They can leave sergeants out by making the UT affect “barracks units” or even only militia line.
What i peopose is to reduce the knight extra pierce armor but also giving the IT to some infantry, because siciliana are supposed to be an infantry civ.
Except you rarely get to FU paladin in 1v1. That’s the thing
Which is exactly why they need one.
And for the UU.
Why so small? If it is Paladin level shouldn’t it be close to 2050? It is not as good as Paladin but close. I think 1600-1800 resource seems balance.
As someone mentioned earlier, they are now Infantry & Cavalry civ.
No they dont.
Fair. Still mostly for minor reasons
Alright, enough of this ‘not an infantry civ’ talk. The civilization descriptions given are just a generic overview of a given civ’s major focus or area of strength. It is not, nor has it ever been, a prescription for the only thing they can do every time.
I main Franks, and yes I focus on knights a lot. But I have plenty of occasion to use every other unit available, and not all of their tech tree, UUs, and UTs are cavalry-focused either. In fact, since the Chivalry/Bearded Axe swap, they do not become a cavalry powerhouse until imperial (Note: they still are great at it; that eco helps a lot).
This is true across the board: Byzantines can rock offense, Berbers have FU champs, Goths have good-early game cavalry, Koreans can do something other than that &$%$&#&%&*% war wagon, and, yes Sicilians have good cavaliers (actually, pretty good generalists).
The point is: Sicilians are an infantry civ. It is what they are best at; it is where they have the most going for them.
I admit, I was not the biggest fan of Hauberk when I first heard it. It seems a little over the top to me. But we will have to see how it pans out. The devs clearly thought there was a need for a cav boost. Personally, I do think that the +2 PA could be lowered to +1 and still be a great bonus. But then, I get annoyed when cavaliers start working near paladin power levels, so I might be biased.
Of course, I also had the idea (because I am a terrible person) to see what it would look like to make the current Hauberk apply to both cavalry and infantry, and then take away blast furnace… You can go ahead and commence yelling at me; I deserve it.
2 Likes
Outside of it buffing Serjeants I think its overall a bad deal
Hard disagree at this
1 Like
You are right about civs not having to focus on what “they were said to”, I think I was just quite annoyed with Hauberk by the time I typed this topic.
Yet, my line of thought goes around yours. I think that the UT should give only +1 pierce or something else. I also think that the suggestion of giving the UT not to cavaliers but to barracks units would be good.
+1 pierce armour to only cavalier is kind of bad
I think the best UT for sicilians would be something giving their scorpions like +5 atk and make them garrisonable. This way it would synergize with the serjeant very well and finally give them a goto lategame unit comp also featuring their civ description.
This would be the castle age UT and the imp make scutage again, but 20 gold for the sicilan player and 10 gold for the team members.
This would make them solid civ with 2 clear gameplans: Archers into serjeant and scorp or scouts into knights and whatever deviates from that.
+1 PA only is bad for a imp unique tech period.
2 Likes
The UT (and the civ) seems fine. Someone on reddit did the math. The Cavalier will be really good against Camels. So if you’re a Camel civ, these Cavaliers will be pretty scary. But mostly, they’re still Cavalier, so other power units will still overpower them.
4 Likes
Tbh I think that the UT should stay the same outside of the cost. What should be changed is the damage reduction bonus.
Imo its practically impossible to make Sicilians competitive with it being so large
Also probably champions are good
You are probably quite right.
The reddit post has me convinced. The new Armor UT isn’t that op. Still believe the conversion resistance should go away from first crusade.
1 Like
The problem with that graph is that paladin just isn’t common in 1v1. I dont know if the cavalier is going to be a problem or not but it’s got potential to be very strong in 1v1
4 Likes
What I was saying (and I think what Vitor was saying) was +1MA and only +1PA, as opposed to +1/+2. But you may be right anyway.
1 Like
Yep, that was what I meant.
Tatars get +1/+1 for 3 units in castle age. An imp tech giving 1/1 to 1 unit is still subpar imho
3 Likes
Serjeants have 4+3/4+4 armor by the way. Which is 7/8, not 8/8 as someone said. I just wanted to add that.
Does anyone know when aoestats will start gathering new data?