Can someone explain to me the logic behind Conqs having 16 attack in castle age with 2 melee/2 pierce armor? A knight in castle age only has 10 attack and 2 melee/2 pierce armor. It seems to me that Conqs are in need of some kind of nerf, either in their attack or their armor, much like Burmese Arambi needed to get nerfed. Conqs are also much more accurate than Arambi which were recently nerfed. Any thoughts?
conqs have lower health, attack slower, and can miss as well. knights don’t really miss. conqs also require a castle to mass.
11 Likes
High cost, limited to castle, lack of other strong ranged options. They also get practically no improvement from their imperial age upgrade, meaning their castle-age spike is practically their main use. Afterwords they taper off hard.
They are indeed strong, but the spanish would need massive compensatory buffs to nerf the conq in Castle age. The Janissary is a superior unit, and it’s so nasty the Turks don’t get trash as a result.
5 Likes
The Arambai actually got buffed or nerfed depending on numbers, but it actually got nerfed against walls and buildings.
Conqs do not possess a threat to buildings because of their poor attack rate and food cost.
[insert complaint about how people don’t read patch notes here]
3 Likes
What?? Arambai is nerfed, and Conquistadors are fine, but can be affected by the Spanish bonus of fast firing HC/BC
that is pretty much already built into conquistadors as is. HC and Janns fire at 3.45 speed baseline but conqs fire at 2.9.
2 Likes
You beat me to the punch @Bthomas4821 …I was thinking about making a “Conquistadores Need a Nerf” post myself!
Now…I think that Conqs need to be nerfed in accuracy, because it is annoying–to me–that they are very accurate AND are highly mobile, being mounted on horses. The Spanish civ bonus affects both their Conqs AND their Hand Cannoneers, and yet players playing Spanish almost NEVER train Hand Cannoneers, because despite having better range than Conqs, Conqs are more accurate, and move faster.
I find that to be unfair…I remember quite clearly a match I had where I was pocket (as Franks) against another enemy pocket player, who was Spanish, and he kept hit-and-running my knights and sniping them…and when I switched to Elite Skirms, the unit that is *supposed to be the main counter to Conqs, I could not catch the suckers!
I love playing Spanish myself…so I know for a fact, both fighting against them AND as them, that Conqs are ridiculously.
Another way that could be made to nerf them, would be to make them slower than most cavalry with Husbandry. Spanish also get Husbandry, but my thinking process is saying that perhaps if Conqs were slow enough for Knights/Cavaliers/Paladins to chase them, that that might be a good nerf for them. Removing Husbandry from the Spanish tech tree would unfairly nerf Spanish Hussars and Paladins, which I do not want. I only want to see the Conqs be nerfed.
Hmmmm…perhaps removing 1 pierce armor so that they are a bit weaker to archer and javelin fire, like the Byzantine Cataphract and the Lithuanian Letis (both of whom also have 1 reduced pierce armor) would be a better, more fair nerf to the Conq.
Patch notes are not necessarily proof that a unit NOW is in the right spot when it comes to balance.
Arambai dmg nerf is compensated with 100% dmg for missed shots. Conq’s missed shot only do 50% dmg. Besides, Arambai and Knight attack much faster than Conq. Moreover, Arambai is affected by Ballistics while Conq, as a gunpowder unit, is not. One thing they are similar in, both units fall off in Imperial age.
Spanish has a relatively weak early game. It relies on Conq in Castle age very much. Conq is the power unit to make Spanish has a strong Castle age. Nerf Conq will hurt overall strength of Spanish. Besides, Spanish misses Xbow upgrade, Siege Engineer and Parthian Tactics. In other words, they cannot rely on foot archer at all in Castle age and siege as well as Cavalry archer in Imperial age are less reliable. Conq is the only one that can be relied for ranged fire in Castle Age and even Imperial Age though it falls off.
1 Like
Conquistadors are good ONLY at castle age.
They are also difficult to mass, becauce they need 650 stone to be recruited from just 1 castle. One conquistador may be recruited for 24 seconds, while Ethiopian Shotel Wariors may be recruited for 8 seconds, and with a researching a tech- for just 4 seconds.
At Imperial age, they do NOT receive ballistics to their guns… Also, at Imperai alge most of the units have range 7 or 8, while Conquistadors continue to have range- 6 .
Also, Spanish receive bonus fo their TRADE carts only after Imperial age and after playing a long game for at least 55 minutes…
While the Turks have Bonus- Gold mining from the start of the game at Dark age. The first 55 minutes, the Turks will have big advantage at gold, while the Spanish just must survive…
At the same time the BURMESE, who receive FREE upgrades for 400 resources, may build very easy - 2 castles to recruite Arambai.
The building bonus of the Spanish mean only 1-3 wood bonus for a building.
At Imperial age the Cavalry archers are better and easier to mass than the conquistadors. Also if you compare Shotel Warriors who cotst 85 resources , the War elephants who cost 275 resources, the Counquistadors costs 130 resources. The Shotel warriors are recruited for 8 seconds, the War elephants for 31 seconds and the Conquistadors- for 24 seconds… Very hard to mass unit at a civ without eco bonus !!
About hand cannoners, at range 6, the Hand cannoners and te Conquistadors have nearly the same accuracy… The accuracy of a unit is at the longest range. At close range it increase. So the Burmese Arambai have 100 % accuracy at close range. It is the same for Hand canoners and Conquistadors.
Now, after the increasing of the accuracy the Turk Elite Janissary after the last Aoe 2 DE patch, the Elite Janissary have about 81 % accuracy at range 6, while the Elite Conquistadors have ONLY 70 % accuracy at range 6.
At imperial age, the Conquistadors are inferior to most of the other range units and difficult to mass.
I think the Conqustadors must benefit from Ballistics and to decrease their recruitment time from 24 seconds to 15- 16 seconds.
Well that explains it all. Franks tend to be weak to fast hit and run units. Especially since their horribly bad skirmishers can’t really help. The dude could have made arambai, kichak, mangudai or normal cav archers you would have struggled just as much.
The OP’s question is “why is this not nerfed when arambai are nerfed”, but if he had known conqs are nerfed already he might have reconsidered his opinion.
Lol that has more to do with the HC than the conq. 
How often do we even see conqs in imperial age anyway?
Again like so many arguments on this forum you create a vacuum for your comparison. How would CA fair in your argument?
How much more does food on a conq hurt Spanish eco compared to the wood cost on other CA? Nevermind the exorbitant gold cost
How much does the lack of ballistics hurt them?
Have you bothered looking at the PA on a FU tatar HCA? Or the HP+PA on a turk HCA?
On top of all other CA civs have eco bonuses, compared to Spains very weak one.
And finally, you don’t seem to realise mangudai exist right?
You just neeed to be prepared against spanish conqs. They aren’t that strong, they just have insane pushing potential if you try to outboom the spanish. It’s also silly, because spanish have no eco. Just make enough ranged counters in early castle and you are fine if you see the enemy building castles.
1 Like
While you are mostly correct about the Spanish…they do get a nice eco bonus in their Team Bonus of additional gold generated in trade units, which makes Spanish better than even the Franks in sustaining Paladin armies (or Conq armies) in the late game.
Also conqs, while strong, are countered by pikes and skrims which are trash, so it’s very easy to mass counters to conqs. Even light cav isn’t too bad vs. conqs