Yeah, when did Ethiopians suddenly start being perceived as bad? Their lowest WR on Aoestats is 48.38 in the 1200+ category but in lower and higher categories they’re mostly 50+, with 53% at 1900+. Yeah, pathing is bad, and the regroup thing is most damaging when trying to micro archers, but I’d really prefer that they fix bugs instead of trying to balance around them. If I was sure Ethiopians needed a buff, I would just scale the free res with age to be more impactful in Imperial.
I assume you mean in tourney games or something? I haven’t watched most of NAC or the latest tourneys, but among average players, Ethiopians’ pick rate is 3.2%. Not quite Franks level, but well above average. RH is a solid tech as well that really lets Shotels excel in their niche. If stuff that was novel, revolutionary, and strong a year or so ago is now considered to be weak and bland, I half expect people to call for another Persian rework in a year or so
Yes. This why some civs have bad late game options. Vikings come to mind first.
I think it is for 1v1. They seem pretty appealing in TG for me. A perfect flank. In 1v1, stuff that is appealing, SO with Torsion Engine, doesn’t come into play. Also archer to xbow play is so common that everyone regardless of civ does it.
I’m probably one of the few people who thinks Donjon doesn’t need Spearmen. I don’t want Donjons to be an absolute alternative to Barracks in the Feudal age, but rather want them to each have their niche.
Donjons can fire, so they already provide defense in theory. If we still need Spearmen, we should pay for Barracks. For that, Donjons have to be buildable (but cannot fire yet) in the Dark age, so that you can start to build Stables or Archery Ranges immediately when hitting the Feudal.
If we need units other than Serjeant trainable in Donjons, then I’d probably pick Rams and/or Siege Towers. Simply erect a Donjon outside the arena wall and you can send Serjeants to your opponent through Rams and/or Siege Towers.
Maybe it would be nice to make the Hauberk cheaper and even a Castle age UT. If the First Crusade becomes an Imperial age UT, it could be tweaked that 5 Serjeants for every TC and Donjon and 10 Serjeants for every Castle, up to 50.
I think the biggest problem is that 33% bonus damage resistant is balanced for cavalry, but useless for archers and especially infantry. 50% is more balanced for archers and infantry, but OP for cavalry.
Maybe they should change that bonus to be something like 33% AND +2 armor vs bonus damage. So it’s 50% for infantry/archers, but ~35% for cavalry. Or maybe +1/2/3.
Arbs with 50% less bonus damage from Skirms would actually be pretty decent; same goes for Infantry.
I dont like either of these much but they are diferent bonuses, they arent the same thing
My rule for civ desogn is that bonuses should either be more specific and strong or have a wider effect but be weaker. Since the Sicilian bonus needs a tech and isnt a team bonus but has a larger effect and the Magyar bonus only affects scouts even since feudal, I think they are fine even if the Magyar bonus could be better and I dont like First Crusade
I’m also one of those few people. I initially liked it though I changed my mind since youpudding started.
Sometimes I wish Serjeant lost the ability to build and repair to get better stat, mostly speed. I guess that will never happen.
And giving all 3 different unit types bonus damage reduction should have made them a jack of all trait civ. But that’s not the case. If you’re not playing youpudding, you’re playing another knight civ where at least 12 civs are better. Not to mention no other future archer civ can get a solid 50% reduction.
So which one you originally meant to point out as repeating bonus?
Hopefully there is Siege Towers and Rams rather than Spearmen, so that the Serjeants in the Castle age could be more aggresive especially in closed maps but slightly nerf the YouPudding rush in the Feudal age.
Well that ability is the core identity otherwise they’re just another tough infantry UU.
The speed buff would be likely never happened since the Serjeants are supposed to be like little Teutonic Knights. Perhaps Hauberk could also affect Serjeants.
Yeah sicilians are one of the worst civ at the moment. Even their one strenght, hauberk cavalier, has bene berfed so much is not even fun. Like even celts paladin can be better then them at time while costing not so much more…
Sicilians needs a series of changes. Donjons should be cheaper, like -25 stone and/or wood, or add 5 population, or +1 damage, or some other improvements
Their bonus damage reduction should be reverted to 50%, since that is the only thing going for them and at 33% is basically unnoticeable on archers and infantry
How could I forget them.
