- Not even Trash
Magyar hussars > Bulgarian hussars > Farimba Lcav = Lithuanian hussars > Tatar hussars = Turkish hussars > Polish hussars = Mongol hussars = Generic FU hussars
In terms of overall usability I would say. Against cavalry civs obviously mongol and polish hussars a tier higher, but that’s specifics.
Arent Tatarsñ hussars a bit better than Liths thanks to the extra pierce armour and only -5 hp on melee?
Polish Hussar is unquestionably better than Mongol Hussars. Also, this list misses Berber and Cuman Hussar. @ElizaKolmakov’s list isn’t great list. Mongol Hussar’s ability doesn’t synergize with Mangudai. Mongol Hussar is good against melee but bad against range. Mangudai’s weakness is archer units not melees. Mongol Hussar doesn’t overlap Mangudai weakness. It is still good meat shield though. However, Generic Hussar would be better for Mongols.
My list excluding scout and light cavalry, only Hussar comparison with considering eco bonuses and supportive units:
Bulgarian Hussar > Magyar Hussar > Turk Hussar > Tatar Hussar > Farimba Light Cav > Berber Hussar > Lithuanian Hussar > Slav Hussar (for eco and supportive units) > Cuman Hussar > Polish Hussar > Khmer Hussar > Generic FU Hussars > Mongol Hussar.
Disagree there. I think mongols biggest threat are camels and paladins. For both the mongol hussar is better because of the higher hp. It is a better meatshield against melee units and therefore fits mongol army perfectly.
That’s also why Hera gave them an A rating in his Tier List, not because they would be better than generic hussars, but because they fit so well in the mongol army.
But I would agree that for normal civs it is better to have standard hussars than it would be if they had mongol ones.
And I think mongol hussars are better than poles because of that extra 22.5 hp, that is much more valueble than +1 melee armor and +2 attack.
I don’t think Camels and Paladins is big threat to Mangudai. Very few civ has Paladin and Paladin’s upgrades expensive and more timing than Mangudai. Mangudai also beat Paladins and Camels when they massed. Using buffed cav archers, archers and skirmishers against Mangudai is far better than camels and Paladins. Turks Cav Archer + Hussar composition smashes Mongol Mangudai + Hussar composition. Mangudai is hard to deal with unit because a lot of civs misses good cav archers, archers and skirmishers.
Hera is wrong about this topic.
No, it isn’t. +18 hp is 3 more shot (17 vs 20) from arbalest but +1 melee armor + 2 damage + +4 bonus againdt gunpowder units + 33% trample damage + Follwark is better than some hp.
Well, for raiding there is one very important thing and that’s resistance against TC fire. And ofc the higher HP of the mongols comes in handy there aswell. Not that they excel there (actually the standard hussar is insanely strong in that regard, as it “costs” more than half of it’s creation cost to just shoot it down with the TC (if all the shots hit). But for both the mongol hussar (about 40 %) and the winged hussar (with the folwark bonus (about 35 % of the invested vill time) are way less effective under tc fire.
And opposed to the mongols, the winged hussar is actually still mainly a raiding unit, so that’s the most important factor, how long you are able to herass the oponnents eco with them. And that’s where the poles winged hussars suck, in the most important stat.
ofc they are better if they could raid “for free”. But you shouldn’t count on opponents mistakes when evalueating this kind of stuff.
At the current state of 25 votes, the mean opinion is they are average. (I used a weightening system with OP = 8P, top-tier = 7P and so on. The mean by using this is 5.04 P which is very close to 5P == Average).
Looks like the community sees them as an average unit. (I think it is in comparison to the hussar as I didn’t clarified it, but still. Looks like there is no hype about that unit.
And I think that’s just wrong, I think poles FU winged hussars should be top tier, comparable to magyar, turks and tatars. Maybe with a different tweak, but definetely not “average”. That doesn’t makes sense.
They need to be average though. Its a civ with a farming bonusvat the end of the day
Considering they melt to arrows, regardless of the other useless bonusses they are getting - I voted for mediocre.
Certainly bottom tier in comparison to other Hussars, even the normal FU ones.
A trash unit costing 80 food, for a civ that already has a great farming bonus, the winged hussar is a good unit. Sure it lacks pierce armour, but once in melee it’s devastating against enemy archers, siege, monks… and can even hold its own against some types of infantry and other light cavalry. If you lose some on the way, it matters little, they are cheap. The Poles also have their much cheaper cavalier if you need a tankier unit.
Honestly having both a semi trash cavalier and Winged hussar with trample damage is kinda a bad concept.
Its kind of their identity, but yeah it feels unnecesary
Just going to point out what an apples to apples comparison to generic FU hussar looks like:
Without Lechitic Legacy:
With Lechitic Legacy:
So from where I stand it seems impossible to view this below “good”. It’s pretty objectively average or above average in everything except acting as a meatshield.
The thing is if Poles need a ranged meatshield their dirt cheap cavalier can perform that role. Adjusted for cost they have the same effective HP as normal cavalier but you can spam that mass 66% longer. If you have say 10% extra gold from stone that becomes 1.833% longer.
When you compare units you can’t hold behavior static. So many complaints about units devolve to “When I copy + paste a strategy and tactic from a unit I’m used to using onto this new unit it doesn’t work as well”. Well duh, you’ve optimized the behavior to maximize the return on the unit you’re used to using. You have to reoptimize when you switch units.
Isn’t it 4 for fu hussars aswell? Actually winged hussars don’t raid faster than fu hussars.
