Again, Isn’t a good idea because then they would just suck at trash wars, and they are supposed to be good here. (Malians lack Bracer, Blast furnace, Hussar and Halberdier, imagine them without Farimba and extra PA to barrack units, their trash would suck).
Plus Lithuanians were known for their light cavalry.
Im not say they are great but the renewed aoe stats has them pretty even. Sitting at 43%@1650+ with under 1k games this was around 45 when i wrote that earlier.
43% is quite bad unfortunately. I think the civ should get a minor buff.
Yes it is a bit worse then what i thought it was at the time.
Oh man, Lithuanians is a topic that i enjoy a lot, as i pointed more than a year ago, they just have too many things and even one of the best and expert balancer guy around said “don’t nerf leitis cause it is literally carrying the civ” ignoring the fact that the civ is still above the other without even using leitis.
They have bbc, hc, OP skirms and speedy halbs, with paladin+8, almost full monastery, strong navy upgrades, their economic bonus is just insane in mixed maps or nomad maps, they really designed the civ to be broken, same like other civs in the past they just created a monster and hide their other vicious with a broken unit so all the attention was dragged by it ignoring the rest of their options, the civ will be picked more and more eventually in all levels not only in tournaments.
The relic bonus is just too much for a civ that already has too many options, you guys think mayans are op but they are not even as versatile as lits are, they are just easier to use cause you stick to one or two build orders, but comparing those civs the powerspike on imperial is HUGE, with 3 relics their knights kill camels on castle age, current maps have like 10 relics or at least 8 so you can’t really control all those relics even if you want to, unless you are playing with enemies that don’t attack you.
2 Likes
they should give +2 damage max back to scout line. would make them top of the crop trash
Extra attack to Hussars with the mega trash that they have is OP, that’s why the relic bonus NO longer includes light cavalry.
Extra attack to Hussars is balanced for a civ that has bad trash units.
On a side Topic, against Frankish Paladin, the Lithuanian one with all 4 relics survives with 37HP left, the Teutonic one on the other side survived with 50HP, which proves that the extra attack isn’t broken.
@FurtherLime7936 then theres also bulgarian’s 25% attack boost affects scout-line too… and we know 25% is better than +4 depending on the situation.
The effect is 33%, but you need a castle to research it and Bulgarian Skirmishers are weaker.
And a Lithuanian Hussar with just 3 relics is able to defeat the Bulgarian one.
They are in the sense they don’t need it. They need something else, but not this. Lithuanians that ignore relics can do pretty well, they offer nothing special but are by no means weak as their tech tree armywise only lacks good siege and arbalests/parthian. It, however, sucks for them if they try to go for relics and fail to do so. Then they are weak.
It was stated often in this thread that damage is rather a less important stat for a Paladin. So you can’t go ahead and say that missing out on their relic bonus breaks them. It might, if the fail to get any relics after trying hard…
And I meant they need to go for relics early because they feel like they have to get their bonus and the opponent needs to prevent that for his own good or he tries to dominate the Lith as he spends resources on early monks and might be too weak to defend himself. Either way it’s all about relics and getting them or trying to prevent that, because letting them get them ends up in an early +4 that will probably snowball and is too strong. I find that stupid for the Lithuanian as well as the opponent. Lithuanians would probably do better if they picked up relics that happen to come their way instead of trying get them as soon as possible. The felt need to go for relics guts this civ is what I meant.
So you can’t let them get the relics. You could, however, if this bonus would not go beyond +2. It would still be in your interest to prevent it, but it couldn’t snowball if you don’t. It’d be something you’d pick up along the way, but neither having to go for it hard nor having to prevent it would be the case. They could then get something else, a bonus that helps them economywise. Or they just get the +1/+1 starting in CA. Just get rid of the forced relic play.
The fact that they have FU Hussar is great and an advantage over all the civs that don’t. What’s so hard to understand here? They could not have Hussar or lack an upgrade for them but they don’t. Hussars are freaking strong as they trade very well vs so much and can raid as if they were born to it. That there are civs that have even better Hussars than FU Hussars is completely irrelevant because it is only about having FU Hussars vs not having them. And having them is a god damn win in this game. Just ask Hera if you need pro confirmation that Hussars are bae.
