but you need a castle for it. And Hauberk cav has 2 less damage and 40 less hp, which kind of negates it’s slight armor and pierce armor advantages.
I’d argue that some nerfs were justified and some unjustified, but Hauberk cav is not op at all. You still need a castle to attain the tech, first off…
And second, I will admit that specific civs struggle against it, but a lot of civs struggle against a lot of different things. It’s different when a thing is so overpowered that no civ has a field day against it, and something that gives specific civs struggles, because civs counter civs.
Yeah. They made them supper useless, sad.
I’m not even a guy who plays Burmese, and I’m saddened by how useless they made such an interesting unique unit.
So Tusk Swords, Chivalry, Obsidian Arrows, Kamandaran… guess what, some were nerf and Obsidian Arrows wasn’t nerfed, was removed Ok (And Chivalry is still a stupid tech, given how many eco bonuses Franks have).
No, is such a poorly designed unique unit that had to be OP on Arena with that double castle strat. The civ ended up having poor skirms because the unit was soo OP.
Lol watch right now how Vinchester is dooming TheMax with those insta building castles
A total biased petition, as a mexican my self i want both aztecs and mayans to have stronger eagles cause they don’t have paladins and have no use in team games anymore.
Sicilians are now quite strong, i don’t like the civ cause of the lack of identity, their building time is OP as we already knew since release, but we had to wait for big tournaments to show the impact of it, so low elo players can understand it better.
They have no other weakness than superior gold units and late imperial with no gold, which isn’t really a weakness.
Dude there is literally no good reason for claiming this. The civ is packed with bonuses. The bonus dmg reduction is already strong in feudal age as counter units arent great against them. Donjons are also pretty good now since you have 300 stone at the start. In castle age you have 3 eco making for a strong boom. Unit wise you have a civ win in imp against archer civs as your cav is great vs arb and halb. Serjeant with first crusade can be super good. You even have arb and bracer if you need them. And castle build speed is great for defensive and offensive bonuses. So good units, good eco and pretty flexible tech tree. How is that not a good civ? And today’s kotd matches basically confirmed that as sicilians was the most picked civ across the sets I think.
Imo hauberk is bad from a design perspective combined with their civ bonuses and we really have enough heavy cav civs but you can’t argue it doesn’t perform well.
Hauberk as is would have been a great cavalier bonus for a civ thst didn’t already have conversion and bonus damage resistance
Yes, great comparison, and good point about saving wood on farms. Both are mainly infantry + cavalry civs, with knights that hold up better than most civs’ against pikes and have more armor, but a weak scout line. They both rely heavily on their castles, both offensively and defensively, but they rarely use these castles to spam their slow-moving, high-armor expensuve infantry UU. They have towers with 10 garrison space and potentially extra arrows, but they’re still not worth building outside a Feudal tower rush.
I think the main difference is that in the late game Teutons destroy heavy cavalry and die to archers, while Sicilians destroy archers and die to heavy cavalry.
I agree the civ isn’t as bad as ProdMirus says, but i think hauberk was a necessary buff to the Sicilians.
Win rate isn’t everything but keep in mind that this civ is a dlc civ, people buy it to play the new civs, and Sicilians just dont have that great a win rate, never did.
Also i think the civ has plenty of identity, with everything you’ve all mentioned (Fast castle builds, Donjon rushes, Hauberk cavs basically being budget Cataphracts).
The civ is fun, and thats the only thing that matters, although i would bump down the price of the searjant, or give him the ability to repair everything, so that it gets the official title of “support infantry”, something like a field engineer of sorts, that would give the Searjant more of an identity. Also to have the option of using elite searjants i would probably bump down the upgrade cost, since its more expensive than upgrading hauberk cav and it isnt that strong.
First off, how can you be biased? I mean, you could use that even when talking about Spanish.
Second, Mayan eagle is oof. I do think the eagle could have ten more hp, but they should then nerf Mayan El dorado.