Totally disagree. I think this is the most important part of any raiding unit. Why do you think pathian tactics is so important for cav archers? It’s because of the occasional TC fire - and cav archers are much, much less exposed to it than hussars. Hussars are designed to go under the tcs and raid the farmers, whilst cav archers try to snipe from distance. So if a hussar goes down in 20 TC arrrows instead of 32 it’s a big deal. Yes, you can try to stay away from the TCs and should, but every time you take some fire it means it reduceds your numbers 50 % faster than fu hussars.
Then you have to bring in new hussars which need time to make and to move to the raiding spot.
And if the opponent then somehow makes walls, it’s even harder to replenish your raiding parties - so it is even more important that the raiding parties you have are durable. Imo that’s the most important stat for the hussar line, how long they can tank tc fire.
And that’s also why turks and tatars hussars are the best in the game, because they can even tank 48 (!) TC shots.
Imo this is the most important stat for hussars. And measured on this poles winged hussars are actually quite bad. Hussars are made for raiding, not mass battles in the middle of the map. They are just not designed for that. And also lechitic legacy can’t change this. Lategame trash wars are dominated by halbs - and guess what dies to halbs? Winged Hussars aswell. Lechitic Legacy can’t change anything about this.
I mean you could try to change this by giving winged hussars bonus vs halbs… But I don’t think this is a great idea, I prefer to have the common counter wheel intact.
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
The very fact that you’re able to raid means you’re already performing a very strong move. Whether you do this with light cav, winged hussar, regular hussar, whatever it doesn’t matter. You are still limited primarily by the number of hits to kill villagers which is 4 regardless of which choice. You’re not going to spend more than about 20% of your time under TC fire directly except against a few select like Lithuanians or Burgundians who have more of their base covered by TC fire. Which means weighted over the course of your raid you’re only going to lose numbers a bit faster.
A strong move made slightly less strong is still a very strong move. In that respect the marginal effect on win probability is relatively unchanged.
Well I think we won’t get to an agreement. Whilst You are right that the fact that you can raid is already a strong move, still having less armour makes it also less likely for you to get to the raiding grounds.
Besides I must admit that the impact against other ranged units and structures like castles is way less than against TC, the 2 missing pierce armor is also not neglible.
So it is also way harder for poles to even start raiding than for the top hussar civs. And lechitic legacy helps zero for that task.
TBH that was one of the reasons why I didn’t wanted the winged hussars as a hussar replacement. The design of that unit is just not fitting to what they were and the try of the devs to make the unit a good fighter was just rigged from the beginning. Hussars are just not designed for mass melee battles in the middle of the map. And if they were, they would be OP as hell.
And besides all the desperation of the devs to push polish winged hussars in that direction it just showed that they aren’t designed this way.
It would have been much better if the winged Hussar was a “medium cavalry” type of unit, like a better version of the steppe lancer. This would have been so much better in all aspects. Also this could have solved the issue with poles missing the last armor: Just give the winged hussars 3 PA so they would have the same as the steppe lancer in total.
I think you should try to put some numbers or run some tests because from what I’ve calculated/done I’ve noticed very little difference.
Integrate the amount of time hussars are alive vs winged hussar. This is the amount of hussar-time they’ve had to kill villagers from 0 to t with TCs being the only defense. I.e. its just like villager time but with hussars. Just pick any random number of units like 20 hussar/winged hussar. The minimum ratios is 0.667. That is the hussars have at most 50% more time to kill villagers at any point in time. They will never do better than this. However the minimum amount of time needed to make the raid unrecoverable from is unchanged because their DPS is the same in both cases.
If you actually try to optimize with the winged hussars you will find that 20% more hussars (~10% of which is covered by the farming bonus) yields more or less identical amount of hussar-time-in-eco. You have a stronger start but bottom out at 96% of the hussar-time-in-eco. So it depends on how long the raid lasts. This is about 9% more villager time (when incorporating the folwark bonus) invested into the raid to achieve a similar result. The only caveat is you have to be aggressive enough for pop cap to not be an issue, but this holds true for all civs. The less pop efficient the more churn you need so to speak.
I don’t think there’s any serious argument that needing 9% more villager time to achieve similar results is somehow a significant difference when almost everything else about the unit is significantly stronger. This is why I said you can’t compare units by copy-pasting behavior. You have to optimize for the new unit because the behavior you’re used to is optimized for the other unit.
If you have the apm like hera the lower pierce armor has indeed less impact and higher numbers are better.
But even Hera considers the Hussars with extra pierce armor as the best in the game.
I mean really, about what do we discuss here? Are you really trying to defy the ever known knowledge that for late-game rading the most important stat is piercer armor? I even tried to explain it to you, why this is so crucial. Of course you don’t want your rading units to be hit by TC fire, but it just happens. That’s why huskarls, serjeants, cavalry but also hca with parthian tactics are so strong raiding units, because they have that high pierce armor to survive the tc fire.
In theory you want to avoid being hit by the TC but you have to do so much at the same time in the lategame, you just can’t totally avoid it. Even the best players can’t and that’s why the best hussar player in the worl, hera, values extra pierce armor on hussars so high.
If it wasn’t that important, he wouldn’t rate tatars + turks over slavs and khmer, would he?
The math and empirical testing shows you only need about 10% more villager time cost worth of hussar to achieve similar results without micro.
This result has nothing to do with micro. If you use the same number of units you have to use micro.
It’s a tradeoff.