Reducing HC cost does not suddenly make them super viable, a lot of the problem is the time it takes to mass them. A lot of civs need cavalier for their mobility and bulk, neither steppe lancers or battle elephants can do both. Also several of those changes would buff civs that are strong and nerf weak civs.
I did read everything. And I saw a tons of things. Mainly misunderstanding and general lack of knowledge. Donât take it badly but really it doesnât feel like you actually watch that much pro streams. Because if you did you wouldnât wish to give some civs stuff they already have or remove stuff they already lack. Nor would you wish to remove trebs from several civs. The list could go on.
The point is, I donât think this conversation will be fruitful for you or anyone else.
3 Likes
SL should be better than cavaliers against archers, they already have +1 Range and better movility.
Add 15hp and a bonus vs archers and then they would have a role.
They are not knights, but they need to be a better option in some situations
The whole point of the SL is that itâs weaker against archersâŠ
2 Likes
why should it been so ?It is great design of cavarly unit based of nomadic cavarly knights needs to be removed from Tatars,Cumans,Mongols,Turks and even Huns and this Steppe Lancer must be given all of them.(historically accurate and more flash gameplay )
Mongols with Extra HP
Turks with Free Elite Upgrade and +1PA
Tatars with +1/+1 Armor
Cumans with fast training speed
Huns with lesser cost (maybe ?)
also buffing them little bit then we have another type of semi-heavy cavarly which is really strong in those nomadic guys hands.
1 Like
Iâm pretty sure organ guns are already affected by siege engineers. Instead, Iâd suggest rebalancing organ guns, maybe make their bullets all do a set 5 or 6 damage each to give them a specialized identity as a unit that specializes in destroying groups of units instead of acting like a more powerful hand cannoneer.
I would like the addition of SL to the Hunnic Tech tree. I hate the lack of options past Castle Age with the civ. Every late game its just basically 80 farmers and maximum hussar spam
Heavy cav archers, solid knights and hussars. What more do they need?
something that doesnt die to arbs and pikes, admittedly SL wonât help with that at all, but at least thereâll be a less gold intensive gold unit to produce than the current âroosterâ
You know you need to reconsider your balance ideas when even Equalizer realizes they make no sense. 
But no hate, I appreciate people throwing out ideas, just maybe letâs not completely redesign the game and all the civs.
1 Like
I would take Huns with the Hussar/Heavy Cav Archers late imp composition over any civ going Halb/Arb. Hussar/HCA is arguably the strongest unit combo in the game, provided you can get to it.
I usually loathe rolling this civ (random) especially in team games. At best I can hope to spam enough units to hold/not die and just hope that my allies are faring better than I am; usually not a lot of fun
Hmm the Huns? Really? I love them.
1v1 - Fast scout rush into either archer or kts, then transition into cheap cav archers while booming up.
Team - can play archers into CA on the flank or knights from the pocket.
I guess theyâre not for everyone, but I love playing mobile civs.
Might be playstyle. For flank I like aggressive civs with strong openers, so something like Incas, Koreans, Spanish⊠If I go pocket, I prefer strong lategame options, Byzantines, Sicilians, Goths, Burgundians, etc.
Must be playstyle because I wouldnât think of the first list as the strong opener civs Iâd want, and the second list doesnât really have the late options Iâd want. But thatâs why AOE is great, something for each of us!
Byz/Sicilian/Burgundian pocket over Huns pocket, what?
2 Likes
These are civs that lack lategame options, and are heavily dependant on timing attacks.
1 Like
You are missing the whole point of the Huns. They are meant to be poor in technology. You meant to end the game early with them. Not sit and boom and get lots fancy nice tech. Otherwise, if they have more options, they would become quite OP due to no house bonus.
They donât need infantry buffs. They donât need siege buffs. They have horse archers and knights. That will do them. Their weakness is their lack of tech in the late game. They are a rush civ. That said, they many do fairly well in team games regardless.
1 Like
Each have something useful about them, at least weâve been making them useful. Burgundian is nice because Paladin appears way earlier than for anyone else. So makes a good opportunity to really launch a strong attack at that time frame. If game goes late, Coustillier are great for siege sniping due to the charge attacks, they get Bombard Towers, which can always be made useful for holding a position (forcing the enemy to use more pop into siege)
Byzantines have Cataphract. Yes, they suck in Castle age, but when you get FU Elite Cataphracts, they are very strong. They also have cheap Camels, which is nice for dealing with Paladin civs. They are also very flexible civ, so options can be changed. If it turns out that we need Arbs and not cavalry, Byz can do. So thatâs nice, itâs almost like a wildcard civ, so it has the added advantage of not being predictable. Plus thereâs the cheap trash.
Sicilians have Serjeants, which are just all around good meatshields in front of siege/range. They can build donjons anywhere, so serjeants are also very easy to reinforce anytime, anywhere. Plus the civ has a very cool bonus that helps to deal with trash. They are also awesome for sending out early raids for the same reason. Spears lot less effective vs their Scout cav.
etc.
Itâs 100% true, but this isnât quite the late game yet. Burgundian need to take the advantage before the late game happens or else youâre not fighting paladin vs cavalier but no bloodlines pala vs (likely) bonused paladin.
Yes, but thatâs not enough for TG. Thatâs why Magyars go HCA or paladins over Magyar huszar. Or why people rarely pick a meso pocket on purpose to make eagle warriors.
Still lose to paladinos.
Cheapness matters less in TG. And making Byz camels in TG is just asking to get cleaned by enemy archers. Or better camels.
Good for 1v1, but this is team games with fixed position. So having holes in your tech tree matters less, because your teammates can cover those, and since you can choose your position on the map you donât need to avoid specialized civs to not end up as flank Franks or something funky like that.
Team game = your skirms get killed by their knights, your pikes get killed by their archers. Can be useful if youâre playing with randoms who donât cooperate at all?
I like Byz but team games truely donât make them any favour.
I wish it worked, I tried real hard but it just doesnât lol. You would get rolled by cav, and even if youâre only playing against arbs/cav archers you can eventually push them back but it takes so long that you will probs get raided to death before gaining enough terrain. Also Sicilian very unconveniently lack fortified walls so it doesnât help lmao
The problem is that the civ is supposed to build donjons and castle forwards, but then your army canât defend them well enough (cavalier that resist halbs isnât useful when the siege isnât guarded by halbs but huge masses of arbs/paladinos/UUs) And then you get raided cuz you have no defense in your base.
Meanwhile Huns bring to the table:
- a stronger eco bonus
- a faster scout rush
- your stables and those of your other pocket (or both your pockets if you happen to be flank) work 20% faster
- FU paladin + FU hussar
- itâs easy to go for CA with them