Persian cbs trade somewhat equally vs +6 armor cav archers as their skirms do. Faster rate of fire vs more dmg. And cbs die quicker. Lithuanian skirms trade way better, however. And that was my point: nothing trades better without gold cost than Lithuanian (or Aztec, Mayan, and imp) skirms vs cav archers. Arbs trade nicely, but that makes sense as FU heavy cav archer and FU arbs are post imperial range units that cost gold. And have you ever seen a Lithuanian teaming up with a Vietnamese? Imp skirms with 11 armor is ridiculous.
Black Forest is one map that clearly has strong and weak civs. It’s like water maps and good naval civs vs bad naval civs. The bad ones do not stand a chance. So yeah, there are better BF civs than others. And there are better water civs than others. Some maps just need to speak for themselves. BF games are really an odd example for anything.
I am open for discussion and don’t want to just take stuff away from them without compensation. I started with what I think needs to go for them. And after that one can see what needs to be added to them. Probably some kind of economic bonus. I haven’t thought about what might be a good addition to them, but that doesn’t mean that I wanna gut them and leave them gutted. I want bracers for them to go because of their navy. They should not have such a good navy as the Lithuanian army didn’t have a noteworthy navy, espc. not during medieval times. They did well vs the Swedes once during a blockade but that’s about it. It makes no sense for this civ to have a good navy. The skirms would lose bracers, too, yes, but I argued that 10 armor and faster movement is still very good. So after nerfing their navy, skirms and heavy cav, they would need to get compensations. You can compensate only after you know what you want to take away. I am, we are still at the stage about what should be nerfed/changed for them if anything at all. That’s why I did not offer any compensations.
And the Viking WB/HC bonus definitely needs tweaking. Maybe make the upgrades cheaper and faster, but not for free. Just because I am focussing on Lithuanians does not mean that I think every other civ is 100% fine. I don’t.
Varying playstyles are good, I agree. But I don’t like it when you are forced into some things. If the Lith goes for relics what he probably will do, you have to do it, too, so he doesn’t get a potential +3 or 4 that would be notable in castle age and early imp and probably less so in very late imp when gold becomes more of an issue (you don’t expect to get all relics, the Lith will get one or two for sure in an somewhat equal game). If you fail your opponent’s units get stronger. Vs Lith it’s more about freaking relics than anything else. I dislike that.
And to the videos you posted: Hera played very weirdly and seemed to just have a bad match and when Viper played Yo, he lost a vil early to a boar. Mr Yo got the upper hand and the game was over before going for relics became an actual option. Magyars eco boni are subpar at best, so Lith eco cannot be blamed either in the Yo match. The free damage upgrades helped Yo to sustain the upper hand.
I just tested this. The Lith +8 Paladin survives with 37hp if he gets the first hit and with 24 hp if he doesn’t. The Teuton Paladin survives with either 26 hp if he gets the first hit or with 15 hp if he doesn’t. I tested it with post imp setting and vs a frankish 192 hp Paladin.
I don’t see in what universe the Teuton Paladin would still have 50 hp left. That seems like a test gone wrong. Even when tested vs a 180 hp FU Paladin the Teuton Paladin is left standing with 37 or 26 hp. The Lithuanian Paladin, however, is left with 50 or 37 hp. The Lithuanian Paladin also wins vs the Teuton one and the Teuton Paladin DOES NOT have husbandry, which is a very important tech.
What you are saying is wrong. The damage bonus lets the Lithuanian Paladin triumph over any other Paladin with the best results possible. It states that this bonus once it is fully developed is hella strong. And Leitis just go around with their low costs and lash out 22 raw damage points. The bonus is too much when maxed out.
1 Like
Have you considered that Franks have Chivalry, which only costs 400w 400g, on top with 25% cheaper castles, so if you re competent you get that tech earlier, conscription and gooo, you get paladin 40% faster (60% faster with Huns) and train paladins like 73% fast (with the eco to back up that, far ahead than the Lithuanian one), hell you just can flood the game with 192 HP paladins and overwhelm the others 11, and plenty almot all of the TGs at 1.6K at least one picks Franks 11. Go and play yourself and test it.
