But they literally are bulkier than longswords/champions now, so it doesn’t make much sense to call them glass cannons?
2 Likes
They’re strong vs infantry and heavily weak vs cavalry.
Their strength and bonus dmg vs infantry gives them a specialty, but doesn’t promote them from being glass canons that are easily killed.
Only one less attack than an Aztec champion and 5 more HP, +3 attack compared to a generic champion, if those guys are glass cannon then all champions besides those with armour bonuses are.
2 Likes
Pretty much - they focus mostly on destruction of buildings and die heavily to siege while being cheap to make and spam, they’re about as much of a glass canon as shotels are while being cheaper to boot.
So then you want champion speed to be raised too?
2 Likes
They’re too cheap and spammable for that, and their quality is better than the karambits’.
Now if the champs were more costly, then we could talk speed increases.
Perhaps let’s give the Malay access to Hand Cannoneers because they used hand cannons but also because of balance purposes considering the fact that the Malay are one of the most nerfed civs in the game. So, because of how nerfed they are, they’re going to need some buffs.
1 Like
Malay don’t get HC because the fast imp potential would be too good and because they have their way of dealing with infantry, which is THS.
1 Like
Well no it’s even kinda common on arena. You wouldn’t get it for elephants but for units you defend a monk rush with, ie usually light cav. And in some situations light cav isn’t enough but heresy easily wins you the fight and thus the game.
I want Jaguar should have same speed as Eagle Warrior, 1.15, 1.3 (elite) but in return, its hp get decreased to 60. 65 (elite). Incas for compensating villager armor nerf should get Eagle-line 10% faster bonus like old unique tech.
1 Like
IDK whats your 1v1 elo or what games you play, but you are clearly suggesting something that makes Jaguars identity even more flawed than currently is, glass-cannon infantry is already done with the Shotel Warrior.
Yes I agree that having both 21 attack champion and 20 attack elite jaguar warrior in the same tech tree is a flawed design, just like how Britons have 11 range arbalest and 12 range elite Longbow, or the Teutonic Champion and Teutonic Knight (though TK role is more solid, outperforming any champion while also having better PA and HP) as well the former 22 attack paladin and 22 attack Elite Leitis, which was changed to 20 attack paladin and22 attack Elite Leitis.
The only doable change, but that can just destroy the long lived strong champion, is to just take away the Garland Wars effect from militia line sadly, I really hate that since is a thing dating back from AOC days, but right now Burmese also has extra attack on Champions. so the overlap is quite obvious (just like how I hate the broken Chivalry UT being just a ridiculous straight upgrade copy from the Huns team bonus, which is already balanced as is).
1 Like
It happens extremely rarely in huge monk v monk all ins that are disavowed even by the pure clowns.
Heresy is an extremely niche upgrade that isn’t relevant to the strength of war elephants. Not to mention Burmese Heresy for 500 gold would be op.
1 Like
Jaguars are not glass canons, but they actually lack flexibility.
They could be as fast as Eagles, and the solution may be one of 2 ways below.
-
Have attack bonus to cavalry, so the opponents have to use archers, hand cannoneers and slingers to counter.
-
Able to avoid attack bonus from hand cannoneers and slingers, so the opponents have to use archers and cavalry to counter.
11 range Arbalesters and 12 range Elite Longbowmen have similar problem.
Perhaps make the range of Arbalesters up to 10 or 9, still longer than 8 range of regular one.
I wish I could also say the same but I disagree with the comparison with Persians. I think Franks, Burgundians and Lithuanians are more similar than Persians with these 3 because Persians have camels.
Also Vikings was not the best in any map. One can argue about water maps but I think they are the weakest among the top 3 - Italians, Portuguese and Vikings. I won’t mind a Lithuanians nerf if the intention is not making a good civ in every single type of maps.
What was meant about Persians 2.0 is nerfing them into s civ that sees play only on one or two rare map types.
I’m assuming that is hybrid maps.
I have an idea to make them better in pure land maps while nerfing in hybrid and water maps.
Start with +150 food → Get +150 food in every age up.
This will prevent them being a good pick in hybrid while on land they will have better competition with Franks. But tbh, I myself not liking the idea.
Bad change, killing identity.
Thats OP as hell lol
And then they gain a clear designed weakness to offset that 50% less bonus damage
But that just doesn’t work. Players open with gold units - A civ designed around a weakness against gold units is just silly.
I mean ofc you can try this, but that will just make the civ terrible cause to use the -50 % bonus damage bonus they need to force the opponent into counter units which they just can’t if their gold units are worse than those of the opponents.
That’s why this whole reduced bonus damage is just silly. It’s insanely strong if the opponent is forced into counters but extremely weak if the opponent can just mass better gold units. It amplifies a lead. It destroys the whole concept of countering army and you cant compensate by giving the civ a “weakness” in the exchange. That doesn’t compensate for the general design flaw in that concept.
2 Likes