Teutons die to for instance Mangudai but Mangudai has 8 damage + 25% attack speed. Göktürk Cavalry Archer has 6 damage + 2 range + less gold. In conclusion, they can’t counter even Teuton Paladin. They are very good against a lot of units like short range archers, mangonel and scorpions but they are weak against high PA units. In castle age, Göktürks has no bonus to their cavalry archers other than gold replacement. If generic cav archer is enough to beat teutons Poles also should easily beat Teutons. Poles has better eco as well.
Slavs Boyar is a lot stronger than this +5 melee cavalier and cheaper to upgrade. Cavalier don’t need castle but I think pros are exaggerating castle cost and affordability.
High range archers are good against less range ranged units basically. +2 range doesn’t help against melee units much such as Cavalier. For instance, Longbow isn’t better than generic arbalest in terms of killing infantries.
If you can’t afford Paladin, you simply go cavalier. Cavalier also works. Persians and Burgundians can afford Paladin also Keshik, Boyar, Tarkan, Leitis work against Göktürks. Generic Skirmisher + Heavy Cavalry good composition against Göktürks.
I fear mostly 15% food bonus + 30% cheaper blacksmith might steamroll most of civs in early game to late castle. Early Imperial power is least concern.
It is truth. Extra range is very useful against other ranged units but against melee units, it effect very little.
Cav archer counter Knights if you have pro micro skills. Going knight against cav archer is valid option even in pro games because cav archer need mass to be useful and Knight is a lot better in raiding and Knight is useful in low numbers as well. You could watch last Red Bull Wololo V. Knight was used against cav archers very successfully. Cav Archer counter knights only if Knight can’t raid and prevent cav archer get mass like more than 25.
First off, can you please add the upgrades boni in parenthesis for your Unique Units, it would make them more readable. I gues both benefit from husbandry and bloodlines, the main UU benefuts from archer attack, armor, thumb rings, balistics, partian tactics, and +2 range from imperial UT ? And the other benefits from no monk teck because none are available?
For your stable, you should add “Battle elephants are missing of course”, just like for the eagle warriors.
Personaly, I don’t like the idea of the unit benefiting from attack upgrade but not range. I would either move the bonus damage to elite upgrade, or moving the range from the unit to the upgrade…
Likewise, I am not a fan of adding new mechanics like healing while moving. Event without this mecanics, it is so fast that it can me microed to heal while other unit move.
Besides that, the civ looks interesting. It seems from previous comments that you made quite a few balance changes. I agree with @MatCauthon3 that it is overtuned. You got top-tier knights for melee fights and very good archers/cav archers against ranged units.
Your crossbowmen with UT outrange onagers with siege engineers which makes them very strong, I don’t know if that was intentional.
The +5 armor of cavaliers also make them good against cavalry/paladins and camel civs
The +2 damage for hussars and the UU help against enemy cav archers and make your FU hussars a great trash unit against basically anything when you lack gold.
The “gold discount” for archers and cav archers along with the +2 range keep them relevant in the late game, even without the +1 damage and +5/+10 hp. So like your civ category suggests, you can use the civ both as an archer civ and as a cavalry civ without needed a tech switch.
the hunt and herdable bonus gives you around 100 food faster, which converts to 100 around 100 wood bonus starting feudal age, which makes it somehow viable for rushs (like italians)
So all around, your civ feels like a very well rounded civ without clear weak points, similarly to Magyars. I guess we can compare the two civs for balance tuning. Your civ has a similar late game, with a better early game (on RM, and a much weaker early game in EW) and a similar late game with tweaked archers and cav archers lines makeing them arguably less satisfying.
It benefit only archer attack armor, parthian tactic (don’t give bonus damage) and archer damage. Thumb ring doesn’t effect like skirmisher. Shaman also benefit from what cavalries benefit from except attack upgrades. Shaman is only for healing and annoy villagers with half conversion. I will add upgrades bonus in parenthesis. Thanks for reminding.
I edited post. I forgot eagle warrior and battle elephant is missing but it is obvious and I don’t want to fill database with my edits because all edited post is recorded and occupy space.
Tbh at least Teutons have onagers with SE so they can hit these cav archers somehow,but good luck being Mayans against these. They are faster than anything you could create and outrange anything that could counter them
Difference is magyars would be off to a slower start then this civ would and wouldn’t be able to transition as well. Also in 1v1 I’ll take +5 armor cavalier and +2 attack scouts over paladin. N2m their cheaper archers
Gokturks (Early period of modern Turks) are perfectly represented by Tatars (being a Turkic and full nomadic civ.)
Dude how many more Turkic civs do game needs? Huns ? Turks ? Cumans ? Tatars ? come on … Its enough !
In fact, Tatars and Cumans are same in history. In game, Tatars represent Golden Horde and Golden Horde’s Dynasty is Mongol and their people is Kiphcak (or Cuman, both word refer to same Turk Tribe). Golden Horde’s other name also Kiphcak Khaganate. There is no need to Cumans and Tatars both because they are same people. You are right about different Turk Nomadic People a bit. They have pretty much same features. Nomadic life, husbandry, all male is warrior (there were a lot of warrior women as well), horse archery with composite bow, strict rules, freedom of religion, raiding is daily bread. Their culture is around these values. Bulgar Khan Krum, Attila and Tamerlane lived same life.
But same rule applies for Europeans as well. French and German economy and military was same in history. Only Italians, Spanish, Portuguese had some different things and this things are very little and mostly about navy. Bulgarians and Slavs are same but in game, they are different. Therefore, Göktürks can be represented as different civ I guess.
Unless we only have big umbrellas like salvs celts indians anyone is a possibility to add.most of the civis already ingame are interrelated.Only few exceptions would be there like georgians tibet nubians that dont fit in fully with current civis.
i dont know much about their being same or not . But thing that im sure is Huns,Turks,Cumans,Tatars are actually one in the term of etnic origin. Even in game as far as i can understand Cumans&Tatars and Turks are speaking same language. Actually all of them including Mongols are derivants of Xiang-Nu (Eastern Hun’s) . Im ok with Turks representing more modern Turkic period focusing more gunpowder besides Cav archer and Light Cav. and Cumans,Huns or Tatars representing Early period of Turkic warfare focusing more on pure Cav force etc.