2
But the change it forced into other infantry units is one of the best thing happened in the history of the game. Obuch can lose 1 PA or reduce 1/0 and then 0/1 armor per attack instead of 1/1.
1 Like
Which is really a good thing as currently all cav civs just streamroll archer civs at least on ladder. A cav civ with clear weakness to archer is yet to discover.
Increase the gold cost by 5. There is no way that a decent UU only cost 20 gold. It is the 2nd cheapest infantry UU but it is not the 2nd weakest which means Obuch is overpowered.
3 Likes
Itâs an interesting idea to move the nerfs in that direction, but losing anything more than 2-3 damage seems too extreme, and would be a pretty severe viability nerf until you get large numbers of both the unit and a complimentary DPS unit. Which isnât the kind of design I like for UUs generally. That said, I think the Obuchâs DPS is a little too stronk for its gimmick/cost. Iâll modify my previous suggestion to +10 gold cost, and -1 AT. Even -1/2 attack (7/8, Same as Kamayuk) is a possibility, but Iâd start with the minimum effective dose of nerfs.
And Obuch dies to Hand Cannons and Cavalry Archers. Even if you exclude those 2, consider other mold-breaker infantry that are not really hard countered by any of the other units in those 3 buildings. (Elite) Kamayuks for example, kill swordsmen, cav, and trade about as well vs. Arbs as Obuchs do - they tank fewer hits due to lower HP, but engage and surround better due to higher speed/range. Serjeants Iâd say are similar in that way - less impressive vs knights, but decent vs swordsmen, and very hard to kill with archers. Nobody thinks Serjeants or Kamayuks are OP though because their cost is better aligned with their performance, and theyâre not on the civ with the strongest farm bonus. But I grant that Obuch punches a little too hard given both its gimmick and its cost, which is why I prefer it gaining cost and losing attack.
I agree that this comp is too strong for how much it costs, which is why I favor a cost increase above all (as well as probably removing Arb).
Poles already have a weakness to strong ranged units, the problem is that the manifestation of this is extremely muted by their OP eco/cavalry spam such that they usually donât have to worry about taking bad fights vs. (particularly foot) archers. ATM their worst 7 matchups are against Tatars, Spanish, Mongols, Magyars, Lithuanians, Bulgarians, and Berbers - 5/7 of which share a common theme of strong mobile ranged units. If their eco/cav spam and tech flexibility are nerfed (along with a cost increase for Obuch), this weakness is going to become more pronounced. Hence my hesitancy to think itâs a fabulous idea to nerf an overtuned Unit along a dimension in which the Civ is already quite subpar (but again, this is currently masked by other OP aspects). Might just lead to people in 6 months wondering why multi-nerfed Poles have a 44% WR vs Cav Archer civs. Thatâs my intuition anyway, but I could be wrong. Mainly just trying to transcend a âUrumi DESTROYS all other units in a Youtube videoâ level of predicting how a costlier Obuch would play out within the framework of a nerfed (eco/tech) Poles. Regardless of how that ends up though, Iâm definitely ready for Poles and a few other civs to get the nerf stick, and Dravidians and a few other civs to get the buff baton.
Arbalest, yes, Bracer, probably not. Would make their skirms unusable in Imp.
2 Likes
This is pretty reasonable, I think. Kamayuks cost 30 gold, Serjeant cost 35 gold. So, I find the gold cost of obuch to be quite weird.
The closest comparison is with urumis, who also cost 20 gold. However, Ouchs have +20 HP, and +1/+2 armour. Obuchs also only cost 55 food in comparison to the urumiâs 65. Urumis sound cool on paper, but they are extremely vulnerable to arrows from both archers and defensive structures. Obuchs are a much more well-rounded unit, costing less, and having more survivability.
Imo, their cost should be 30 gold and 60 food, and they should have 7/8 attack.
In that case, taking away arbalest and thumb ring would be good. Thumb ring isnât a huge deal for elite skirms, like it is for the archer line.
1 Like
Iâm so glad you said âoneâ. I think its not Obuch but rather Poles being a strong eco civ with cheap knights, trample damage hussar apart from Obuchs which is the main problem. If suppose Obuchs replaced the uu of some dead weak non cavalry civ like Bengalis, Dravidians or Vikings, they wonât be so much of a problem as you feel right now.
Anyways its totally fine to increase their training time to something like 15 or 16 seconds. Poles anyways get benefit from their stone mining, so can add more castles if they need to go Obuchs. I wouldnât prefer other stats being nerfed as they would join the list of rarely needed infantry unique units like jaguar, urumi, samurai etc.
Lot of good points made by many people by comparing their cost with other infantry unique units. In general, apart from Ghulam and Huskarl, all other infantry unique units cost way more food or gold or both than what they are worth. Thatâs also another reason why Obuchs look much stronger in comparison.
1 Like
Might be a bit off topic, but⊠Couldnât we add the mechanic of being able to repair armor with a villager instead of only full healing with a monk ?
I think if you buff, or at least make viable, the other infantry UU of the game it is a good way to nerf the Obuch
I still think the best way to nerf the Poles is in its eco; but your point is valid, better buff the other infantry UU than nerf the Obuch to its oblivion
2 Likes
Will revive this topic, just saw World Cup Mexico vs Spain, see Lobodelanieve, and realize how broken elite obuch is, how can go and pass vs both melee and even bengali ele archers lol.
1 Like
I think the opposite, that almost every infantry UU should be as good as obuch, like serjeants and the like
5 Likes
Did we watch the same match?
