Since each and every one of their stats (beside speed and range) is lower I don’t feel like this.
I have a good reson to want both knights and SL: it gives more options. Simple as that, more choice = good.
People are mentioning raiding but I’ve got more uses for them: first their maneuverability makes them good against siege weapons and monks. The range makes them that much more maneuverable and allow them to avoid getting bodyblocked by the pikes. The stacking also allows them to be more efficient to destroy buildings. Biggest issue with the unit right now is the cost of the elite upgrade, which has got a lot of room to be lowered.
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.
Mongols should be ahead from feudal and their SL has more HP.
Tartars have good power spike from free thump ring
Cumans can comfortably sit behind their second TC
If SL is trained faster and is cheaper, it is still a decent answer. Of course, early castle defense may be weaker for these 3 civs, and this is a difference with Huns and Magyars. Conversely, they may have better raiding capabilities.
I said attack bonus vs villagers for instance, but it can be a armor bonus vs camels/pikes. Or both. Just a different role
This is why SL should be buffed and Knights should be removed from Mongols and Tatars
as Mongols wont ever use them with 130% HP BUFFED SL
and Tatars are a Castle age power spike civ with HALF COST Heavy cavalry(Keshiks) anyway, and now, with BUFFED SL, and tankier LC.
Your buffs are better than you think, don’t criticize your own ideas.
At 60F 30G price, they would cost as much as Infantry and hence you will always be at a numbers advantage. You can easily take fights with Knights if the price drops that much.
Thump ring crossbowman can be in a decent number from castle age and can kill even +2 knights
There are several civs having bad knights, sometimes even skipping the stable to go archers. And they are not super bad.
If SL does so bad compared, say, to celts knights, and these 3 civs are too weak, maybe just a small buff to the HP of lancer is needed.
But again, having a civ a bit weaker to knight aggression is not huge. That civ can think of a different way to counter that knight aggression instead of going SL vs knights.
Really, I do not think that these civs become either unplayable or considerably worse in early castle age.
