Trained at Castle really gives Boyars niche benefits, for example getting outproduced every time while being weaker and more expensive than Teuton Paladins.
6 Likes
I think the argument may be a bit different that your final point. I think the Slavs are in a pretty good spot but I think the point is more that the Boyar isn’t a particularly good unit. E.g. why wouldn’t I bank the 80g / boyar with the upgrade costs and focus more on pumping out siege onagers with splash damage halberds in front
For unique units there are some where it’s basically a pure upgrade over the comparable unit and others where it’s a more situational unit. Boyar feels a bit below the cut in both of those situations.
That being said, I think there are bigger issues out there than the Slavs UU
2 Likes
Because Mangudais are supposed to be weaker against ranged units
Yes, a unit with more damage and 4 more range lose to generic Arbs 11
If Janissaries designed to be an anti Infantry unit they would have anti Infantry attack.
3 Likes
I think uniqueness is the argument because people are using TKs and Samurais as examples of units that are better designed, and these units are far less viable than Boyars, they are just more unique.
Now if you think Boyars need a buff to increase their viability, then I’m happy to hear your arguments, but don’t use Teutonic Paladin as a point of reference, because it is one of the best units in the game, and they have been buffed specifically because Teutons were a terrible civ, which is not the case of Slavs. Boyars fill the role of a generic paladin and I consider them a good unit on my side so I don’t see the need for a viability buff.
Being weaker than Teuton Paladins is the case of most units in this game. Stupid argument. Let’s also completely ignore the upgrade cost + other arguments I made in the post you’re just replying to for a clickbait post that maybe 10 people will read. No point arguing with you.
1 Like
You have 10 stables. One idle. 9 is still much more than 3 Castles. Boyars are never seen competitive TGs, they are completely overshadowed by Cavaliers (Not even Paladins, lol), simply because production. (BoA2 -> Buffed Boyars, still useless)
Paladins are faster than Boyars, expect Teuton Paladins which are kill Boyars.
Viper and Nicov have already said that Boyars are useless.
3 Likes
You’re missing the point by just cherry-picking sentences. I’m talking about uniqueness and the fact we shouldn’t use teutonic paladin as reference to balance a unit. Whether UUs are not seen at high level has nothing to do with that. (Btw, almost no UU is seen at high level, not just Boyar, so what even is this argument ? Should we buff cataphracts or longbowmen because they were not seen at BoA2 ?)
2 Likes
slavs are already in top 5 winrate civs according to ae stats. rly teutonic paladains are what is ridicolous and needs to be reverted in my opinion.
- ironclad tech (castle age UT) should give +1 armor to cav and infatry (including teutonic knights) and +2 to siegeFU
- free armor civ bonus changed to siege +1 meele armor in castle and in total +2 in imp (total +4 meele armor for siege unchanged but only +1 for infantry and cav and its not free anymore plus needs a castle, instead only free siege armor).
lower the elite teutonic knights base armor by 1 (it gets it back from changed ironclads tech) and lower the elite upgrades cost (this is in total a buff and FU Stats are unchanged)
I didn’t use Teutons Paladins only as a reference to balance Boyars.
Generic Paladins have more hitpoints, speed, created at stables and they are cheaper.
We saw Longbowman and other viable Unique Units in Battle of Africa 2, Cataphracts upgrades were too expensive and they’re anti Infantry.
4 Likes
We aren’t using Teutonic Paladin as a balance comparison, we’re just saying it stole whatever the niche the Boyar had in the first place and does everything else better now
3 Likes
But yes, you did:
and this is not taken out of context, check the beginning of this thread. The message you replied to and my following message were literally saying “we shouldn’t use UU vs Teuton paladin comparison”.
But anyway, I’m fine if you phrase it like this:
Then this becomes a different discussion. Imo “created at castle” is the single reason why Boyars are not seen, as well as the fact Slavs have just better options. But that is the problem for most UUs in the game, and would require a general UU rebalance, nothing specific to Boyars, in fact there are many UUs that are far more problematic.
No need to cherry pick. This was an example to say UUs not being seen at high level is nothing new which I’m pretty sure you agree with. But I’m curious to see the Longbow game if you still remember it.
1 Like
I still compared them to every Paladin civ. Of course useless UUs are never seen, like Boyars, Elephant Archers, Karambits etc…
However we see Rattans, Longbowman, Chu Ku Nu, Plumes, Catas, Leitis, Tarkans, Axeman, Janissaries, Conqs, Konniks, Keshiks, Kipchaks, Arambais, Camel Archers, Magyar Huszárs, Condos, Kamayuks, Slingers etc… almost every time.
Of course Boyars should always beat melee units excluding Camels, Kamayuks, Halbs, Leitis and TKs (3 UU, 2 generic anti Cavalry)
5 Likes
You are saying that but that’s not what OP thread is about. Read the first 10 messages, people explicitly suggest to straight buff Boyar to make it win 1vs1 vs Teutonic Paladin. Make your own thread called “Make Boyar more unique” instead of “Buff Boyar” and then I agree
the thing that makes Boyar unique is the ability to do just that.
Why do slavs at all when you can just put teutons into all four team slots and maybe a byzantine ally just to increase heal speeds.
This rule is due to … ? cosmetic reasons … ? it’s not the way the game is designed (eg Mangudai loses 1v1 to Magyar CA). By buffing boyar just for the sake of making it beat Teutonic paladin you would apply an unnecessary buff to a civ that is already strong for purely cosmetic reasons.
1 Like
Give to Slavs again- "Farmers work 15% faster " or even “20% faster Farmers”.
I do not understand why somebody gave to Turks- “Gold Miners work 20% faster” from Dark Age. It was increased from “15% faster gold miners”. The Turks are ONLY imperial age civ. At the begining of time of Aoe 2, the Turks were just part of Saracens.
added to first post let me know if you have any further suggestions
Didn’t know that Arabia is located in the center of Asia 11
5 Likes
Boyars should dominate every melee fight (and not being overshadowed by Cavaliers) expect Camels, Halbs, Kamayuks, Leitis and TKs.
2 Likes
Is the pot calling the kettle black?
A heavily armoured UNIQUE unit that literally has lower hp and speed to offset it’s armour and was clearly designed to win melee fights is beaten in performance in EVERY single way by a generic unit line both cost efficiently and pop efficiently. It doesn’t matter who that unit line belongs to. Name a single UU unit in the game where this happens.
That removes a lot of uniqueness.
It barely just beats vanilla paladins.
Woooaahh guys! He must be right. Discussion done. Its upgrade is cheaper. The unit is therefore unique 
The uniqueness is that the axeman belongs to franks.
The uniqueness is that the gbetto belongs to mali
The uniqueness is that the mameluke belongs to saracens.
Get it now?
All 3 ranged melee units are very different to one another and excel in different fields while having slightly different counters. That is uniqueness.
Not “built from a castle, cheaper upgrade and belongs to another civ”
2 Likes
And besides the uniqueness, buffing the boyar MA makes it a more viable unit. Slavs suddenly become OP and unbeatable because their UU becomes SLIGHTLY more viable?
Are you yet another person that feels the S tier civs should not have competition?
“oh its fine for mayans and aztecs to dominate the meta, no need to buff civs that sit just below them”
2 Likes