But the whole thing is, paladin takes soo long to be ever achieved in 1v1, and if you see paladins in 1v1 vs you, mostly you are already doomed because of some mistakes you did.
I have not heard that comparison before, it is interesting. Mayan Elite Eagle + El Dorado costs 1550 food and 950 gold. It is already more expensive than Paladin upgrade at 1300 food + 750 gold, unless you mean Cavalier + Paladin for 1600 food + 1050 gold, which is just 50 food and 100 gold more than Eagle Imperial upgrades. This does put some perspective on the strength of Mayan Eagles, they need to be strong with that price tag.
The sad thing is Incan Eagles, which cost 1400 food + 1100 gold for Imp upgrades (Elite and Fabric Shields) and perform worse than Mayan Eagles or Paladins in almost every scenario.
Trust me 50% to 40% is big difference. It means +20% damage is taken from bonus attacks. If it nerfed to 33%, it would be too much which is +33% more bonus attack taken.
I want to give feudal age longsword in order to compensate my nerfs.
- Barrack technologies are 15/30/50% cheaper in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age and Militia-line upgrades are available one Age earlier than other civilizations.
- Serjeant food cost decreased from 60 to 50.
This whole âPaladin is basically never seen in 1v1â story is really a misleading narrative. Yes we donât see Paladin very often in 1v1s but that doesnât mean they would be bad. In certain situations itâs actually one of the best, most efficient upgrades in the game.
Especially in matchups vs Archer civs it can often be the very last punch/powerpike fot the paladin civs to end the game.
What the problem with the sic hauberk cavaliers is, that they performing about the same as franks paldins in exactly these situations where you want to make the paladin upgrade. But much faster and cheaper. That is the big difference.
I like this idea, but not for Sicilians. They have enough of an identity already, though I could be onboard for a First Crusade nerf in exchange for a Serjeant buff or cost reduction.
Maybe a new civ could have Dark Age MAA (although the upgrade cost would impact Feudal times). I donât think Feudal longsword would be OP since theyâd still be slower than Archers until Castle Age squires and mediocre against buildings without Arson, while also lacking Castle Age Blacksmith upgrades. Castle Age could have THS, but I think Champion should still remain in Imperial (similar tiering to Cuman Rams, with standard and Capped available early, but Siege Ram staying in Imp).
I firstly think all barrack technologies are open one Age Earlier, thus supplies in dark age, Squires and Arson in Feudal Age. Now I think only militia-line techs is one age earlier and barrack technologies are 15/30/50% cheaper in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age is more balanced. Squires LS in Feudal Age could cause early gg.
I donât think Castle Age Champion is OP. I am 100% sure that it wonât be researched until Imperial due to high upgrade cost.
Free upgrade in a trash unit in a full trash civ is too OP
You need to take something back
1 Like
Yes thatâs true, but it comes with a huge cost and time, also on aggressive maps the game will be ended before paladin comes out and in closed ones (1v1) is where halbs are the true counter.
Yes, and thatâs why Iâm saying if sicilians keep that, the they need a strong weakness here, with bloodlines out, it means those cavaliers will die to basically bloodlined cavalier, also, being now countered by heavy camels to make them more fair, and btw the original bonus (announced) was 33% less bonus damage and it wonât be reduced to that atm.
And to offset the nerf, Hussar is a must, so their late game trash isnât bad, in fact bloodlineless Hussars absorbing 50% of bonus damage would be strong, fun but not OP
Want more, give them Thumb Ring, so they can be played as flank in TGs with strong and usable arbalests.
More? Buff serjeant in castle age, by giving more attack (8 to 10) because right now the serjeant attack is quite patethic, as well in Imperial (11 to 12) so they can compete with other infantry lol, and serve as a strong melee UU. you will get then a civ defined by the UU instead of a broken cavalier.
But thats not enough for the civ, at this point the castle building time bonus has to go or be nerfed, not sure how, and ofc removing the 7 serjeant spawn, with the buff mentioned, from the first crusade UT, maybe replace it with allowing Serjeants to build castles, so serjeants gain a duty in late castle/Imperial age.
Why not? Some bonuses has been removed or delayed in the past.
Thatâs the easiest (and laziest) way to balance. But I donât think thatâs the only way to balance.
If you donât want to remove or delay it, I think it is best to limit for only one armor class, maybe Cavalry. So at least skirmishers are okay against archer and skirmisher.
There is always option for replacing one identity with another. Incas and Koreans, the two TRUSH civs are good example. (Incas kinda lack identity though).
