My Proposed Changes for the upcoming balance patch

Then u never play with SL. They are situational and better to snipe enemies like Archer units. U need to micro a bit. SL have another game style than Knights.

Same why I compare with Indians. Camels are not designed for raiding. A lot complains the missing Knight Line for Indians though they don’t need Knights to be strong.

you don’t snipe archers better with SL than knights

Steppe Lancers have 40 (!) less hitpoints and 1 less pierce armor. They are almost as garbage against archers as camels

Elite Lancers have 80 less hitpoints 2 less pierce armor than a Paladin. They are terrible against Archers

1 Like

+1 (pavise only) or +2 MA (bunus+pavise) have the same effect, they take the same amount of hits from both knights/paladins and hussars, it would be better only vs pikes and camels, which are units that are already bad vs xbows.

Yes more MA it help occasionally here and there, but I would prefer more PA (+1 from the bonus and +1 from pavise) and maybe sacrifice the MA for extend the bonus to skirms (they would receive only the +1 from the bonus, not the +1 from pavise).

Yes that’s what I was proposing, however anything would still be a huge step forward, and better than nothing.

Yes but if you improve the unit (xbow) with another bonus it would become a very good tech.
Basically you would get half bonus for free, and half for a price, but overall it would be a very good bonus.

2 Likes

I’m pretty sure your not the only one to complain about this. But yeah why you don’t play with Franks or Teutons? They have stronger Paladin. SL would be nearly as cheap as Infantry units! They used to be OP for a good reason.

No, they are used to be OP because the cost (you mentioned), the damage output (damage + fire rate), mobility and very small collision box

Cuman pocket with Paladins are commonly used because of their strong economy and Imperial Age Kipchaks are significantly worse than Castle Age Kipchaks. Cumans might make the most Paladins in the game

1 Like

Independent from the statement, this is a pointless answer since it is true for you aswell

That’s true thats a base strategy of Cumans in Team Game. Then I take away the Cumans Pocket with Paladin and give them a new Identity. I think that won’t much hurt since you can went back to other Civ for this strategy.
I’m pretty sure they will be used as a new meta, probably raise base reload time to 1.9, that’s my proposal but more would make SL OP.

Guys why don’t you just split this topic into several others (for example one for each civ)? It’s getting quite messy and the developers will hardly be able to record anything you say.

2 Likes

You’re right, we need to collect all the ideas into a list. When I have time I can do it.

1 Like

What identity? 0% pick rate as in team games?

Paladins must be in the Cuman tech tree

Steppe Lancers should be a different unit, not a Paladin 2.0.

First off all they need major buffs

2 Likes

I agree, Cumans is one of those civs that is wholly dependant on Paladins in the lategame, just like Franks.

Their HCA does not even have Bracer, so they are a dead investment, and SLs are not good for nothing outside raiding (at which they excel, to be honest).

1 Like

You cannot be serious with this

3 Likes

My problem with just free archer armor and pavise buff is that you are not helping italians at all in feudal (plus you need a castle for pavise). They need something to keep up with the other civs sooner. I think bonus +1/+1 armor would do the trick, it would give italians a bit of a power spike in feudal which should be enough to let them reach castle somewhat “safely” (of course, it always depends on many other factors).

4 Likes

In order to make the Cumans less dependent on Paladins, I think they should receive Siege Engineers. Almost all civs without bracer have siege engineers and would allow their onagers to fill in a bit for the lack of range anywhere else. Only two that don’t are Malians who I think should receive it as well and Persians which don’t have bracer for obvious reasons due to Kamadaran. Alternative would be to give them Bombards but think that’s likely a bit much.

Additionally, would be nice to distinguish the speed bonus a bit more. The extra 5% is not super noticeable as basically every non-Meso civ has husbandry except Teutons which get extra armor for free and Vikings whose cavalry are generally useless regardless. I would advocate for +5% / +10% in FA / CA and give them husbandry or add +5% across the board in the existing bonus. Could lower Kipchak speed by 5% to be neutral in a subsequent patch if this becomes too oppressive

I think between Elite Kipchak +1 damage and Siege Engineers they would be in great shape. Speed bonus would be a nice to have

They would still be massively dependant on Paladins, since they do not have any other good frontliner (they have Hussars, but those are not really frontline troops) and their Cav Archers are incredibly subpar in the Imperial Age.

That +1 Range they miss really does hurt them a lot.

It actually is, since Cumans have the only paladins and Hussars that can actually run from Camels.
Not only that, but that extra 5% speed is really good for Imp Age raiding, since you get exposed to less attacks, by virtue of being faster.

Speed bonus was 10% stacked with Husbandry. It was too strong

Cumans didnt have gunpowder irl

3 Likes

It sounds like there will be other buffs to Steppe Lancers so their dependence on Paladins may be slightly alleviated. That being said, they do have FU infantry ex. supplies + Hussars as you mentioned so they have some buffers units. The Siege Engineers would help partially offset the lack of range from the archer / cavalry archer similar to how the Slavs and Teutons operate. The idea here would be to keep frontline farther away with Siege Engineers + Siege Onagers and indirectly lessen the dependence on Paladins

Not sure I follow on the Cuman paladins + hussars run from camels. Hussars are already faster than camels at 1.5 speed vs. 1.45 and the paladins with +15% aren’t faster than camels with husbandry (base speeds are 1.35 / 1.45 for knights / camels and the +5% doesn’t make up for the 0.1 difference). I think camels with husbandry is the fair comparison as all camel civs have it. You might be thinking of Steppe Lancers which are as fast as camels in terms of base speeds

Anyways I think adding the net +5% speed on the paladins would be helpful for them given the reliance on it for frontline + raiding

1 Like

Obviously they didn’t but in Aoe2 gameplay trumps history e.g. why do Malians have hand cannoneers?

For the speed, I think the overall strength of the Cumans made it tough to evaluate the 10% unique speed + husbandry but this is more a nice to have to make the speed feel a bit more noticeable. As it’s really a +5% bonus in FA / IA and neutral in CA

1 Like

The cuman speed bonus was very awesome when steppe lancers had 1.5 base speed. Imagine a cavalry with 1.815 speed (or remember if you played it - was very op). The nerf was indeed needed for both the civ bonus and the steppe lancers. Cuman speed bonus could seem weak in certain situations but it is actually isn’t. If steppe lancers wouldn’t be trash this bonus could really influence them by a high amount.

At 20% Discount the cuman player could field 2SL for every paladin(according to gold) . Combined with their UT, they’ll out produce the generic paladins at 2:1 as well.

How well do 2 SLs damage potential compare vs 1 paladin… That’s a whole different ball game now.

And you were the one implying it should replace the paladin. The saracen/indian camel and the EW dont eplace the knight. It gives them a unit to fulfil a similar role.

And if anything the SL could do with an inevitable buff anyway. Which would stack with the 20% Discount.

Still crazy how much they overnerfed the SL. Like who thought it was a good idea to nerf their stats so much AND make them so much more expensive