In the game i saw, the poles pocket heavily outboomed the byz pocket, countered his camels by going obuch then the byz player hardly ever used his camels vs the memelukes (where they would serve a purpose) and instead lost them over and iver again, while also queuing up 30+ catas before upgrading them.
This was just poles outplaying and outbooming, not the Obuch itself.
3 Likes
I also think attack nerf makes the most sense, gearing them towards support unit against heavy units
They should be tanky enough to use the ability though.
I propose -4 attack and +5 HP
-4 attack is too much, I donât think they need a nerf but -4?
1 Like
Its a closed map 4v4 setting. This is one of those settings where even units like Urumi swordsmen or Teutonic knights have their place. Doesnât mean theyâre OP or need a nerf.
This isnât even worth mentioning. They just didnât die and the mamelukes cleaned them up. And Bengali Ele archers arenât that good against melee, Dravidian ones are the better unit.
Exactly. Otherwise theyâll remain an unnecessary unit in all non 4v4 settings.
1 Like
But Urumi Swordsmen have lower HP, and lower melee and pierce armor, Teutonic Knights cost way more and move way slower to be even good here.
And still one unit shouldnât be able to pass both melee and ranged units this way
You said that, Poles were outbooming and outplaying everyone because they are OP here, not even fun to play against such broken civ.
1 Like
Doesnât matter. Urumi is stronger unit than Obuch because it has armor ignoring 29 attack, 50% splash damage 0.75 radius which is 2 times stronger than War Elephant (24 attack, same 50% splash, 0.5 radius), with only 20s reload time (Coustillier reload time is 40s), and Urumi can force engagement with its 1.05 speed (Obuch has 0.9 speed). Poles is better civ due to broken Folwark but Urumi is better than Obuch.
Same. I also mentioned that Poles is OP when civ first introduced, now it is experimented and finalized that it is OP civ. Folwark is OP building. If Folwark give 15% farming speed, it will be okay.
1 Like
How is Urumi swordsman better than Obuch when:
- 65f 25 vs 55f 20g
- 55HP and 65 HP for elite vs 80HP and 95HP.
- Urumi needs one expensive UT to do the ignore armor thing, Obuch doesnât need nothing and even the elite upgrade is cheaper.
- 1/0 armor vs 2/2 armor.
And the go and see how much utility has the Obuch armor breaking attack (that also increases the damage done to any unit).
Obuch is just wayy better than Urumi in most aspects.
3 Likes
Urumi beat every melee unit and it kill archers instantly if they manage to close them. Urumi even beat its counter Jaguar Warrior and Samurai. Obuchâs 95 hp and 2 PA isnât much compared to Urumi has ability to kill melee units en masse like Onager. You are underestimating Urumiâs speed advantage. Speed is one of the strongest asset even in closed maps.
Obuchâs armor breaking ability enables ally Arbalest to kill Paladins while Urumi destroy Paladin itself. Still Obuchâs armor ignoring ability is great combo with archers (it doesnât change too much with melee units as ally) but Urumi is simply better than Obuch.
It is expensive but it doesnât cumber Dravidians and also Urumiâs huge splash damage is OP before Wootz Steel, too.
1 Like
You gotta play real bad to have urumi swordman kill your archersâŠurumi are not better than obuch by ani means. The sheer cost already address that. (They cost more, need an expensive tech, have an expensive upgrade cost compared to obuch) and they simply die to any form of range, including skirms, and an onager shot flat them like smurfs
Obuch is slower yes, but elite as almost 100HP and has 6 PA, and has also utility. If the urumi hits a unit and has not its charge enabled, that Attack sucks and has no utility. If a obuch touches a unit at any given time, that unit suffers -1/-1 armor giving the obuch continuative value even while dead
That said, urumi is not a bad unit by ani means, itâs just balanced, with a clear strenght and a clear weakness, while obuch seem just super well rounded
I do not think obuch is OP but i would be ok for a slicht cost increase (like 5 food or 5 Gold) and upgrade increase (from 1400 res to 1500 or so) but i would like other mediocre or bad infantry UU to be well rounded as obuch or close to it
4 Likes
Exactly and in 4v4 closed map TGs even these units are used. Which means the use of Obuchs in such a setting doesnât make them OP.
Thatâs because of the type of role they play. Compared to most infantry units they have lower attack and no special bonus damage. To be able to remove armor from other units they have to last long enough in the battles, longer than some of the other units.
Ya this is the actual differentiating factor. The strength of Polish eco on closed maps. Thatâs the thing that needs a balance. Increasing the folwark cost and build time could be a good change.
Overall I wouldnât mind a cost nerf to the Obuch like +5 food and +5 gold but its not the unit rather the civ that is OP.
Heâs going to compare it again with war elephant and the dps narrative without realizing that they never last in battle to actually deal that much damage in most situations.
would never happen unless you heavily outnumber them which is again a blackforest or some other closed 4v4 setting.
Those are not its counters, just equally useless units as urumis themselves. Fighting infantry with infantry is meaningful only to kill specialist units like Eagles, Ghulam or Huskarl.
All of this again is a TG situation where thereâs some other ally unit that tanks the ranged attack. In 1v1 or 2v2, Urumis are useless, will never catchup with cavalry and will melt to ranged units and belong to a civ that has no food eco bonus nor an incentive for building castles. You need to hit a spot with 60+ elite urumis and 5 castles to do the kinds of things youâre talking about. Thatâs nearly impossible to do with Dravidians in 1v1.
Obuchs are great because their civ has cheap knights, strong hussar and a great food economy. Natural counters to this are Camels, halberdiers or some other stronger melee units. Obuchs are a counter to most of those. It fits the civ well, cheap and survives in most of the battles.
1 Like