Now go and try the 22 attack paladin vs Heavy camels and tell me if they can win, because they can’t.
And regarding the Teuton test yes was wrong because I was using them vs Frankish paladins.
in my post, i said max +2 for the scout line. not the same buff as +4 as knight line. and Bulgarian that goes for knight/scout would almost always build 1 castle for stirrup, not an issue.
So because someone “played weirdly or bad” it’s okay for Lithuanians to get throttled, but when the opponent plays weird and badly against Lithuanians it’s grounds for nuking the bonuses to the ground. Do you see how bad that sounds?
Tell me. What do you think is fair compensation for losing both the relic bonus and bracer?
Also while we’re at it, against monks and cavarchers theyre arguably worse than Cuman’s
which lack siege engineers, and look at how bad italians bbc is and they get theirs cheaper.
yes because everyone thinks HC are great right now.
defensive options.
oh look finally an offensive option. and good look actually getting +8 paladins in anything short of a team game.
yes because we all know monks are used so much in the game after early castle age.
and yet i wouldn’t even put them as a top 10 naval civilization except on hybrid maps
and yet the economic bonus falls off as the game progresses and is the only eco bonus they have, unlike so many other civs. yeah it gives them versatility but long term its inferior.
yeah because lithuanians are just full of offensive options aren’t they. yeah they got solid defense but their siege is one of the worst in the game and their knights are their only option. there mid game is weak.
not cost effectively they don’t.
You don’t have to be mean to @SouMexican just because he loves Lithuanians a lot of people love Lithuanians (including SotL), they are my favourite civ because of how amazing they are in normal and treaty games. Their eco bonus is my favourite now because Mongols were nerfed last year.
1 Like
Their eco bonus is nearly the same as the mongol one, especially to rush with scouts (In like around the same time).
I’m the kind of person who sends berry pickers to hunt all the deer left on the map after they exhaust the berries so I guess the Mongol bonus is better for me than the Lithuanian bonus.
Sorry for being absent so long, I had a lot on my mind.
To get things straight or rather going again:
I am talking about Lithuanians. The guys that get a +4 to heavy cav attack by collecting relics and have a UU that ignores armor because they supposedly have beaten the heavy armor of the Teutonic Order when actually they fled, left the Polish to do the fighting and returned when it was opportune. They fled because they were inferior with their “light cav” and belarusian foot soldiers to the heavily armored knights of the Order. The Polish-Lithuanian army was a lot bigger according to historical lore (mainly because the Livonians didn’t help the Order, which relied on them), it had a better position, the night before the battle there was a storm which damaged the Order’s artillery and rendered it almost useless and the Order’s generals were debating and not following every order of the Hochmeister resulting in weakening their own ranks during the battle. Everything else but military equipment and fighting skills thus led to the Polish-Lithuanian victory. A few weeks later they were still unable to conquer the Orders headquater in Marienburg, but the victory at Tannenberg was the beginning of their Golden Age, of roughly 100 succesful years for Poland and Lithuania, which was always in Poland’s shadow. Their peak was around the end of the medieval age and their downfall started soon after again. The Polish army was known for their heavy cavalry, the Lithuanians for their light cavalry. Lithuania also was mostly heathen. It was later christianized.
Poland-Lithuania also never had a strong navy.
The civ here is called Lithuania and not Poland. They have a relic bonus and all monk techs although they were the least christianized country during that time. At Tannenberg the order conquered the regal banner, the icon of victory, from the Polish and celebrated victory already by singing Christian chants. During these chants the Polish reconquered their banner. At that time the Lithuanian part of the army was still fleeing or at least not present. But the Lithuanians have a civ bonus that gives their heavy cav (!) a severe damage bonus. Their heavy cav… Which they didn’t actually muster. It was the Polish who had heavy cav. The Lithuanians also didn’t know anything about piercing armor, their whole UU is nonsense as it is.
