Quite straight forward.
No one wants to fight uphill no matter if enemy units are Tatars’ or belong to any other civ.
This bonus would be so much more interesting and effective this way.
Units on higher elevation attacking Tatars’ units wouldn’t deal 25% more damage than normally and Tatars’ units would deal standard amount of damage attacking from downhill instead of dealing 25% less.
This would produce a unique gameplay with Tatars where you could storm a hill like it’s an equal elevation.
I actually like this change, and it provides a whole new dynamic
Good idea, but not for Tatars. Current Tatars bonus is in-line with their pseudo-historical accuracy. Tatars are Cav+CavArchers.
Cav attack better, when is charging downhill. Its never good thing charge uphill.
Your bonus will be good for some infantry civ, maybe related to mountains. Not for Cav.
I also think it could be possibly OP. It will take away whole micro-intensive aspect of early scout fights. Probably better will be just part of this bonus - unit dont gain bonus damage or dont have penality to damage fighting uphill.
The game is not meant to be fully historically accurate.
We’re close enough to historical accuracy.
First is balance and fun gameplay then you can argue historical accuracy. Limiting your possibilities just because of that is a waste. I hope not only imo.
It still close enough - hill related eunique bonus.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to give any other civs such a great bonus while Tatars stay with this mediocre but similar bonus.
It would take away necessity for micro? Completely disagreed.
You would still want to get on the top of the hill with Tatars to get hill bonus damage so you lose less hp / finish the fight faster.
Then it doesn’t create that unique gameplay - it would be just like now - slight advantage that you cannot utilize, because it would still be bad to take a fight from lower elevation.
The whole idea is to get interesting and unique gameplay.
Are you sure those are good reasons to not change it?
I was thinking more about fighting against that scout - it will be much, much harder, if not impossible to turn tide with good micro, as is now.
rofl because tatars are winning tourneys as it is? they’re an A tier faction? rofl dude… so what if they have a “bonus” in hill orientated scout fights? then they can have something cool for a B to C level faction…
it will still be worthwhile to micro your scout because otherwise the tatar will have a bonus fighting downhill when he naturally tries to get on top. that would add a whole new resilience dynamic
I love the idea, it was actually introduced to me by a friend!
“If you’re playing against Tatars just avoid hills entirely”.
So simple yet so beautiful!
what about keeping the current effect+this effect?
I like this idea. Tatars still need a buff. The buff they received some month ago is not enough.
This seems to make hill unimportant for Tatar players. It idea just makes the game more boring, since it eliminates the fighting for the hills. This just limites the strategic option you have in the match. Thats really makes no sense to me.
I see many positive respons in this thread. Seems like i am missing something. But i have no idea why.
not worrying about terrain disadvantage and micro is huge and definitely better than the downhill bonus since fighting uphill is already disadvantageous and the current bonus just amplifies that
Let me further explain, cause I I think I know how you expect it to work and where the misconception is.
Make Tatars’ civ bonus “Units negate disadvantageous effects of fighting uphill” instead of “Units deal +25% damage when fighting downhill"
It doesn’t change the fact that Tatars’ units still do receive the standard 25% more damage output when they are fighting from the higher elevation.
Which means Tatar player does care about hills, which give them advantageous bonuses. If Tatars want hills then their enemy wants to prevent Tatars from securing it. Therefore the enemy will put castles or armies on the very top of the hill.
I find the current bonus dull - it doesn’t change anything about the gameplay. You can only count on enemy misjudging the situation but you cannot be the one that utilizes your own bonus.
No matter if you had this +25% damage output from higher elevation you would still do the exact same thing.
I like the idea of updating the hill bonus to removing the disadvantages when fighting down hill. Currently the bonus is not that helpful…
However just recall that it is true that tatars are not a top civ, but there are other civs (Italians, Turks, Portuguese) needing buffs much more than them.
Overall a good idea, despite it is not a priority
I totally agree.
Japanese would be the predestined civ for that.
Or they could have the current bonus of +25% dmg attacking from uphill and then as well have the new bonus added into that as not taking bonus damage when attacking from down hill
HELLO THERE
One more argument to change the current Tatar’s civ bonus - it’s very campy.
What I mean by that is that Tatars’ play is very campy, slow, defensive.
Boring to play with and boring to play against.
I have been thinking about what I presented.
I think it might be even too “unique” actually. In a way that there are some rules about aoe. e.g. units of one player never change stats of other units.
Following this rule but yet changing the current bonus I suggest the following:
“Tatars’ units deal full damage when firing uphill”
This creates a possibility for improving aggressive play with Tatars - further enhancing additional range of trebs Tatars have.
Changing the civ from campy to aggressive!
Again - it’s not a nerf nor a buff - it’s a change in the better direction the game should be designed
