Well, Fervor and Atonement could be applied to TKs without problems i guess. Sancity must be redesigned though so it just gives extra 15 health points instead of +50% though. And maybe ETK health points have to be adjusted too so he doesnt end up with 115 health points?
It makes sense IMO for TKs to be at least a little faster because of how unusable theyâre currently. They shouldnât be as fast as champions are currently though, unless champions also receive a speed buff, but considereing all the recent buffs it received this is probably not a good idea. I think TKâs identity of being a slow unit must be kept somewhat.
After he receives a speed buff (if this ever happens) and he still ends up being bad, iâd rather compensate on other areas, like making him a little cheaper maybe? Or atleast make the elite upgrade cheaper. Maybe one extra pierce armor for the elite version wouldnt make it OP?
As for the extra armor on cavalry, it does fit the Teutons theme, but i fear that maybe that would also contribute to make ETK an even more uninteresting option.
Finally, IMO the TKs should receive some anti-leitis bonus defense so theyâre evenly matched cost wise (a Leitis would still win 1 on 1), because the way things are now this exchange is too unfair.
Iâm just average at this game tho, maybe iâm wrong!
1 Like
Iâm against making AoE2 a warcraft 3 âability spamâ-like game. TKs should not be able to convert anything. Not build anything either. Their stats are to be how they are going to be useful, in one way or another.
Adding 1 pierce armor to TKs surely doesnât make them catch up to archer anymore than before, but that wasnât even the intention of it as TKs arenât supposed to be the only thing your arsenal either. They can just be atleast a little better meatshield for your anti-archer components, whatever they may be.
That particular exchange is supposed to be unfair. Thatâs the one thing the Leitis is meant to be for.
2 Likes
That still wonât make them useful. Theyâll be 25% more durable, more or less, but that doesnât change anything about the way theyâre used.
Youâre right. If TK is finally âfixedâ and ends up being an OK unit all around then Leitis being anti TK is OK. I just think the way things are now that exchange is unfair, because TK is very slow and expensive and supposed to be excel at only one thing: close range combat. But then he gets a new counter that beats him on the only thing TKs were supposed to be good and TKs canât even run away. Its a very hard counter for such a useless unit.
My suggestions arenât trying to change the way they are supposed to be used though. Just make them more useful at the role they have. Being a tanky slow moving steamroll unit, forcing enemy to either engage or retreat and leaving you with land to take control of.
Yes at their current state one could indeed argue the Leitis is too hard for it, but itâs a pointless move to change leitis, then change tk finally being useful and then changing the leitis again accordingly. 2 unnecessary moves there. If Leitis still feels too bad after TK is brought up to speed, then we could see if it needs some rebalancing or not.
What? Theyâre extremely common for Chinese, almost as significant a unit as plumes are to Mayans.
Hey-ul no. Making a weak/rarely used unit cheaper is almost never the way to go. It may make them less of a bad investment, but it rarely makes them a good investment. Would you buy an ugly shirt if it was half off, or would you pay twice as much for an awesome shirt?
Em, that would kind of nullify a major aspect of the reason why the Leitis exists in the first place. What if TKs were buffed (speed) so that they were used more commonly, so that their melee counters (jags, samurai, leitis, cataphracts) would also be used more commonly?
I can see what you mean. That doesnât mean that the cost per unit canât really be tweaked. But i concede this isnt that needed, Iâm sure the comunity can come up with more interesting buffs.
I agree with you. See my other post above. If TKs are adjusted properly so theyâre finally a good unit, then they shouldnt be any better vs Leitis, obviously.
1 Like
If the unit still works the same way, then itâll still be useless in just as wide a variety of scenarios as currently. Itâs already quite resistant to archers; making it moreso wonât suddenly fix the problem caused by its fundamental unit design.
At least, not until itâs functionally immune to archers, at which point it suddenly goes from useless to OP and uncounterable.
