Correct me if I’m wrong here but people complain about too many Paladin civs. Here are the civs that have Paladins
11 out of the 37 civs ingame
29 out of the 37 civs
27 out of 37.
Please explain to me why 11 Paladin civs are way too much but 29 Champ civs and 27 HCA civs aren’t bad
I have never seem anyone complaing about the amount of paladin civs.
Secondly, why would it trigger you to the point of making a post about it?
We do have a few “tHiS iS nOt hIsToRicAlLy aCcUrAtEd” people. But that kind people you just ignore them because they most likely black forest ffa roleplayers anyway.
Champions are a mediocre unit on itself that its more comparable to cavalier and are easily countered by ranged units and outrun by cav.
HCA without all the upgrades or a bonus are pretty mediocre as well.
people love paladins design. mostloved unit so more paladin civs is no problem
I think call Franks or persian a hca civ just cuz they are avaible it’s too much… it is not a viable sttategy for them.
But I don’t mind another paladin civ or a new cavalier++ civ (as bulgarians)
Yes for me more pala civs=better
Especially for Georgians
You haven’t read the Age 2 forums much then
I’m not triggered, I am just confused as to why they are upset about the number of Paladin civs whereas HCA and Champs are spread across more civs than Paladins. Arbalests too
The difference is that most of those civs with access to paladin will actually go knights and eventually paladin (in team games) given half a chance. They are paladin civs because the paladin is pretty much their most important unit (line). Comparing that to civs with access to champions doesn’t work. Champions can be a nice unit to have, but they’ll be either supplemental or situational at the best of times. In 2v2’s in particular there are paladin civs and arbalest civs, and a couple of unique unit cavalry archer civs like Mongols. Most civs will fall into one of those categories, if they don’t they’re probably a suboptimal choice for the 2v2 format. It’s not about access to a unit, it’s about the most viable game plans.
That would be my guess anyway, I haven’t paid too much attention to people complaining.
Champions are designed to be the most generic unit in the game, so that’s why it’s given to a lot of civs. A lot of civs have HCA because ES gave the upgrade to literally every civ that has husbandry, and FE didn’t make enough non HCA civs to reverse the trend, but no one really cares since the number of civs that are any good with CA is much lower than the number of civ that merely get the tech. For fun I went ahead and counted them:
Civs that are without question good CA civs: Huns, Indians, Japanese, Magyars, Saracen, Tatars, Turks (7 civs)
Civs that could go CA but it’s a novelty play cuz they have better options: Berbers, Chinese, Cumans, Lithuanian, Mongols, Spanish, Vietnamese (7 civs)
Civ that go CA cuz there is literally nothing else in their archery range: Bulgarians
So it’s anywhere from 5 less actual HCA civs than paladin to merely 3 more. Heck you can even remove Celts/Byz from the list of paladin civs (as they are worse in comparison to every type of HCA I listed) and the difference still wouldn’t be this massive. No reason to bother with that, really.
It’s also a discussion seen in relation to other underused unit lines like the Eagle Warrior, Steppe Lancer and Battle Elephant.
if these become overrused too wont be special no more
Byzantines and Celts can’t effectively use Paladins. They both lack bloodlines and one Blacksmith upgrade.
Same could be said about any unit line like Paladins or Siege Onagers which would lead to no more new civs.
It’s just a way to say that there’s more design space left in regards to EW and BE just by doing the same things as they did with Paladins and similar.
please god, no elite battle elephants in castle age. that would just be absurd.
I’m surprised you didn’t respond sooner, you’re usually one of the first ones to talk about these kind of things
Those units are just too limited to consider in the wider landscape of civs and with the exception of Eagle Warrior, they arent normall tied to the most competitive civs
Khmer, Malay and Mongols cough and Burmese, Viet and Tatars are probs underrated as well
Those civs arent nearly as viable in lower elo levels
And Eles are really really slow while Steppe Lancers are pretty bad
Well a paladin player can win a team game with the proper boom and timings, a champion or hca player can’t do the same damage with those units.
The difference is that paladins are a quite powerful unit that in good numbers they smoke their counters and with the right combination they can be unstoppable unless some heavy siege is involved in the other side.
Paladin is not a generic unit it is like Siege onager a top unit on its class, so having more paladin civs just make the civ difference wider.
Just asking, how much attack and HP does the non-elite battle elephant have?