How useless is a siege civ that doesnt get bombard cannon? Slavs get wrecked by any civ that gets bombard cannons and they call themselves a Siege civ?
Slavs are a super strong civ that can mass Scorpions or Siege Onagers effectively.
it sounds like a Siege civ to me.
All these civs get Bombard cannons can could easily destroy the slavs
Yeah try playing against any civ that gets bombard cannons in Arena. I just got utterly destroyed by Byzantines Harbs and Bombard cannons. My siege didnt even get anywhere near him not to mention all the other bonuses they have like the cheap trash and strong castles that never die.
Not at all, Slavs get Cavaliers, Hussars and a great UU for crushing enemy Siege.
Also, not all civs are supposed to be good in Arena. portuguese is trash outside of Arena.
I went Cavaliers, Hussars, UU, Champions, Elite scorpions, Onagers. I went everything Slavs had but it was no match for Harbs + bombard cannons + super HP castles then when he saw my Champions he went HC. There was no fighting him at all. It was completely broken and tilting knowing that Slavs is supposed to be a siege civ yet its one of the 15 civs in the game that doesnt get BBC… Seriously why is one of the civs that doesnt get it called a siege civ?? Why must Slavs not have BBC when Persians and Chinese literally have everything!!!
You just got outplayed.
Yeah because I made siege when he had BBC
Also, Chinese do not get Bombard Cannon, nor Hand Cannoneer.
Yeah but they get everything else they are still broken af. In HC3 they won like 14 out of 15 games they were picked. My point is why are some civs allowed to be super OP and others cant even have BBC when they are siege civ?
Because Slavs have a great Stables, Barracks, and Siege Workshop.
Slavs are fine, Chinese are just the superior civ.
Okay think about it this way. You be Celts or Slavs and ill be any generic civ that gets BBC and lets 1v1 but with only siege units. Who do you think will win when you are making onagers and scorps and I am making BBCs? In a 1v1 siege vs siege these so called siege civs will lose to like 20 out of 35 civs. Thats like having a cav civ that doesnt get cavalier or camels. Just a cav civ that gets cheaper knights so you call it a cav civ.
You have to be joking, Celts are a top 10 civ.
I am just saying how ironic it is to be a siege civ that doesnt get BBC. And way to avoid what I said. 1v1 siege vs siege any civ that gets BBC. Do you honestly think you can win?
Siege civs are not supposed to use only Siege. Goths have BBC are their Siege is considered terrible. Slavs also have Siege Rams that beat the crap out of Archers, and break Walls much faster than any other Siege unit. Siege Onagers are the best Siege outside of Trebuchets, and Slavs have them aswell.
Just learn how to play Slavs. Being a Siege civ does not mean you have all options.
Goths are an Infantry civ, yet have Infantry weaker than some Archer or Cavalry civs.
So bottom line is you think giving BBC to slavs would break the game? They would be stronger than Persians so you think they shouldn’t get it? Is that what you are saying. Because I hate playing a siege civ that gets wrecked to BBC on Arena. Why dont I just go Persians and be an everything civ?
Yes. 15% discounted BBcs would also conflict with Italians BBcs, which have a bigger but much more focused discount, but also miss Siege Engineers as a payoff.
Go for Persians and be an “everything” civ, even though their Barracks are terrible, and their Archery Range only has Trash Crossbows, but all other options are bade because no Bracer.
So? Italian arent classified as a siege civ so Slavs siege should be better.
Slave siege is better than Italian Siege. Italian Siege cannot handle Infantry.
Well Slavs siege is only better in castle age when there arent BBC available. After that they would get wrecked