Sicilians new UT Hauberk too OP?

Fair point. Will give it a try soon.

1 Like

These Cavalier won’t be OP. They are still not going to trade well against Paladins, Camels, Halbs, Elephants. My guess is that Cavalry Archers in general will still easily deal with anything the civ has to offer.

2 Likes

To be honest, there is no true infantry civ in the game, except for Goths.

Almost every player of those civs has to choose either archers or horses/eagles for the battle, even if Goths before having a castle. So every civ can be considered as an archer civ or cavalry civ in some degree, especially in the team game.

In the most cases, the infantry civs have not-bad archer line, having either the thumb ring or the 3rd archer armor at least if it cannot get them all. If it has no bracer or both of these 2 techs, it usually has a good stable and the cavalry armor.

Sicilians lacks both of these 2 techs but having the cavalier and the 3rd cavalry armor. That means it actually closes to be a cavalry civ. However, Sicilians still seemed too weak to afford the duty of a cavalry civ, even having the -50% damage bonus. Now its cavaliers can do the good job as Malian and Bulgarian cavaliers, and they still can be countered by halberdiers.

Perhaps +1/+2 may be too much, +1/+1 is worth trying. Any way, I don’t think this tech is totally a bad idea.

2 Likes

Aztecs?

So Eagles are not infantry?

There are plenty of civs that have a tech or bonus that isn’t the main unit type of the civ, like Mayan el dorado, or slavs having the boyar, I see no problem with the design of the tech, I think that 2 pierce armor might be a bit too much though.

2 Likes

Werent Teutons supposed to be an infantry civ?
Werent Vikings supposed to be an infantry civ?
well tough shit infantry isnt really viable, all civs either go archers or knights in competetive play, the only exception being goths and for that fact alone many people are calling goths broken.

2 Likes

I agree that archers and monks are now pretty useless against them.
You can still decently fight them them with Knights of your own, Champions or Halbs though. Even with the bonus damage reduction, Halbs still do pretty okay and they also dont cost gold.

1 Like

AdditionalCitations did some extensive tests to compare the Sicilian Cavalier to some Paladins and Malian Cavalier against all kinds of units and posted it on reddit. It was as strong as Paladins in certain situations but weaker than Paladin in others.
Against FU Arbalesters it was actually slightly worse than FU or FU+ Paladins because it needs 4 hits instead of 3.
Against Champions, Hussars it is considerably weaker than Paladins as expected since it has less Attack and far less HP and only against Heavy Camels it performed the best.

Overall it seems to me even with the -50% bonus damage and Hauberk it is not an OP unit but it is cheap and fast to tech into which is what makes it a very powerful option.

Here the Link to his reddit Post :

3 Likes

To be honest, Aztec players often use archers before hitting Imperial age. Training more quickly make Aztec powerful while using the range units.
In the late team game, the player will start to train the halberdiers and the elite eagles, but usually still keeping training the arbalesters.

Eagles actually play the role of knights rather than just infantry, since American civs have no horse.

Halbs get absolutely destroyed by sicilians cavaliers and generic FU heavy camels lose 1v1 vs sicilians cavaliers. While true that camels are cost effective you literally need to mix just 10 halbs to absolutely smash the fight and win way too convincingly.
On top of this the tech is dirty cheap and makes them even stronger against arbs: either you have some very good cavaliers or pala, or you are always gonna lose a striaght up fight with them, and even if you have one of those options the sicilians are probably winning the cav/pala + halbs fight becuase they take less bonus damage.
Even heavy ca have a hard time dealing with them.

Tldr: the tech is too cheap and too effective

6 Likes

Honestly they should just reduce the efect of the damage reduction bonus.

It really makes the civ hard to balance in early game and the new tech complicates it even more.

2 Likes

Even without it, pierce armor is a powerful stat that shouldn’t be given lightly, especially not to cavalry

1 Like

Jesus christ no, transferring the current Hauberk effect to infantry would be still too powerful: serjeant would have 9 melee armor; 10 pierce armor (9 with your proposed +1) which literally make them immortal in a straight push against arbs (arena would become very LUL) while giving the halbs with 4 melee armor; 6 pierce armor (5 in your proposed change). Just no pls

1 Like

I don’t know why people are freaking out over this tech.
It makes the Sicilian cavalier around to be just under paladin.
If you want to talk about increasing its cost and research time? Fine.
But the effect of the tech itself isn’t that gamechanging.

Weren’t Sicilians supposed to be an infantry civ?

So are Malians and look at Farimba.

1 Like

Maybe just make the civ only get 25% less bonus damage. That would be a good nerf. So, it will in turn fix this new tech to some degree.

1 Like

infantry civ is an euphemism to say infantry + some other Knight- or Crossbow-line unit. Infantry in Feudal/Castle is not really viable so Sicilians are probably fine, their desired comp in Imp is still infantry with a mix of Cavalier now which before wasn’t truly viable after Castle age.

Sic just need an affordable ranged support to their serjeant.
And from the beginning of the game.

Either they need a bonus to one of the ranged units which gives them higher dps or they need a gold bonus which allows them to go for that double gold comp for a while.

As sic lategame is already quite strong they possibly can get away with gold getting scarce at some point. But with the current settings double gold is just no option for them.

And that’s sad cause the Serjeant would make a great frontline for a high dps ranged unit.

The new UT is just a sign that devs gave up on that concept, which is very sad. Because they didn’t even really try to make it work. How you can expect a strong frontline to work if there is no backline worthy of protecting?

usually monk + siege or crossbow in castle (depends on map type). Although Mayan/Aztec can choose to do straight Eagles, it is not very often seen.

No. Sicilians knights were fine on release. Adding conversion resistance was stupid, but somehow acceptable. But Adding armor on top of that is completely senseless.

They need to revert the changes. Pre update sicilians felt okey. Yeah, +100 stone is a good change, but the new UT and new Team bonuses are plain mistakes. Specially considering that old team bonus and old UT were fine

2 Likes

Eagles play the role of whole stable substitute. Conversion resistant with attack bonus vs monk is clearly the role of scout lines. But none of these logics make them cavalry when they are clearly infantry.

Both of them have a civ bonus for infantry and 1/2 UT for infantry. On the other hand number of infantry bonus for Sicilians is 0 or 1 if you count First Crusade UT. The only other civ that has same thing is Incas. But their villager affecting by blacksmith upgrade and Imperial UT affecting 2 infantry units is more infantry bonus than Sicilians.

I personally think change the effect of UT from knight line to barracks units. I was asking for +1/+2 armor for a civ for a long time and I think Sicilians will be perfect for this.

More often for Aztecs than Mayans and Incas though.