Regional buildings only exist since the latest DLC and are one of the coolest concept in the game.
Regional buildings can provide a different kind of connection between civilisations compared to regional units.
I disagree. Celt paladin can win sicilian cav in melee. But result is different if you mix halbs. One of the common enemy that knight-line face is halbs+arbs. Sicilian cavlier do much better in this case. Sicilians at least is a good cav civ when facing archers.
The introduction of Savar also made the Sicilians cavalier a bit underpowered while cost only 300 more food. The only advantage is against counter units. And you are not supposed to engage counter units anyway.
even with 50% , sicilian cavalier would become as good as a french paladin at best vs it’s cunter units. and will still lose to paladins vs non-counter units. so sicilian cavaliers will still lose to any cavalier with a bit of a bonus, will still lose to every paladin, will still not perform especially amazing vs champions or most unique units. and the +2 pierce on average will make them as good as a paladin vs ranged.
if you run a test of french paladin vs helberdiers and sicilian cavaliers vs helberdier. french paladins will win, it’s not even close. NOT EVEN close.
on the other hand, sicilian skirms are not even in the top 4 skrims in a skirm vs skirm fight. mayans, dravidians, viets, byz, for example will all win.
the helberdiers are fine, but they are not special in the sense that the only advantage they get is that they are tankier vs skirms. and it’s not like they are far tankier either.
all i will say is , 50% won’t put them into S tier in imperial age, it will be op in castle age only where knigfhts are able to deal with pikemen and thus 50% might make their knight play in castle age stupidly op.
the way sicilians bonus should work is that it should be 33% in castle, 50% in imperial. helberdiers will still be a cost efficient counter, and stronger cavalary would be a decent counter "like ############################################ and many other cavaliers. and all paladins would be a literal hard counter. gunpowder units will still be fine too, and proper heavy camels will still easily win rss wise at least. camels do 18 bonus damage so if they are left with 9 bonus damage they and their base of 7+4 they are still decent vs a 50% sicilian cavalier
you cna’t give sicilians final archer armor cuz if you do they will become an archer civ, which is not the intention of the civ. you can’t keep buffing sergeants cuz they will end up being just killed by hand cannons
it really is not op for cavalary, if you compare a french paladin and sicilian cavalier vs cav counters, french paladin will still win the comparison so easily.
sicilians theme should be that they have the best cavs vs counter cavs, but htey worse cavs vs similar / better cavs.
in other words therei s no reason for sicilian cavalier to beat a decent champion, a cavalier civ, a paladin civ, poles winged hussar, a proper helberdier civ “japanese for example” a proper heavy camel civ, all of those and more will easily beat sicilian cavalier.
There are much better civs in that regard, there is no real point in picking sicilians as a meager 33% negation is not gonna save you expensive cav. If the reduction was still 50% then i would agree, but as for now, given the cost, i would rather have a weak paladin or a different strong cavalier by comparison.
The celt paladin argoment is just an example of how the worst paladin in the game is still Better than this was supposed to be a strong cav in many situations, given that you have to pay for bloodlines+hauberk+last armor which combined cost not much less than paladin upgrade
The point being sicilians atm have nothing going for them and they have been nerfed multiple times on their selling point (bonus damage reduction, Castle building time) for no real reason according to performances, and some of their unique toys (serjeants and donjons) are still weak for their cost
Edit: celts paladin actually cost 50 res less then a FU sicilian cavalier, losing on 1 point of armor and the 33% reduction, but having +20 HP and +2 attack…so a supposed “strong cavalry civ” has actually equal or so assets as the weakest paladin civ in the game
While this is true, I dont why that I believe devs will be reluctant to buff Sicilians . Bonus dmg reduction is their biggest selling point indeed but get nerf due to hauberk. Early scout rush and mid game knight rush get nerf.
. Bonus dmg reduction is their biggest selling point indeed but get nerf due to hauberk. Early scout rush and mid game knight rush get nerf.