Steppe Lancers for Huns and Turks?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

That does not work as an argument; because it can just be countered by “yeah, but its historicially accurate”. Any change to the game (apart from purely visual ones) impacts balance. Someone arguing with historical accuracy shows that they are not concerned about this, because if they were, they would (as the devs do, btw) use history as a way to communicate their balance proposals, not as the root cause. Its really a question of where you start: If you start with the observation that some things are not historicially accurate and thats what you want to change, then you obviously dont really care about balance so me bringing it up would hardly matter.
If you notice turks are beeing too weak on open maps and want to give them a buff, then use historical accuracy to find an appropriate way of doing that, you dont even have to bring up historical accuracy.

Basicially, if you agree that balance is more important than historical accuracy, there is no need to bring the later into the conversation as every change that increases historical accuracy also enhances balance. If you think that historical accuracy is more important than balance, then my answer is the one you labled as stupid.

22

If you bring the “it’s not a simulation” argument everyone will just ignore you or write a angry reply.

I think a lot of people are too afraid of the balance of the game being touched at all.
It’s possible to give a civilisation one thing but then take something else away to balance things out again.
Then we can discuss if that would make the game more fun or not.

Like would the Steppe Lancer be useful for the Turks?
Would it devalue the civilisations that currently have access to the Steppe Lancer because it would make them less unique?

23

Yeah and thats the discussion I like, and the one that has more depth than just “historical accuracy”. My comment was more aimed at the OP, who seemingly does not consider those questions.

1 Like
24

This is a logical concern, no doubt. But I have seen this argument before when people wanted SL for Mongols. Luckily game balance team added SL to Mongols regardless. And balance of Mongols have been maintained after that without any problem.

So this question

is very logical. No one is asking to ruin fun or balance in the name of historical accuracy. And this thread is trying to have a constructive discussion on that hypothetical case.

For me, I personally think Turks getting SL will not only be fun but also better for the game balance. We can just replace free LC+Hussar upgrade with free ESL upgrade. And maybe they can also get the +1PA bonus and/or 20HP from “Sipahi” tech. Huns shouldn’t get SL as I don’t see any way to prevent their strength to balance their win rate.

3 Likes
25

Sipahi is for Cavalry Archers only not for Light Cavalry.
So the +1 Pierce Armour makes more sense. That way they would still be worse then the Tatar one.

26

Here’s a mod I made that gives Huns and Turks (and Magyars) Steppe Lancers:

The mod’s based off this Reddit post from Azot-Spike, but it still incorporates some of the suggestion (e.g. Sipahi for SL) people have made in this thread. I would love to hear what people here think.

27

I’m personally not a fan of giving the Turks Steppe Lancers.

In my opinion, the Turks represent the Turkic group active in West Asia, which means they are not located in the Eurasian Steppe. We all know the origin of the Turks is inseparable from the Central Asian steppes, but that part is already represented by other Turkic civilizations, such as the Tatars. On the other hand, the two major cores of this civilization, the Ottomans and the Seljuks, had become less “nomadic”, especially the former. Also, Steppe Lancers with the extra PA and the gold bonus can be very dangerous in the early Castle Age.

The Huns and the Avars represented by them are located on the westernmost side of the Steppes. They came from the core area of the Steppes in the east, having a strong background with Central Asia and North Asia. There are no particularly effective bonuses except for the 20% faster Stables, which also makes their Steppe Lancers have less concerns.

1 Like
28

In general I’m a fan of expanding the reach of regional units.

The following is more related more to Huns than Turks. I think if there was a second upgrade (third tier) of steppe lancer then it’d be easier to give certain civs (at least Huns) steppe lancers, and then cutting back on their knight-line.

Huns have paladins rn. If there was a third tier of steppe lancer then instead of giving huns paladin, they could stop at cavalier, and be given the third tier of steppe lancer.

If you give Huns steppe lancers that’s just a buff to the huns, since they’d now have an additional option. Giving them steppe lancers but removing paladin would be a big nerf. But If there was a third tier of steppe lancer then you could give that to the huns, so as not to buff or nerf them (in concept, I realize that balancing things is more difficult than “x number of upgrades therefore same”). Also giving a third tier means you can keep the second tier where it is right now and let civs like the mongols keep steppe lancers but only give them the second tier, as they don’t need a super powerful melee cavalry option. If the mongols need heavy cavalry they already have the cavalier.

Cumans might also make sense to remove paladin and give them third tier steppe lancers. I’ve seen discussion about the persians getting steppe lancer (mostly around whether the in game civ more represents the sassanids or the safavids, etc etc). I really don’t have a horse in that race (pun intended). However if you did give persians step lancers, then they too might get the third tier of steppe lancer and lose paladin.

Turks probably just the second tier. Maybe keep cavalier, IDK.

Magyars and Bulgarians, could also be argued to get the steppe lancer because of their nomadic steppe origins. Maybe just the first tier to emphasize that “origin” part.

