What do you think should replace Hauberk for the Sicilians?
Here’s one idea: Donjons become 50% cheaper. So, it will allow them to spam more Donjons and Serjeants. And relics slowly generate stone. So they can continue to make more and more Donjons and spam walls. Or perhaps, relics merely only generate stone, so won’t be so OP.
Either it should have something to do with the Donjons or the general infantry. after all, the sicilians are seen as an infantry civilization in-game.
that’s why i don’t understand the bonus for the cavalier. That just doesn’t fit and seems unimaginative.
Before replacing or tweaking Hauberk, First Crusade should be reworked, imho.
Spawn mechanic is bad for this game and hinders balance.
Reducing Donjon cost or making relics generate stone via UT is really useless imho, first this tech in the imperial age is too late, second Donjons are really bad in imperial age (I’d argue that they’re bad in all ages honestly) due to low base attack, they need a lot of upgrades that don’t synergize with infantry play to leverage the fact that shoot multiple arrows (fletching, bodkin arrow, bracer, arrowslits, ballistics), Sicilian walls also suck as they miss the fortified upgrade, meaning there’s really no incentive to use them a lot.
Sicilians would need a lot more to promote a Serjeant play, but as I stated multiple times, you can’t buff Serjeants as much as they deserve until First Crusade is around in its current form.
What about cumans? Maybe we should establish a base line on what you consider is bad for the game first?
The problem here is that 1st crusade doesn’t give them a better win rate, it’s merely perceived as a bad tech or OP, from a purely subjective point. They still had a bad winrate even at the peak of 1st crusade
Whereas hauberk does actually have a bigger impact due to the lack of economical counters for a number of civs
It isn’t necessarily a game winning tech, and cavalier can still be countered but it even further reduces the chances of a come back (could be done with a tech switch to counter the predominant unit)
I wouldn’t mind seeing either tech change, but objectively hauberk is the more cancerous of the two tech . Since not only does it hurt the opponent’s options for playing, but pigeonholes the civ
I would say in their uniqueness it helps but yea it kinda kills the natural counter eventho you just need more pikes or camels against chevaliers so it doesnt kill it directly. I would just tweak the resistance
300F 600G for 35 serjeants in 60 seconds.
To train the same number of Serjeants, from a single castle, you’d need 2100F 1225G and 420 seconds.
I say it for the last time, First Crusade is not bad because it’s op, because it’s not.
It’s bad because discourages Donjon play, and at the same time makes balancing the Serjeant very tricky.
Obviously Hauberk makes this even more useless.
Why play Serjeants at all with 6MA/8PA, spear resistant cavalier?
They’re both bad techs, yes.
Also keep in mind like you said it doesnt destroy their counter but i dont see the whole pisgeonhold thing as if they adjust it and maybe give the dojons more power that it might weight out their powerlevel even with extra resistance and -50% bonus dmg
I agree. Initially I was against it, but the more I played with and against Sicilians the more I agree with others, the resistance should be reduced to something like 30% or whatever the numbers are. But at the same time FU huskarl cavaliers shouldn’t exist. Hauberk should be at most 1/1. Or apply to infantry or light cav, nevermind cavaliers.
What if they just adjust the price i mean first of all in it self a tech that can produce 35 units shouldnt be that cheap but then again if its lets say max 20 and for example gave qn additional effect for dojons it might be more insentivising
Well just reduce the extra pierce armor to 1. Problem for sicilians without hauberk is they die to arb as they don’t have last archer armor. And even if serjeants have good pierce armor you really need to spam those meaning in most scenarios they still die to archers.