Well first of all, they have only 80 HP to make use of that melee armor;, theyre not paladins.
Srcondly CA hardly ever get in a melee confrontation.
And most importantly, the Tatars dont even have a viable spear line to counter the same enemy hussars you’re talking about.
So why not make Tatars good at Horse v Horse battles, as a soft counter to Light Cavalry?
doesn’t matter. the lower a units base attack, the more armor negatively impacts them.
so yeah the armor might not have a big impact against paladins, but against the likes of light cavalry its going to have a greater impact. and seeing as Silk Armor is a castle age UT, giving those units +2 extra melee armor right off the bat is a huge bonus. you’re literally giving scouts, steppe lancers, and cav archers knight line armor.
because they already have solid counters to the Light cavalry line, believe it or not, their cav archers are really good at shredding light cavalry.
Win rate for tatars increase after 20 minutes of game, they struggle to get to that point. My suggestion was giving them a free scout when reaching feudal age.
i noticed tatars struggle in the early game. which is why i suggested 50% off food price for eco upgrades.
That wourld make their Scout rush too annoying
That idea is great too, fully support that change, but still Tatar CA and SL are too lackluster for them to be called a true Cav Archer civ
Their FU CA and SL should have something more going for them, considering their overall horrid trash
how are they lackluster? they get all the armor upgrades and parth tactics and thumb ring for free. on top of that they get +1 pierce armor and extra advantage on hills.
Hill bonus is easily negated by literally anyone who has learnt to pay attention to hills.
Melee Armor is BY FAR the least important stat for a ranged pierce damage unit. I’m sure you have learnt this by now.
+1 Melee armor to CA is a extremely small buff that fits well in place, also allowing for a minor buff to Tatar SL and LC, the latter change atleast giving Tatars some hope in trash wars.
maybe, but its still an advantage you can exploit and its not always avoidable.
first of all, melee armor might not matter, but pierce armor does, so you’re attempted dodge is just that, a bad dodge.
they still have far more pierce armor then hun or mongol cav archers. also why are you bringing up melee armor?
the only civs i would say could even compare to Tatars cav archers are
literally no other civ gets all attack and defense upgrades, thumb ring, parth tactics, and a bonus on top of it.
so to call them lackluster is once again a HUGE EXAGGERATION on your part.
They lose in early game because they try for fast castle to cav Archer what is not working.
is that why the pros are losing too? because they make amateur mistakes?
Because that’s literally the only change this thread was about, it’s literally just +1 melee armor more what is being suggested, in case you forgot.
Though I do understand some people may not pay attention to details
Exactly, that’s the point.
+1 Melee armor to CA is a extremely small buff that fits well in place, also allowing for a minor buff to Tatar SL and LC, the latter change atleast giving Tatars some hope in trash wars.
Extra melee armor fits DE Cavalry Archers because they can’t hit and run.
After a major Frame Delay buff this would be less important.
and yet that wasn’t my statement at all. you claimed
which is why i asked
because the truth is tatars cav archers are easily top 3 non unique unit cav archers in the game.
that is what i am questioning
i’m not questioning your buff to SA. i’m questioning how you can have the sheer AUDACITY to claim that Tatar Cav Archers are LACKLUSTER.
which has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with my statement.
Lackluster to be called a Cav Archer specialist civ is what I meant, obviously.
I am sure you have learnt this extremely basic fact about the Tatars bonuses by now
@Lonezwiebel @CheshireWig3203 @EveryJester7180 and many others here sure have.
So let us go about fixing it, instead of scrutinizing that which has already been observed month and month over
And then there’s the poor SL too, for which +1 melee armor will be minor, but fitting and sorely needed
except they aren’t lackluster on teh cav archer front
they get all the upgrades + 2 of them for free and a bonus that helps them survive against their greatest enemy. other ranged units. they have easily top 3 cav archers in the game that aren’t unique units. which means they are FAR from lackluster on the cav archer part.
the problems with the civ lie elsewhere.
only 4 civs can make the claim they get all upgrades for cavalry archers and get a bonus on top of that. 1 of those does nothing for fighting units. and the other doesn’t kick in until imperial.
except even if your claim was true (Hint its not, its not cav archer bonuses holding tatars back), giving them extra melee armor does jack all to help their cav archer specialist civ, because as you like to point out, melee armor doesn’t do anything for them. which means your argument that your helping their cav archer identity is awful.
Melee Armor as a minor buff, it’s tiny but it’s something. Even on CA.
So dont exaggerate, and overstate things, and then claim I said it.
The bigger point of the change will be the melee armor on Hussar and SL though, which the Tatars sorely need, considering their horrible millitia line, horrible spear line and hence overall horrible trash.
They need something to do hard melee battles in trash wars, +1 melee armor on Light Cav will give them atleast some hope, however small.
I agree that this is a baby-step though.
you literally just said cav archers least important stat is melee armor, so how does giving them extra melee armor actually help their identity? you’re literally giving them something you yourself admitted is the least impressive thing you can give them. good job parthnan.
and my point wasn’t about the usefulness of buffing Silk Armor. my point was your argument is trash. your argument was they don’t get enough bonuses to be considered anything more then a lackluster cav archer civ.
they get all the upgrades. they get extra pierce armor. they get extra advantage on hills (which considering new arabia isn’t as easy to avoid as you might think). they have easily top 3 cav archers overall and the best castle age cav archers bar none. but apparently, according to you, that makes them lackluster.
your argument that they have lackluster cav archers is laughable at best.
I disagree with you here, because I’d prefer Tatar Halbs over Pikes and they get FU skirmishers and Hussars with extra armor.
Remember Halberdiers do huge damage to Eles, Cavalry and Camels even Tatar Halbs.
Look, Tatar Halbs die instantly against any player worth his salt.
They literally got 3 less pierce armor, that’s the exact opposite of the imaginary OP Malian Halbskarls people love to fantasize about.
Heck, non-elite Karambits could last much longer on a field.
There is a reason why pros and even ordinary people use FU Pikes with Mongols/Saracens etc, but never Tatar Halbs.
FU Pikes >>>>> Tatar Halbs, is a well known thing by now
Although I do see how in a low level game, Tatar Halbs could be as good as FU pikes,
because no micro/focus killing in there
And this is why Tatars need something to do hard melee battles in trash wars, +1 melee armor on Light Cav will give them atleast some hope, however small.