It could be that archers saracens +1 vs Buildings it is too much for Feudal age?
I mean, destroy effectively palisades, and even towers if you stand yours archers in tower’s base, plus, their market bonus let them up faster to castle.
Maybe I’m only missing something, but I suggest to remove this bonus from Feudal Age and make +1 in Castle Age, +2 in Imp.
It could be that archers saracens +1 vs Buildings it is too much for Feudal age?
Saracens need to change the bonus but even currently they aren’t OP unlike Mayans with Obsidian Arrows
Isn’t a huge priority
I’m just talking about Saracens. In Feudal Age.
Obsidian Arrow is OP, yes everybody know, but is in castle age, and needs a castle.
Saracens archers have it free as soon you reach Feudal Age.
At least, this bonus shouldn’t have effect over stone buildings. Build a defensive tower in feudal it is a big investment and Saracens archers just wreck it.
What is or is mot priority is not relevant for the post.
The whole point of the bonus is to be able to destroy walls and towers quickly. I don’t think it should change.
Against feudal-age saracens, since they lack dark age bonuses, you should be able to kill their army easily, whether in a 1v1 or team game. They wouldn’t contribute to army v army battles as well as other archer civs because they lack other archer bonuses. If you’re behind in a team game, then yes this bonus does a lot to you, but that takes more coordination from their team to put their saracens player in an advantaged position than it takes for your team to set them behind, because they lack other early bonuses.
In other words, if their archers are in a position to attack your buildings, then their archers should die pretty easily to your army.
Not everything strong needs to be nerfed. Also it’s not like they would burst down buildings as if they had Obisidian arrows.
In unit vs unit fights they’re still normal archers/xbows without any bonus going for them. So there is enough room for counterplay. Also I think it gives them some nice and unique identity (Obsidian arrows needs a lot more investment and then has a lot more (too much^^) strength so I think both have their unique place).
It’s true that this bonus synergizes very well with the market bonus, but I still don’t think it’s oppressively good. They get to Castle Age a bit earlier and that is surely strong. But again there is counter play and after that short window they’re again only normal xbows with all upgrades when fighting against units.
I think Saracens are in a pretty good spot right now.
Back in HD, when Saracens only had the +1 vs buildings, it was called the worst Team Bonus in the game.
Devs fixed it, and now people do not like taht it is actually useful.
Even Mayans are onlt at 54% winrate, which is not OP.
The issue is that if you lose your army in a bad/unlucky engagement against a mass of saracens xbows/arbs, there’s nothing stopping your opponent to tear down your military building or melt your walls/TCs without having any chance to react, due to how insanely fast they destroy buildings.
Of course losing a big fight is always punishing, but against other civs there are some chances to come back because they generally need some time to commit into some sort of siege or forward castle to capitalize on the engagement, with all decision making and risks involved, while with saracens (and mayans) you just mindlessly click your xbows to attack and melt everything on their path. It’s not OP, being saracens a pretty mediocre civ, it’s just a silly mechanic.
Look at this as intentional… Almost every single other civ has a better persisting eco and/or military bonuses make their army stronger… And thus making their potential to win fights higher or come back stronger compared to saracens
While saracens do not have either. And on top of that a mediocre or lack lustre UT and UU…
First of all if that happens there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you losing the game. You did a mistake and if your opponent did not, he should win.
Secondly it’s simply wrong that “there’s nothing stopping your opponent”. It’s seems like an overstatement just to make your point. Get a Mangonel - boom, there is something stopping your opponent and giving you a fighting chance. If you can’t even afford that you have bigger problems than just having lost a fight. Of course he can outmicro you, but it should be hard for you to get back into the game after losing a fight. That’s what getting an advantage is all about. Making it harder for the opponent and getting closer to victory. Another option is to switch to Skirms. Again it’s not a free win and you need to find a way to mass them, but it’s certainly something worth trying.
Thirdly buildings (especially production buildings and TCs) do not melt down within seconds. There is time to react. Yes, it’s good, but no, it’s not “insanely fast”. Knights for example still destroy production buildings considerably faster. Yes, it’s also easier to defend them against Knights, because you can repair if you’re walled and shoot at them from behind, which you can’t do vs Xbows. But there is a tradeoff. It’s not as dramatic as you make it sound.
And that gets me to my final point: If you want to understand the game better (or get better), stop exaggerating heavily just to make a point. Look at what things really do without getting emotional and what options might give you the best fighting chance in certain situations. Explore these options. Even none of those seem to work, look at what other (better) players are doing and especially why and how they’re doing it. Then, if you still didn’t fighting anything that seems to work, start questioning the balance of the game. That’s something I wish all people in this forum would do though xD
This one sums up 90% of balance rants in this forums recently. Be better, and get better instead of just mindlessly whining and complaining.
I totally agree the entirety of this post.
Ok man first off don’t state that I’m just ranting because I lose to saracens archers. I’m not a very skilled player but I assure you that it’s not my case. Let’s try to have a civil discussion on the topic please.
Of course there’s nothing wrong to be in a bad spot after losing a fight/losing map control to an opponent with better army, which is gonna try to snowball that military advantage to get the win. I just find that archer destroying buildings is TOO snowbally because it lacks proper counterplay once you fall behind in map control.
It’s correct that some good shot with mangonel can solve the issue, but the fact that saracen player can sit outside the opponent base tearing down production buildings/TCs, while other civs must take more risks to make damage, kinda make those shot way more unlikely to happen, expecially when 20 crossbows with bodkin are gonna snipe your workshop quite as fast as the production time of 1 mangonel.
Same story but worse with Eskirms that take time to tech into and mass a decent number.
That said, I don’t want to say Saracens are OP overall, it’s just that I feel this bonus doesn’t seem to me a great piece of design, i’d really like to see a funny and interesting bonus like the saracen market complemented with something more clever.
I’m not saying Saracens archers are mega OP. Its feature is fine, but what I think it is too advantage for Feudal Age only. It is like Briton would have the +1 range in Feudal.
I think is a correct bonus for early castle age, when you can start a stronger push without siege.
so, after you take away pretty much the only advantage saracens have in the early game, what are you going to compensate them with?
I feel like the bonus is much stronger in Castle Age, where with Xbow+Bodkin+Bonus you can destroy buildings once you have a good number of Crossbows (espeically if you have a hill advantage when firing on them).
And if you combine it with their Market bonus, you can essentially get to the Castle Age around 16:30 (same as a drush+fc time), but start out with a 21/22 pop Feudal into Archers. And with making Archers constantly, you get about 12 Siegebows (compared to around 6 for a drush+fc) at that same time, and that can really do some damage.
I think maybe a military bonus that actually helps them win fights might be the way to go, something less situational and less annoying in the situation where it’s useful than their archer bonus.
Better Market is a good enough early bonus I think… I don’t saying take off the damage bonus, just shift it to Castle Age. Even in Early Castle Age it is strong.
Maybe something more appropriate would be to make them deal bonus damage to walls only? This way they will be that civ where you either need to make skirmishers or really commit to spamming houses everywhere rather than just wall to counter them, but without threatening production buildings either. Not that I would be against a wall+houses bonus only but it looks weird.
I think of shift it to Castle Age, or don’t affect stone buildings
I honestly like the bonus as it is. With the only eco bonus being the Market one, Saracens really does need to deal damage in the Feudal Age, or they may get behind and lose.
It at least opens up another option (Full Feudal Aggression) than the Market abuse Fast Castle that Saracens used to do all the time in AoC and HD, because it was the only thing they could do.
If it is, why are there winrates sub 45% during the early game? and that’s with their archers as is.