Not really sure about that. These suggestions you had to make TKs build stuff or convert units are too âinnovativeâ, dunno how to word it correctly, itâs like they dont belong in age2? Maybe TKs being 25% better at surviving arrows is just what it needs? It doesnât have to actually counter archers, heâs no Huskarl. Archers will always be a counter to them, just like most infantry. Maybe all it needs is a mix of higher pierce armor (just +1, obviously nothing too extreme like huskarls/malians), speed (not as fast as champions but close to it, this way he has a better time fleeing from bad situations as well as control newer grounds and force fights) and a slightly reduction in cost (atleast change the cost of the elite upgrade so you can transition into ETKs better)? Maybe a multifaceted approach that is not too extreme in any front is the solution to make TKs viable? Just a thought.
1 Like
Then they could keep a high creation and upgrade cost so that itâs a good idea to mix in only a handful with Castle Age economy and wait until Imperial Age economy to mass. If a TK death ball wouldnât get going until Imperial, there are plenty of options in Imperial to fight TKâs with high enough pierce armor to have functional immunity to archers. Hand Cannoneers, Siege Onagers, Battle Elephants, unique units (i.e. Slingers/Cataphracts/Jaguar Warriors/Samurai/Leitis/etc.) Cavalry Archer civs and Mayans would have an annoying time against Teutonic Knights, but the slow speed of TKâs still makes them easy to kite and be annoying in return. Britons and Vikings are the only civs which do not have an obvious answer to super-tanky Teutonic Knights.
High pierce armor Teutonic Knights really just turn into Battle Elephants in infantry form that are still weak to plenty of infantry specific counters.
Not even Battle Elephants would do it. Iâm 90% certain ETKs can actually beat EBEâs in single combat. They should die in 17 hits while needing 20 to kill an ETK.
Youâd basically be limited to monks, HCs and Siege. Except theyâre resistant to monks and their siege is super tanky, so theyâd have an advantage there too. And Gunpowder isnât available until the Imperial Age, so in Castle where theyâre already strong theyâd become basically invincible.
Making ETKs an unstoppable uber-unit is not the right play here. It does nothing to make the game more interesting, it would just make the Teutons spam ETKs until the cows come home and crush any civ that didnât have a combination of good gunpowder and a more potent eco bonus.
And thatâs already the Teutons biggest problem. They have nothing distinctive about them, they just have a halfway-decent eco bonus & tech tree that lets them beat any civ that doesnât have those things. But when you play them, itâs like playing any other civ with the numbers filed off.
People thought giving the Khmer instant food delivery was crazy and innovative and un-aoe2 too, but they did it anyway, and it turned out pretty dang cool. I think there is the same potential here, to make the Teutons a truly distinctive and interesting civ.
Even Malay BE beat FU ETK, so they actually would work I guess. But thatâs for only 4 civs⊠The idea of high-pierce armor ETK comes from AoE1, with the Macedonian Centurion having more pierce armor, but in this game there also are ballistas with 40 attack. Mangonels might work in AoE2 but they are so much harder to useâŠ
Really? Odd, seems like according to the stats that shouldnât happen.
Same attack rate, EBEs do 14 damage + 4 = 18, ETKs have 10 armor + 3, 18-13 = 5. 100/5 = 20 hits to kill.
ETKs do 17 damage + 4 = 21, EBE have 1 armor +3, 21-4= 17. EBE have 320 HP, 320/17= 18.82 hits to kill.
So ETK really should beat EBE.
Either way, theyâll definitely still beat them in terms of cost, 210 vs 125.
Itâs close to a fair trade, thx to the Malayâs massive cost reduction (only 142 ressources or something like that) On another note, Iâm now wondering why the dev barely touched the TK despite its known issues.
Seems to me they havenât had any idea what to do with them, and since theyâve consistently had about average win rates, they probably havenât had much reason to meddle.
This, i was thinking in 15 extra hp.
Not 50 (LOL). 15 is enough, together the buffed speed, to hold archer/tower fire better.
But those extra 15 HP, with the extra speed, could be a nightmare for enemy melee units.
Thatâs already what it does, despite the description. You can see on Aztec monks, which get +15 HP (and +5 with bonus) regardless of their current HP. Or with missionaries which get +15 HP even if they have already 50 HP with bloodlines.
1 Like