I think that steppe lancers might also use a bit of a buff in general. I know they’re micro makes them better than their stats would suggest, but still. Maybe a third tier would be enough and you wouldn’t need to buff the first and second tier. Perhaps instead of outright increasing their stats, you gave them some attack bonuses against gates, villagers, and trade carts. Not only would that be a buff and help differentiate them from knights, but I think that’d be very flavorful.

EDIT – Maybe even an attack bonus against economic buildings (not TCs though I think). Just something to increase the raiding flavor.

29

Yeah, it wouldn’t hurt them.

Even just generic SL would be good, they don’t need to give them any bonus, but they would be trained 20% faster.

1 Like
30

Or just let them have it because Persians are kinda awful outside of hybrid maps.

Persians strength was cavalry flexibility anyway, it makes a lot of sense to give that back to them.

2 Likes
31

You could. My suggestion was based on trying to not (intentionally) change the balance and only change flavor, however yes Persians are kinda awkward ATM. Letting them keep paladins AND give them steppe lancers, could be one way to address that.

I will admit that secondarily I do find it a bit odd that Persians get Paladins when Paladins are a European Heavy Cavalry unit. But saying Persians should have Paladins taken away for that reason alone is as good of an argument is taking Hussars away from the Mongols. I think a lot of aoe2 units were named after what europeans would call that unit. So I don’t think that should bother anyone (including me) too much. The Persians should get some top tier heavy cavalry and the fact the game calls that unit Paladins is just happenstance.

that being said, Paladins are really close to being an effectively european regional cavalier upgrade. That seems quite flavorful, only slightly marred by persians and cumans also having paladins. Not suggesting we break the game balance solely for tidy and flavorful changes, but if somehow Cumans and Persian (and Huns rounding back to where the discussion started) lost Paladins, and got something more flavorful and balance wasn’t adversely affected (or somehow improved) I wouldn’t complain.

1 Like
32

I don’t think Persians should lose Paladin, Persians are a cavalry civ with no bonuses to their cavalry, instead getting some pretty decent economic bonuses and an open tech tree. I think it is a really good and unique design for a civ, if they didn’t have full stables, they wouldn’t be an interesting civ.

1 Like
33

Would you give Persians Steppe Lancers in addition to Paladins like @Tyranno13?

34

How about replacing their Paladins with Sogdian Cataphracts (of course we need to tweak their stats a bit first) instead of giving them Steppe Lancer line?

35

That’s something I’d thought of. I’m not sure how much I like that. I prefer when two units fill the same role that they fill it differently. (Eagles and Light Cavalry, Dromons and Cannon Galleons, Archers vs cavalry archers vs elephant archers, etc)

Personally if we change the sogdian cataphract so that it’s very similar to a paladin then you might as well just let the persians have paladin. That’s why I suggested a third tier of Steppe Lancer. Currently the Sogdian Cataphract is comparable in strength to a cavalier. 10 less hp. 0/5 armor instead of 2/2. .1 tile faster movement. +6 vs archers. Admittedly more anti archer than a cavalier.

How do you envision changing their stats? What role would they fill?

1 Like
36

Unlike other regional units, steppe lancers don’t replace anything in the tech trees that have them, I don’t think nations should get a unit they don’t need. In fact the steppe lancers whole design feels weird to me, They use to be very overpowered and now are just niche. I also think the nations that currently have steppe lancers are the nations that lived in the steppe. Persia is not in the Steppe.

2 Likes
37

The Sogdian Cataphracts would replace the Cavalier line upgrade with an added bonus damage against other cavalry but since their upgrade ends at cavalier, their stats should be similar to that of the cavalier (add some HP or armor but not exceeding to that of the Paladins). So they’re still pretty vulnerable against pikemen or mass arbalests. I change its role from anti- archer to anti cavalier since archers are countered easily by cavalry overall anyways. This is just me thinking about this just a while ago, so feel free to take off from here.

38

I like how Persians are the only nation can go both FU heavy Camel and Paladin, the unit you are preposing would be a mixture of both but worse than both against their respective matchups. I personally think the ability to go multiple units is more interesting than having a unit that combines both units.

It is not that I don’t like your idea, it is just that I like the current Persians design.

39

The way I see it, I just give the Persian players more versatility of either going for the cheap but squishy Camels or the more expensive Cavalier with anti cavalry as a bonus to it, but I also understand your point as well.

Also you need to fully upgrade the Camels while you can get Sogdian Catas pretty early.

40

I do see what you’re saying. No civ has elephant archers and HCA, or siege elephants and rams, etc.

However lots of civs get UUs that are comparable to a standard alternative and have access to both.

I don’t want to argue taste. If you don’t like steppe lancers that’s fine with me. But having two options for a given role doesn’t seem to be a problem so long as both options provide pros and cons. that and so long as not every civ has the same two unit choice. Lots of civs could have access to only one or the other. a few could have both.

2 Likes