Just hypotheticly what if hauberk would be 1/1 for chavs maybe light cav too and gave the conversion resistance but first crusade would be something for their serjeant/infantry play or dojons
I personally would like to see a bonus like “Infantry cost 50 % less gold” or something like this.
They are classified as an infantry civ but have basically no bonus and the serjeants are a joke outside first crusade.
3 Likes
Actually there is only a fine line between imaginative and wierd suggestion. I do have thought another idea before but it seems wierd and the possibility is too low. Change the imperial UT such that Serjeant do exactly the opposite of obuch to reduce the attack upgrade (-1 atk per hit, up to 4). But the effect should be similar to armor increase of serjeant, which looks more acceptable.
Give Sicilians access to the Camel line just like in the campaign and Hauberk applies to them too.
Tbh Sicilians always seemed to me like a jack-of-all-trades civ, but i’m conflicted with the idea that they also should be more unique and not just be a different Byzantine civ.
1 Like
The Romans play considerably differently than the Sicilians.
1 Like
yeah was kinda weird they didnt at least give them castle age camels. their eco and lack of imperial tech wouldve still held them back…
hauberk couldve applied to castle age camels and LC instead of “spam moar cavaliers”
Hauberk itself isn’t OP, the problem is the fact that is given to a civ that has:
- Extra resistance vs bonus damage (in castle age pikes and camels are terribly wrecked).
- All upgrades to cavalry.
- First crusade which gives extra resistance vs conversion.
So you get an unit with a close perfomance to paladin while negating counter units in a mad way, and there isn’t any drawback for the Sicilian player to go for such unit, nothing at all.
And several civs hasn’t good counter to that (Vikings, Aztecs, etc).
And if Lithuanians having up to 22 attack paladin without drawback was a problem then I just don’t see reasons to left Sicilian Cavaliers as they are.
Piece of evidence, KOTD 4, ACCM vs Jordan, ACCM tried to hold back the OP knight push, but Jordan ram everything with such Cavaliers:
1 Like
Generic Heavy Camel goes toe-to-toe against Hauberk Cavalier, however, Heavy Camel is 15% cheaper. Hauberk Cavalier is little bit better than Generic Paladin against Heavy Camel and Halberdier and is equal against Arbalest but in all other situations, Generic Paladin is stronger than Sicilians Cavalier. Main advantage of Sicilians Cavalier is that it doesn’t need 170 seconds 1300f 750g Paladin Upgrade.
Sicilians Knight in castle is more problem than Cavalier I think. Players should make use of Sicilians Knight because it is really OP and by far best Knight in Castle Age.
1 Like
Because of Norman cavalry
1 Like
I would argue that the Lithuanians have potentially the best Knights in at least late Castle Age. Their relic bonus need not make up ground for missing Blast Furnace in Castle Age, meaning that 2 relics is a big deal, and 3 is nightmarish. The Sicilian Knights are problematic for the Romans, but they can just go Crossbow. Hunnic Knights are simply produced faster, which is a big deal early on. Persian Knights are good, Teuton Knights fare well against melee units, but are a bit slow, and so forth. The bonus against Pikes is extremely helpful, but I would prefer Lithuanian Knights.
2 Likes
I forget about Lithuanians Knight, Burgundians Cavalier is also great but it comes out a bit late like Lithuanians. 3 of them would contest each other. Berbers Knight is also very strong but it isn’t supported by eco bonus contrary to other 3 Knights.
Yes withh all 4 relics you kill everything in castle age and win easily the game, but to do that you need map control + invest into a monastery and 100g for Monks, Lithuanians don’t get any eco bonus for that point, while Sicilians get the advantage as bonus.
Don’t know why you always refer to Byzantines as Romans but that’s true.
And where are the Bulgarian Knights then? with Stirrups they are just as scary as the other mentioned here.
4 Likes
I would say to leave Hauberk as it is. Sicilian cavaliers are strong, but it’s rather expensive to fully upgrade them, not to say that Siilians dont have a super strong eco bonus that helps.
2 Likes
Yes Hauberk can stay as is but overall Sicilian Cavaliers need to lose something to offset such amount of advantages they get.
That’s because currently Sicilians have very good cavalier and don’t need to do Serjeants. But Serjeants are a great unit. Quite tanky with 7 melee and 8 p.armor and 85 hp. And they don’t have the issue of requiring too many castles. You can build donjons with Serjeants and make more Serjeants from them if you need a faster respawn.
2 Likes
Yeah, that was me.
My point was - Serjeants combat performance doesn’t justify their cost. They are overpriced because of their ability to build Donjon.
2 Likes
I dont know why you would replace the tech - it makes sicilian cavallier slightly better vs halb/arb (not vs high dmg archer units) and a lot worse vs melee units.
They strike me as a solid civ and on most maps they are decent but not top tier. Making Serjeants more affordable would be an interesting idea - atm you mostly use them bc of first crusade.
3 Likes
exactly that. thus why i was saying one could simply up the cost and time of hauberk a bit
I agree. Perhaps take Blast Furnace away? Or lower the conversion resistance of First Crusade.
You can’t be serious. To make Serjeants even weaker and overpriced?
1 Like