a potential one. Recurve bow might be something that needs to be looked at, though, as their FU cav archers are almost as menacing as mangudais.
I literally said “or halbs and onagers”. If the opponent has no archers, Leitis are a very good low budget option once you have a castle as they trade almost too well with knights and inf that is not anti cav. It’s similar to the TK. If the opponent has mostly melee, the respective UU works quite well with TKs not being weak to halbs and Leitis being mobile and fast as they are and thus being able to counter siege. Both are niche units and have archers as their weakness. The Lithuanians can, however, offer a cheap answer to archers, while Teutons have to go for siege or masses of knights. The Lithuanian optional tactic is going for skirms, halbs and hussars to answer archers, enemy cav and siege, while they can dump all their gold into knights and depending on the situation Leitis. Lithuanians are also way more mobile with their speed boni compared to a very static Teuton. Teutons just need way more gold for their comps.
As to the eco boni: Yes, Lithuanians do not have anything good longterm. But they have all eco upgrades aside from the last gold upgrade and an early food advantage. If you boom with them to 140+ villagers, they can afford trash spam as any other civ with an eco boost. The lack of eco boni is strongest in feudal age, castle age and the early stages of imp. After that when being at a great villager count those boni become less essential. So their great trash can fully develop its potential in late game. Getting there just is tougher for them, which can be remedied in TGs. And even if gold is not too much of an issue, while in team games it is always about denying the opponents trade, the Lithuanians offer good counter measures as they have the hussar which Teutons for example don’t have. A Teuton cannot harrass without risking a lot of gold. On top of that their Paladins are slower than trade carts, so a Teuton trying to raid in TG is a waste of time and resources.
This all is still about justifying a potential +8 for Lith heavy cav, which I would want to see reduced to a potential +6. That’s all what I am about. You act like Lithuanians would be completely gutted if they could not get to 21 or 22 damage Paladins/Leitis or 16 dmg knights, but they are not. It’s not like the Paladin is their only strength.
One of the things they get for having the slowest army in the game aside from extra armor. It would be something that’s over the top if they had husbandry. But they don’t have husbandry. Husbandry is one great tech and missing it is a huge downer. You totally ignore that part when talking about Teutons. You can kite Teuton knights so well with cav archers, it’s not even funny. Their armor bonus doesn’t help vs archers, so for them taking longer to get to their target or being kited all day is really bad. I would exchange the conversion resistance with access to husbandry all freaking day. I would even sacrifice 50% of the armor bonus for it. Husbandry makes cav so much better and Teutons do not have it.
2 Likes
This topic was started because 64 Paladin fought vs 47 pikes (many of them low HP) and 21 Paladin.
The 64 Paladin had full upgrades (and +4 from relics), the pikes were +1/+2, the 21 Paladin only had a single defense upgrade and no BL.
How is this even worthy of a discussion, let alone one that has nearly 100 replies? Its very obvious that lith pala did not change this game, it was just better numbers/upgrades and any generic palaciv would have performed just as well. Nicov was lacking 2 armor and 4 attack upgrades as well as 20 HP. But OP blames the lith bonus instead, which is way smaller.
4 Likes
WTF, Do you really play this game or just parrot other people’s complaints about Lithuanians, tell me, without paladin, Blast Furnace or Relic bonus nerfed, what Lithuanians can do with no arbalest, no good cavalry archers (lack Parthian Tactics), bad infantry, worst siege in the game, an UU that dies too easily vs archers and no eco bonus??’ Hell even in 1v1 they would just suck, remember before buff to Leitis and Tower Shields that people complained about them being TOO WEAK and uninteresting!!!
Their current state shows that they are totally balanced, for all ELO and even tournaments.
And if you think +8 attack paladin is still broken, go to the scenario editor and try them vs other paladins, then halbs or elephants and similar stuff, their attack is high but NOT BROKEN!!
2 Likes