Mongol Steppe Lancers

I think it’s okay for Mongols to get SL, but they shouldn’t get the 30% hp bonus. Tartars should get the best SL, to make them more viable as a civ.

Mongols didn’t needed a buff. Yeah, SL are good for an historical reason, but don’t break the game for the sake of history

1 Like

Uh, what? That’s like saying we should buff Mayans since they’re a below-average infantry civ for not getting champ. Mongols are not a “cavalry civilization” in the way that Franks, Berbers, Lithuanians, etc are, and they were already top tier before the latest patch.

Historically, the Mongols were one of the most cavalry-centric civilizations ever, so it seems weird for their heavy cavalry and camels to be weaker than most of their rivals, with the lack of Plate Barding Armor making even their Light Cavalry not much better than other civs. Having the Steppe Lancer as an option makes cavalry feel a bit more like an asset, while still being distinct from heavy cavalry civilizations like the Franks.

1 Like

They have the best unit unique in the game, plus the most dangerous siege and the most resilient hussars. Before the patch they were top 3 civs… Definitely not needing further buff


Welp, Mongols relied on speedy and lightly armored horsement to outmaneuver stronger melee opponents, so their Hussar being better in melee than other Hussars while being less armored is quite fitting. Cavaliers aren’t really a steppe flavoured unit and Mongols aren’t a camel civ so those two being slightly worse is fine for the feel of the civ (while being necessary for balance) As of the BE for Indians, then why not giving Elephant archers to persian then, if having 2 eles unit not being a khmer gimmick anymore is fine?

1 Like

Not against arrows however, in this case they are worse.

1 Like

They aren’t meant to be resistant to arrows, rather to melee. Don’t forget the ussualy have a lot of mangudai behind them

Yeah, when you combo them with Mangudai, but this also mean the Mongol hussars are less self sufficient as raiders/anti-archer units. This was what has been planned for the Mongol LC since the AoK times, of course they couldn’t know about the SL. The deal is (I guess) whether the Mongol SL proves to be viable for Mongols or less useful for them than their knights/Hussars ( they fall in the “more useful than last khan civ” category or in the “useless decoration” category as @ReTuRnOfpRaCtIs stated)

1 Like

Persians didn’t use elephant archers as far as I know, do you have some historical evidence supporting the argument?

In my knowledge, Persians used powerful elephants brought as mercenary from India to rampage the battlefield. They didn’t have had enough elephants to use as a regular part of their army. They rather relied on heavy Cavalry.


I 100% admit I said that based on the fact Persians get elephant archers in AoE1.

1 Like

Elephant archers are a UU made from the castle so if they were given to Persians as well the Indians would then need a new UU.

I think both the Indian elephant archer and the Persian War Elephant need a buff (but I also think that the Persians’ faster working TCs and docks needs a small nerf nowadays, and the Indian shore fish bonus needs a nerf).


firstly, gotta say devs did a good job on most of the patch so far, it was surprising to see that they actually buffed all the factions that people complained about, teutons, goths, vietnamese, were all top contenders for complaints, so imo, if there’s any short falls devs will sort them out

@CactusSteak2171 good job on the tests, but what do you mean by the tatar bonus wrt steppe lancers? did you confuse their silk armour by chance? or you were talking about the 25% bonus? which is too situational imo

how does the mongol SL lose less hp than the tatar SL vs arbs??

wrt your tests, couldnt you could apply maths to work out how much that armour vs hp is worth? mongol has +24 hp, tatar SL is taking either 1 less (melee) or 2 less (ranged) damage. how many hits does it take to kill it. solve for x… you can already see that the armour is worth less before even running a trial.

next you say tatars are in a fine position (please excuse the ad hominem, but you also said teutons were fine, they have just been buffed, does that mean they are now OP?) the 25% buff to tatars is arguably (along with the CA) their strongest points, but is so difficult / impossible on some maps to leverage for the majority of players it is nearly pointless, leaving a “rush bonus” (from herdables), a minor res buff (from free PT), a semi useless UT (Timurid Siegecraft) and slightly more resistant hussars.

those bonuses pale in comparison if we compare to some of the power house factions, literally all we’re effectively getting is good CA (other factions have em as well) and less than 1000 res (if its even that)

1 Like

the description of the mongol steppe lancer in the spanish version of the game is wrong 11 is the mameluke description the one that is shown


Also the name used to be “Lancero estepario” and now is just “Estepa” 111 in fact lot of names that were fine in spanish now look like bad google translation of english names 11

1 Like

It’s indeed this. While situational, at least it’s easier to make it work on SL than on other melee units.

