Byzantine camels don’t beat Sicilian knights 1v1, but if you consider cost (about 2/3) or creation time (22 vs 30s) then the camels win easily. If anyone is losing this fight with camels it means they are falling behind for other reasons (production, economy, etc.)
2 Likes
Classical example of misconception against Sicilians. Against all other civs 1v1 with camels works, but not against sicilians. Fish took a bad engagament and lost.
That’s also such an important point to understand, with this bonus the basic “hand rules” you usually have for your counters don’t apply anymore, that’s one part why they are so dangerous.
Even if you know that your muscle memory will sometimes just let you take unfavourable engagements there.
1 Like
He didn’t make near enough camels, first off. At the highest battle, Sicilian had 2 to 4 more knights and more monks. Those camels don’t even have bloodlines. If we measured the same resources of both civs and made the appropriate amount of units, Byzantines would win, but this isn’t an equity game, so of course the knights won.
At the end of the day, I think camels need a buff, they’re too expensive and have no damage or armor. They’re supposed to counter cav but can barely kill them when not Sicilian.
The L’s against Sicilians during the tournament are due to the players, not the civ itself.
Civ still needs a buff, not a nerf.
Not bad but nothing to write home about either.
I am saying many times in this forum that this 50% less damage is very OP but no one appreciate my idea. 50% less damage means that Sicilians knight die to pikeman in 10 hits instead of usual 5 hits which mean like 100% resistance against Knight-line. Generic Knight need to have 217-240 hp to gain Sicilian power against pikeman. Sicilians skirmisher also legendary until late game. It take half damage from enemy skirmisher because skirmisher’s 3,4 (elite) pierce armor nullify all damage income from enemy’s 2,3 (elite) attack.
Therefore, I propose to change 50% less damage to at least 40% (I proposed 33% but it is too big maybe). However, Sicilians infantry must be strong in order to fulfill its infantry civilization identity. I propose to give, infantries gain +5 hp per upgrade like 50/70/75/90 hp for MAA / Longsword / THS / Champion, 60/70 hp Pikeman / Halberdier, 70/95 hp Serjeant. Serjeant should repair building, siege and ships as well.
Lastly, 100% building speed could change to 50% by giving this bonus walls as well. Last form is Wall, TC and Castles are constructed 50% faster.
Donjon melee armor could change to 1/3/7 (making tanky against melee units in Imperial Age) to enable late game usage.
I think Camels should be mounted pikeman. Being trash like 105 food, taking +3 bonus from archers and skirmishers and having +16/+18 bonus attack against cavalries.
Not bad proposals, but I don’t think the damage reduction is op since it only defends against a counter. You need good econ overpower the opponent army. Example could something like this, Sicilians have lowest win rates against cav civs, that’s due to their knights being basic, and their econ low (early game).
Aside from the bonus damage reduction, in the eyes of other knights, infantry or archers, it really is nothing special, other than a basic knight.
Infantry buff like the one you suggest, might a little too powerful, but seeing as Vikings have 20%, who knows? Maybe 4 instead of 5.
I like the donjon buff.
Another proof right now, Jordan vs ACCM, ACCM also had a larger number of berber heavy camels and camel archers, but all of his army wiped out by the sicilian cavaliers, nothing else.
1 Like
I am absolutely stunned how pros learned to use sicilians to their full potential. Jordan used basically every bonus Sicilians have. And also in the right way.
Just a few scouts for map control and getting intel about the opponent, getting a small timing advantage, then playing just a bit more greedy in the eco than the opponent. He also built his TCs with the optimal number of 2 Villagers I calculated once. That saved him about 100 Wood per TC compared to his opponent. Then he used his advantage to make some more counter units (pikes/monks) while he knew his opponent wouldn’t as the opponent ones would be worse than his. So he controlled the game until he got that a big eco advantage that he would win the race to imp. Made a forward castle at exactly the right moment.
Even if his dive he made in the end wouldn’t have worked he could have opted for first crusade which then would have been the killer punch.
I think we saw a strategically perfect game with sicilians and a showcase why they are so dangerous right now. Even against a civ that potentially has a unit they don’t have a real answer against: Camel Archers! If Sicilians use their various eco and strategic tools, even the cav archer civs that would usually be seen as countering sicilians have huge problems.
Is it the best civ right now? Probably not. But it’s definetely one of the most dangerous civs if put in the right hands.
Doesn’t that goes for like 30 more civs?
2 Likes
I thinks it’s funny that they can be so great, but not a single game features their Feudal Age serjeants. Why do they even have them lol.
1 Like
Serjeants aren’t a great unit outside the lategame donjon rush. Without ranged support they are just too weak, too slow, too low DPS.
Also Sicilians don’t need them They are the perfect trash counter. And guess what sicilians fear the least? Opponent trash that deals only 50% of the bonus damage…
I think why you ever go Serjeants when you have 6/8 armor cavalier that absorbs 50% of bonus damage and is also resistant to monks.
2 Likes
Every one of my games recently, features them, so don’t @ me.
Are you playing them yourself or facing them? Also how good do you think are they? My experience is like @FurtherLime7936 said, they are better off going cav
Of course, playing them myself.
Well that’s not true unless you research First Crusade too.
For instance, in the game you cited Jordan did not research it, nor Hauberk.
Also, ACCM had far less Camels than Jordan’s knights, I believe it was like 30 heavy camels against 40+ cavaliers in the last imperial age battle, bonus damage resistance obviously played a big part though.
However, another game, another testament of how useless Serjeants are outside First Crusade. 
With the changes to hauberk they could make the serjeant to be better against melee. Tey could change his armour to something like 7 / 3 (5 / 2 non-elite). That wouldn’t make the unit better in general, but give them a more destinct usage.
Nontheless I don’t think the civ needs any buffs right now.
If it needs something, it’s a total overhaul with removing the stupid 50 % bonus damage reduction. People need hundreds of games to figure out how much are the “right amount” of counter units to make against knights - and then come the sicilians and take good engagement nevertheless.
It’s also confusing for newer players who should learn how to play the counters properly if they get punished besides they actually played it correctling as you would do against any other civ.
We shouldn’t mess with this basic stuff, even if there are maybe some people out there that enjoy to punch on “noobs” it’s actually very bad for the game if it confuses new players like this. We need consistency with the counter mechanics to make it easier to learn how to use them properly. And the key part there that you mustn’t be punished if you made the “normally correct” amount, you must be revarded.
Sicilians are low-key broken. They FU cavs are just OP
3 Likes
People who say Sicilians are too weak are just delusional.
1 Like