The whole concept of knights goes against saracens. May be they can have steppe lancers instead
1 Like
If persians can have them so can saracens.
2 Likes
I agree, their tech tree is incredibly strong. Many of their units are fully upgraded and benefit from bonuses that make them superior to those of other civilizations.
With the exception of Halberdiers, Scorpions, Fire Ships, and the Knight line, every other unit is fully upgradable. Arbalesters, Heavy Camels, Siege Onagers, Trebuchets, Galleons, Transport Ships, Heavy Demolition Ships, Elite Cannon Galleons, and Monks all reach their full potential and are further enhanced by various civilization bonuses and unique techonolgies.
In my opinion, they are far too flexible, especially when you consider how easily they can manage their economy thanks to their market bonus.
The extremely cheap Elite Mameluke upgrade could also see a slight cost increase.
No sense, there is not much else to comment on really. It has always been this way, and I don’t know why it would suddenly be inconsistent with the civ design.
nice joke
2 Likes
Inconsistent? With a “camel and naval civ”?
So let’s remove the champions/halberdiers from all the cavarly & archers civs
3 Likes
Their UU make them strong but (range + immunity to skirms).
Saracens fall into the same category as most other Civs with a broad tech tree: Lack of a good eco bonus to get them to the position where they can abuse their options.
5 Likes
I remember the reason why they even have knight is because they were released back in the old day when knight dominated everything and camel had ship armor class which made them completely useless when your opponents could easily spam towers everywhere. So knight essentially kept them viable back then. Knight gets power crept a lots lately and camel no longer has ship armor class, plus they received a lot of buff to their camel, so I guess it’s ok if they lose knight completely.
The idea of “they have very wide tech tree, they should miss some things” opens the Pandora’s box. Some civs are purposely built with wider tech trees.
The Byzantines or Spanish perhaps even have wider tech trees than the Saracen ones. Should they lose some things too? Or should Huns/Cumans get more techs since they miss so many?
2 Likes
Why Hindustanis don’t have knights?
Civs without knights is a very big weakness imo. It is worse than lacking any other units, like xbow/pikes. Even Vikings can use their weak knights for early Castle age.
Knights are supposed to be generic heavy cav, regardless if knighthood or an equivalent existed.
4 Likes
Lol sure you have to be this sarcastic? When I just want to learn why you think so. You didn’t explain why it’s inconsistent.
As often with the want of regional units, many would be fixed by regional skins. Maybe a name change for some civs (knight => lancer) if really needed.
1 Like
The question is who do the Saracens actually historically represent? Considering they are the only Arab faction, the only logical conclusion would be that they are basically a combination of all the Arab and muslim caliphates that existed from the Rashidun to the Umayyad to the Abbasids and even the Ayubids and Fatamids and everything else in between. So they are very broad and also had a lot of Persian influences and adapted heavy cavalry and ofcourse also had Persians throughout the ranks of their militaries. The Abassids specially were heavily Persianised militarily and conquered the Umayyads with an attack launched from the Iranian heartland. I think its completely appropriate for them to have knights from a historic perspective.
their market is one of the best eco bonuses 11
I guess DoI makes these people think they’re justified in asking non-Euro civs to lose knights, even though ALL generic units are based on Euro stuff (and I’m 1000% sure the Indian civs only miss out on them because AoE3 Indians don’t get horse units) so it makes no sense to single out knights
Saracens can have Knights and not be able to upgrade them. In fact, there needs to be more civs with access to unupgradable Knights than civs without the Knight Line.
If that is the case, I apologise. The point is that the knight is a generic unit and they do not have any bonuses associated with it. Incidentally, even considering the territorial neighbours (oversimplifying the argument) Persians and Berbers, it makes sense for them to have kts.
All three have the full upgraded hussar, the Persians have a bonus on the knight line, the Saracens have a bonus on the camel line, and the Berbers have a discount on the stable in general. All three also have HC and BBC.
2 Likes