Welp, I’ve done calculations based on this quick test (and that’s why it certainly has flaws, after all things are never that straightforward).
If I do the maths (assuming the fight is against Inca arbs)
Tatar Elite SL has 100 HP and 5 pierce armor, that makes him die to 100/5 = 20 arrows
Mongol Elite SL has 124 HP and 3 pierce armor, that makes him die to 124/7 = 17.71 arrows, rounded up to 18. The difference isn’t that narrow. In the same matchup a Mongol Hussar dies 4 arrows sooner than its generic counterpart.

Welp, I guess you have read that because you’re used to see me say this kind of things 11. But for once I was asking what I did miss, that would make Tatars not so good. While @ReTuRnOfpRaCtIs provided me with a vid to help me, I find Viper quite undecisive. For instance he says the sheep bonus is a “slight” boost, while it’s literally a *1.5 multiplier, which sounds bigger than “slight”.

That is 1 of the reasons I’m not sure about all this. After all early eco bonuses are a good thing.

I mean, black forest and Arena are flat I guess? But Arabia has its good share of hills/cliffs and so on. It looks less situational than say, Indian fishermen bonus.

Welp, the point of this bonus isn’t to save ressources (because it’s indeed not much) but to give you a power spike as soon as you hit Imp. Your CA will instantly become much tankier against the enemy’s ranged unit, and they will have to upgrade to keep up.

Welp, this one I think I get the reason of why it’s so underpowered. After SE, a treb deals 540 to buildings, right? If it sits on a hill it deals 540 times 1.25= 675 damage. But if it’s Tatar then it will deal 540 times 1.5 = 810 damage! So Timurid siegecraft is situational (I guess situations where there is a hill at precisely 18 units away from the castle you want to attack are super rare) but it could become OP if it was any better.

Welp, of course the sheep bonus is nowhere close to 500 ressources (free PT being 450)

Britons get a sheep bonus as well. Persian and Lithuanian get free food at the start. I get that the Tatar bonus is slower, but it also doubles as a wood bonus since it allows you to delay farms. In general, food and wood bonuses are often so good that I’m suprised such a bonus is overlooked on the Tatars.

1 Like

You should then post it in the dedicated Spanish language thread.

where can i find that dedicated Spanish language thread?? do you have a link to it?

Known Issue: Translation & Localization (Spanish - Spain Language - Español - Idioma España) I think it’s this one

1 Like

Yes, I agree. Whilst the devs always listen and although some people say they don’t I think that more people respect the devs than it often seems due to the fact that it’s often the case that those who trash the devs, while loud, are a loud minority and the loudness just seems like a majority, or a lot more people than it is actually is, sometimes.

Anyways, while I think that the devs always listen to the community … i think that this is the balance patch where the devs seem to have implemented the most balance changes that the community suggested this time.

Or maybe it’s a coincidence and the devs just were thinking along the same lives as most people. After all, a lot of the FE devs, if not all of them, love this game as much as anybody and aren’t just in it for the money. FE did originally develop out of a fan-based mod after all.

One example of how it could be a coincidence is the fact that one of the exact changes that I suggested was implemented … namely allowing the Goths’ infantry cost bonus to start from the dark age. It’s POSSIBLE that a dev saw what I wrote and added it towards the end of the patch … but I think it’s much more likely that I wasn’t the only person who had that idea and a dev was thinking along the same lines and the change was going to be implemented anyway. After all, it has never really made sense that the Goths had to wait to feudal to get that bonus … as they’ve always been a slow civ early game and only really been strong in post imp (and still weak when the gold runs out).

What I suspect is that some of the balance changes were directly applied after listening to the community and others were coincidental balance changes and the devs were just already harmoniously thinking along the same lines as a lot of the rest of the AoE2 community :slight_smile: When you have two plausible but conflicting scenarios the truth is usually somewhere in-between.


Actually I’m a big dummy, assuming that you get your 8 sheeps, that’s additional 400 food. I guess the decay weakens it but it’s not as far as I made it look 11

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: Mongol Raiders score: 23506. New profile icons: 0