Now that their upgrade cost was significantly reduced courtesy of the new bonus those guys are dangerous.
Hera confirmed
I would say it’s a borderline case. The idea is iffy but at least the implementation is okay-ish since it’s a passive reload, and not an actve ability a la AoE3.
But in TG you will be up against archers, paladins and elephants so there is no room for catas most of the time. And trash units to support them are a bad idea in TG too. In 1v1 however, if you’re up against a civ that is weak to catas and you get them up and running there is no one to come and save them.
Spammable from stables and is literally the fastest siege weapon in the game. Pretty darn useful.
Yes! If u mean konnik and GC are better! Imperial camel is like cavs without plate barding now! Cataphract way too costly! Longbow takes too long to create!
His argument was “In a team game, better create Paladins at stables, rather than Huszars from Castles” and I agree with that. The Huszar for the most part is a 1vs1 Imperial Age unit - and now doubt it is a solid S or A tier at that stage.
Right if he meant ‘hussar from stables’. Magyar huszar is trained when there is no gold/setting up trades, non sense to compare to paladin. Comparing to huszar it is way better in killing siege, so as long as i get 3 castles i only invest in magyar huszar
Are they though? Is it that they’re situational or that vikings generally lend themselves better to closing out the game sooner and have access to the units to do so?
I mean like if vikings didn’t have FU arbs wouldn’t we see zerks more often? Or if vikings bonuses didn’t give them a huge eco spike early that Peters out toward the late game. If zerks belonged to one of the slower civs, wouldn’t we see them more? Extreme example,like Byzantines.
Do we even see viking champs that often even though they’re technically stronger(although less utility)?
I could be wrong here but i feel like the zerk is the CA of infantry. Its good, but becomes end level boss when FU. And doesn’t even need all its upgrades to be so strong.
No, you are correct, they are really strong. They do ok even against archers due to their movement speed. Part of the reason we don’t see them is probably because it is an expensive and slow transition to do. If you are viking, you go archer line 99% of the time, so it is both expensive (but affordable) and very slow to transition to add berserks.
Basically, infantry civs can do a good job to fight back Goths spam. Cav and archer civs can also rely on swordsman to fight as swordsman is cost-efficient vs huskarl and produced in barracks.
But it is true; if the Goths hit imp you are dead, and this is why pros try hard to kill Goths in feudal/castle before they got a good eco. If you want my opinion, Goths is the most broken civ in the game and the hardest to balance, this was AOK devs fault from the beginning
Many civilization can stop a Goth flood in its track and push it back. Anything with full upgrades champs can stand a chance. If it has bonused infantry then it’s the Goth who will have a hard time. And if has a specialized anti-infantry unit Goths better not even think about late-game.
TBF stopping goths had been much easier with supplies now; Goths are definitely underdog vs the likes of aztecs and vikings with superior eco and units; I doubt if going hand cannons is actually the better choice for Goths as the enemies are 100% doing infantry intially. However if Goths survived the early imperial and get resources accumulated (or slinged etc), they will win by flooding over and over again with 10 barricks