Iâm not sure what do you mean by lame bonus. If it means useless bonus then I disagree. And if you mean not good designed bonus, I do agree. But 50% bonus damage reduction is even lame in that sense.
*Ethiopians.
I donât think free E.Skirms will be OP. But for Burmese I think it will be dumb as after first few minutes in castle, it is still the same.
Exactly. UT swap is an option if devs donât want to give them a skirms bonus at all.
They got their Stable buff but too late to have an impact. And then after researching very OP in team games. Siege is not a good alternative due to Arena.
I want them to have BBC to make their Arb play better, considering their WB/HC bonus is being nerfed (so no fast Imp arb play will be possible).
We are talking about one of the saddest most hopeless civs in the game that practocally have no good option against archers. It is both probably balanced and fits the identity of the civ. Way better than using it in a civ which are built around having bad archers
We havent seen any civ lose the bonus their entire playstyle is built around. People play Sicilians because they have this bonus.
Removing it or delaying it isnt an option. Its not a lazy or an easy option. Its just a logical one.
The other option is to mess with the tech tree but that will be super hard to do properly.
We may as well rename them to Taiwanese if we get to make them a totally diferent civ, and no Koreans, Incas and Teutons kept their identity through the changes. Koreans and Incas are still great trush civs, even despite the nerfs.
They are super weak on themselves. Thats why they are lqme, they require an strong eco,military or just q particular map to see any use.
Sicilian Cavaliers already perform poorly against enemy cavalry. IIRC 50 Hauberk Cavaliers lose against 52 generic Cavaliers, and 2 units are much cheaper than the Hauberk upgrade. Sicilians are better off not even researching the tech in this case, which makes them on par with Burmese or Italian Cavaliers when facing enemy cavalry.
Its not really. You use what I call parthnan tactics. Which is using percentages to make things appear bigger then they are.
And even still it doesnât warrant cheaper barracks techs + age earlier for militia line. How you can think feudal longswords would be balanced is beyond me.
Itâs an extra 15 health, 3 attack, 1 melee armor, 1 extra damage vs buildings and 4 dmg vs eagles. Or if I was doing what youâre doing.
33% more health, 50% more attack, 50% more bonus to blogs, 200% more vs eagles.
2 Likes
They beat literally every cavalier 1v1 except teutons and lithuanians who have all 4 relics. Is it costly? Yes. But if you can research it while maintaining numbers why not?
Hold on since when Spanish are bad against archers?
Sicilians have halberdiers, and Sicilian cavalier+halberdier will win vs a similar combo from another civ or against cavalier + ranged unit.
1 Like
Vikings wonât get BBC ever so donât get your hopes up. Also they wonât get siege onager. The logical conclusion is that the should get better scorps, since their cav must be bad.
Vikings primarily suffer against infantry and archers lategame, especially when those are used in a composition. For example, a Viking can do nothing against Jaguar/Samurai/Jap Champ/Slav Champ/Aztec Champ with a few HC or other damage dealing units behind it.
And both of those can be countered by scorps.
UmmâŠIncas? And locking the bonus behind castle age UT is not taking the whole bonus unlike casusincorrabil wants.
And Sicilians will still be a good knight civ in Imperial. As good as it is now.
Also why an Infantry & Cavalry civilization has to have so good archer and skirmisher? Bulgarians is the only other one and see what type of archers they have. Burmese is close to fit the title and maybe has the worst archer in the game. Why not at least limit the bonus only on cavalry armor class, and maybe infantry too if you want. And then fix First Crusade into a good tech.
I think you are trying to say that they are only good in arena. But 47-48% win rate in Arabia, 11-13 win/loss in KOTD4, very frequent pick and ban there prove otherwise. Point to be noted that at least 8 out of their 13 losses is against Vikings. So if we exclude that particular match up, it is 11-5. Really great result.
Didnât like this. Seem like a modified Byzantines that can be played as aggressive. Also with Arbalest with TR that even takes 2 less damage from skirmisher will make them an Archer civ in practice while in game description will say the exact opposite.
I donât think Incas was ever intended to be such an oppressive tower rushing civ though, just something Noboru popularised. Iâd rather see some of their eco bonuses worked around or combined together rather than bringing that back, or some other military bonus to give them a stronger identity than eagleskarls. Couriers coming back to give their land infantry bonus speed could be cool, though likely not a strong buff.
2 Likes
I mean, Spain only viable strat (conqs) is really good against melee