Yeah but I just want Kamayaka to only get soft countered by Cataphracts I recently did a scenario 2ith 100 Cataphracts vs 300 Kamayuks. The kameyuks won with 36 units.
I think thatâs fine. Cataphracts are so hard to get to their final form that itâs ok for them to be the doomsday unit for all infantry, and a lot of other things as well.
Why make kamayuks against Byz anyway? Even if they nerfed catas exactly as you said then Byz would make hand cannons or arbs against you and your kamayuks would die all the same.
3 Likes
I think this whole post sounds like âhey I threw away Kamayuks to an unit thatâs supposed to be a hard counter to infantry, the cata must be OP, please take away that because is OP hereâ 
4 Likes
And Kamayuks are supposed to shred hard counter cavalry? Why are fighting agianst me on this would it really break the game if Kamayuks were only soft countered by Cataphracts it makes sense for Champions to be hard countered, but Cataphracts are still Calvary and anti Cav counter should do at least something to them. You might as well give Rattans +10 Bd vs archers and then when I complain laugh at me for making Skirms agianst Rattans.
1 Like
Yes but catas are supposed to counter anti-cav. And itâs more expensive to build and upgrade, doesnât win against other heavy cav, meanwhile kamayuks absolutely destroy other infantry not named teutonic knight/jags. So itâs only fair catas win.
Rattan archers have better stats than xbows except range and elite rattans are better than arbs, so they donât need bonus damage reduction. Cataphracts donât have better stats than kts/paladins. But if someday they make some archer UU that is worse than arbs but can beat skirms and siege youâre probs going to run rattan archers into them and rewrite basically the same post.
It makes zero sense for Cataphracts to be able to shred through halberdier and Kamayuks ask anyone who hasnât played Aoe 2 who would win in this fight? Itâs fine for UU to be resistance to their normal counter but there is no justification for it beyond the devs decided that Cataphracts counter infantry despite it going against all well-established logic.
1 Like
If you need to ask someone who doesnât understand the game to get an agreement then maybe youâre not as right as you think.
5 Likes
You need to look at this from the opposite perspective. If Kamayuk could beat cataphract, what answer would Byzantines have to something like Kamayuk + Siege?
1 Like
What i want is for Cataphracts to be a well-rounded unit that deal better with calvary counter and infantry without making them irrelevant. Chu ku no donât only exist to counter high PA units. Camel archer have uses besides countering CA. Mangudai have a role beyond making siege almost irrelevant.
Mayber devs should not make tanks that are designed entirely around counter bazookas
Thatâs called a Sicilian cavalier. And you keep overfocusing on FU post imp unit fights that make your complaint look legitimate when most civs donât auto lose to catas, and even those who potentially could have like 1 million opportunities before this happens. Maybe they canât handle mass FU elite catas, but they can handle catas minus one or two upgrades just fine.
1 Like
Iâm only asking them for them to win with double the army.
So i guess we shoild nerf huskarls then. And eagles will need a complete rework. Not to mention all the various infantry that defy logic.
Oh also cav archers should be modified to shoot while moving. Since there is no logic there.
1 Like
Are you? Whats the investment required to get fully upgraded elite cataphract with logistica? Now whats yhe cost for fully upgraded kamayuks?
So a well rounded unit with anti bonus damage? Look at sicilian cavaliers. Now look at how busted those are and how much people want them nerfed.
No thanks. Cataphracts are fine. As incas you shouldnt rven be making kamayuks against Byzantines anyway. You have a better army comp out thee to use.
1 Like
Well, the ability to make 10 PA +10 BD fastmoving infantry from barracks is the reason why Goths are broken in imp despite lacking the Second armor upgrade. And while EW donât make sense, but they are justifying by the need of meso-civ to fufill the niche of calvary, Calvary archer canât fire while moving because that would make them more OP then AOE1
Kamayuk is not some unit that is meant to win vs every cavalry⊠their thing is lower Bonus Damage but you get extra range. Most of the times thatâs better than Halberdiers but in case of Cataphracts is worse. This is perfectly fine, especially since Incas have FU Halberdier.
Youre missing the point. You think these rules are hard and ironclad when thrre is pretty much always exceptions.
1 Like
That doesnât really answer the question. The way Byzantines avoid being absolutely crushed by these types of infantry and siege compositions is because when the Cataphract comes out it makes up for lost time by being a very effective unit.
If you remove the ability for cataphracts to make up for lost time you remove the ability for the cataphract to do itâs job. In addition there are existing counters incas have to counter cataphracts, namely monks, archers, and castle/tower spam.
RTSs are dynamic games, they happen over a period of time. You have to balance slower civs like Byzantines by making their powerful units be able to make up for weaker openings and needing to come back from a deficit of sorts. You could balance the cataphract to work if it was not as hard of a counter. But youâd have to change the entire civ in the process.
1 Like