In every test I’ve done, El dorado eagle is better than both Incas and Aztecs eagles.
While I would agree to an extent in some areas of the argument… Your last argument isn’t very correct, since Sic cav is about as good as a paladin against archers. Teuton paladin is not only similar to Sicilians against archers, but it’s two times better against melee units. Literally the only strength of the Hauberk cav is 50% less bonus damage taken. Serjeant is neither the best anti archer unit, nor the best anti melee unit, and cost to high to be good in either set up.
Oh and in case you didn’t see one of my earlier replies, Hauberk cav tanks 10 more hits, but having him deal 2 less damage, it takes roughly the same amount of damage.
Yeah its a slight overgeneralization. I think Hauberk Cavalier is similar to generic FU Paladins against Arbs and HCA, but Teuton Paladins are worse than generic since they lack Husbandry. I’m sure we agree that Teutons are great against enemy Cavalry, with their extra tough Paladins and Halberdiers, while Hauberk Cavalier dies easily to Paladins and several other Cavaliers.
Why you would ever research hauberk against non-archery civs?
It helps with raiding around castles and TC’s, but for the cost it is debatable. The 1 melee armor isn’t nothing either, but they still can’t compete with Paladins or Malian/Berber/Bulgarian Cavaliers.
I was thinking about team games and imho the current First Crusade spam mechanic is even more detrimental.
Why? Because in 1v1 you don’t have anyone else to consider, so when you’re ready to use the opportunity window you can do it right away, in team games you spam 35 Serjeants out of thin air, good, then if your team isn’t ready to attack and you miss the opportunity window you’re crushed by far more heavier units than Serjeants.
Not a surprise that in the last pro team (4v4) games that I saw (from Rage Forest tournament) all teams with Sicilians lost except one where they won in late castle/early imperial. Now the map surely didn’t help in closing the game before mid/late imperial, this is obvious.
The Sicilian army composition for lategame was, without any surprise (after all they’re Sicilians only FU units together with militia and Serjeants), halberdier + siege onager, not bad, but it doesn’t benefit from any of the Sicilian strengths at all.
To the people still thinking Sicilians are far too weak in 1v1 watch this:
KOTD ACCM vs Fish, Fish couldn’t do anything with 25% cheaper camels against that 50% less bonus damage to Knights, which was what ACCM keept doing, no more. On top of that, Sicilians can Castle drop you quickly and you not being able to counter Castle that, or Sicilians can’t be castle dropped because of that bonus tho.
Also Memb said after that Sicilians need to be banned lol, but here Sicilians are too weak lol
Sicilians indeed need a nerf.
In the last Kotd tournament there were more Sicilians lost games than won. 3 Won 5 Lost, while they aren’t weak in 1v1, they are not so strong either.
But they preset some mechanics that are disturbing to the game.
Imho First Crusade spawn is worse than fast castle drop though, and Donjons are too wood heavy to defend from tower rushes (like in MbL vs bruh game).
Agreed, I would say instead it should of being the UT effect for Burmese bundled (bundled with pre-existing Howdah), it would solve the chronic Arb weak the civ suffers from, give a very Cav reliant civ a unique “Huskarl”-esq role for their Cavaliers when combined with Manipuri Cav (both Old and New), without jeopardising the strong anti-melee role of their elephants, given that +1 Melee Armour Cavaliers still lose cost-effectively against Bulgar/Teutons/Malian/Berber Cavaliers and all Paladins, were Elephants dominate in such a scenario. Some cost and position rebalancing would be necessary, but it atleast wouldn’t be so dubious 1v1 balance wise as the Sicillian equivalent.
Very good point. I always noticed the Sicilians Castle drop (Both aggressive and defensive) gives pros a big scale of advantage compared to other civ. 100% faster is actually too big number and may need to reduced since Sicilians got +100 stone at the start now.
All of them are candidates for top 5-10 siege civs in game. Add Mongols in the list too. Having inferior siege than them is not bad.