this is patently false.
that’s because they got overnerfed.
No that’s because of the simple fact that SL can either be better than Knights, or be worse. Only one will see the light of day for these civilizations.
This has happened in the past and even now, because 1. SL are too similar to knights. is true. If 1. SL are too similar to knights were false, this would never happen.
Logic 101
Deductive thinking 101
1 Like
I think elite SL could use 1/2 armor, 3 may be too much. I would really like SLs to find a place in the game, they looks so cool after all 
I still wonder whether the 1 range ability for a melee unit fits in game, it tends to make things too strong (kamayuk is at least held back by the fact that it is an infantry unit)
1 Like
Not really. People use the light cav for raiding despite the knight line existing.
Make the steppe Lancer an alternate to that. Increase its attack speed, reduce its cost, give it some piercr armor and it becomes a good castle age raider
You make claims, but never say how
I maintain my stance that it solves at least two problems:
- SL are too similar to knights.
- SL civs never get to use them in serious play. Either SL>Knights or Knights>SL
We literally have thousands of games of evidence for 1 and 2 above.
2 Likes
They arent similar to knights at all. Their closer to light cav. Low health low armor. Fast moving.They have an insanely slow attack speed. Even worse then a knight.
Knights are bulky and beefy. And take a pounding. SL don’t.
My idea. Increase pierfe armor to 2/3.
Increase attack speed to 1.8.
Reduce cost to 60/30.
More damage then light cavs and better pierce armor fully upgraded at the cost of gold. Also costs less food
2 Likes
SL should simply be reskinned knights for nomad civs.
There, I said it. We never needed new units. The game is plenty strategic as it has been for 20 years. And a “ranged-melee cavalry” doesn’t fit any niche, it’s just silly.
2 Likes
Your not the first to say that in this thread. If thry simply replaced knights with the same stats and same costs and the steppe Lancer name it wouldn’t bother me.
1 Like
I agree on this MatCauthon. On top of this though, it would be good if Mongols and Tatars lose Knights considering SL will get more beef with more armor, and Knights will become almost redundant balance-wise as well as design-wise for Mongols and Tatars.
Remember they also get Camels.
Except then they are weak as heck to castle age pressure.
2 Likes
Except then they are weak as heck to castle age pressure.
Again, you make claims, but never say how.
These are two Cavalry Archer civs we’re talking about who never go for Knights. Heck, Tatars even have a better Knight-unit that almost costs HALF of a Knight themselves.
Once SL gets buffed, they will have no need of knights.
And what about Cumans and mongols? No knights and no good anti melee unit. Tatars better then a knight unit requires a cadtle and is only better then knights in better numbers
3 Likes
Cumans Paladin is OK , Its the Tatars and Mongols were talking about.
But you wanr to remove the knight line…
Keshik requires a castle and two to one production over knights
1 Like
But you wanr to remove the knight line…
DUH
Which is my point. Without the knight line they have nothing to stabilize in the early vadtle age
2 Likes
Are you forgetting Mongols and Tatars are Cav archer civs who go Cavarchers almost all the time?
If they have to go cavalry from a stable they have the options of a BUFFED SL, Camels and even Keshiks from Castle for Tatars, Keshiks are universally better than Knights.
1 Like
And how do cav archere in low numbers do against knights?
Also keshik requires a castle, that isn’t early castle play. Furthermore keshiks are only better then knights if you have 2 Keshik per knight
The buffed SL is a raiding unit with low healrh and low melee armor. It would get wrecked by knights.
The goal of my change wasn’t to make it a knight replacement. It was to make it a raiding unit. It costs less food then a scout, has more pierce armor (at elite), more range and attack. Its tradeoff is a gold cost
2 Likes
What is the problem in having SL better than knight in some situations and weaker in others? You have proposed good changes to stats. SL can be faster, cheaper and with an attack bonus vs villagers.
You can have an imperial SL for cumans to replace Paladins.
Clearly, if we want more variety to the game, we need to accept that SL civs will do something better and something worse than now. If you really like knights/cav archer play, you call still pick magyars and huns. If you want to move on something different, pick mongols and tartars SL/cav archers. Similar for the idea of Cuman imperial SL. If you want to play classic Paladins, you can pick Franks, Magyars…
1 Like
These changes would be great. I agree
If you really like knights/cav archer play, you call still pick magyars and huns. If you want to move on something different, pick mongols and tartars SL/cav archers.
EXACTLY this is what i am trying to argue.
1 Like