Leitis are cheaper than knights, are faster, deal more damage and beat Paladins in 1v1 due to their for AOE2 standards totally misplaced mechanic. Leitis should suck against heavy cav and actually less so against archers (since they actually carried a tower shield). Historically Leitis had a short peak and were great horse breeders with territorial powers that mosthly fought against the Grand Duchy of Moscow and not against the heavily armored Order. As a unit they should be more like a Tarkan that also has the range of a Steppe Lancer but lacks bonus damage vs buildings. The Paladin shouldn’t even be part of their tech tree. Lithuania took the Polish role although the other way around (a Polish civ with Lith units) makes way more sense as Poland was more powerful than Lithuania. Referring to the paganism in the Lithuanian mainland, it makes absolutely no sense that they have monks as good as they do. The relic bonus of course makes even less sense. This civ should be completely revamped or maybe even renamed to Poland-Lithuania.
When we say that it makes sense when Teuton Knights are slower for their heavier armor, then we also need to talk about what makes no sense.
It makes no sense that a civ that only borrowed heavy cav from their neighbors should have FU Paladins with an insane bonus that, if reached fully, is stronger than it should be. 30 Paladins +8 in Teamgames just destroy, they beat everything and perform better than Frankish and Teuton Paladins (which should never ever be the case as Frankish and Teuton knights were the best and most successful ones the medieval age has ever seen, the Polish knights came very close and were part of one of the strongest heavy cavalries in Europe right after the medieval age (ended roughly around 1500)). These Lithuanian Paladins have no downside but a bonus that can only make them better. They have husbandry, they have Hussars, they have the best skirms in the game, they have all defensive building techs and cannon towers + bracers, they even have heavy cav archers (which they also borrowed from the Tartars and didn’t muster themselves), they have a UU that is strong against everything (trades better vs inf than Paladins, beats Paladins) except archer civs. Their only trade off is meh Champs and not so great siege. Siege engineers is a good tech that they lack. But they got the bbc, which is always great to have even withouth SE. It allows for Siege Onager counter play which is worth a lot for a civ that is arguably only weak against siege.
Gameplaywise I stand by my view that Paladins and Leitis +8 is too strong. Also +7 is too strong. Especially when it comes with no real trade off. Not having great siege is no trade off when everything else in the tech tree is almost marvellous. Cap the bonus at +2, remove it from the relic requirement and be done with it. Or, if this stupid relic bonus needs to stay, remove blast furnace, but allow the bonus also for light cav (and revamp the Leitis the way I described). This civ, as little sense as it makes, needs a trade off. Their halbs and skirms are supposed to be carrying a tower shield (which should be a Leitis thing, just saying…) and run 10% faster with it. This civ is such a troll. They have one of the best Central and Eastern European navy although they should have the worst. It really does my head in.
This thread is about the +8. The +8 is too much. And if you think it’s not, then let me tell you that Lithuania should not have a strong heavy cav, no good monks, no relic bonus, no good navy… This game tries to resemble historical civs and fails terribly at Lithuania as it sacrificed a Polish civ for it and mixed and messed it all up.
None of the great boni Lithuania has makes sense for them. Tower Shield should be a Leitis tech, their light cav should be very strong, their heavy cav not so much. Their navy should be much worse and their inf could get more love. The relic bonus, the armor piercing… it makes zero sense and has zero historical justification.
These are the reasons why this civ annoys me more than anything else in the game. Call me a nerd or whatever, but this civ just is too much. You have historically so enormously amazing civs in this game and then you have Lithuania. And that civ got one of the sickest tech trees in the whole game that outperforms more prominent cavalry civs regarding end game stats… It’s so stupid.
I have nothing against the country of Lithuania. All my love goes to the Lithuanian people and I am sorry if anybody feels offended by me speaking out against the civ that is called Lithuania in AoE2. It’s all about the scale and the role the civ takes up in the game that needs to be reasonable and make sense to me.
Thank you for reading.
2 Likes
Ignoring the already explained reasons to you before that Lithuanians are balanced and your stupidly long wall texts that are just wtf to read, regarding historical accuracy, why Aztecs have siege weapons if they never meet siege?, why chinese lack Gunpowder despite that they invented it? why Britons lack paladin and Hussar despite being known for their cavalry? Why Indians lack Knights despite the well recorded uses of Indian heavy cavaly? Why are Huns and Goths in this game despite being too out of place historically? I can go and go about the historical innacuracies of this game and even more than that.
Let me give you some images of historical Lithuanian cavalry lol:
OH look at the innacurate Lithuanian armored horsemen cmon 11