The broken part of the civ is their hill bonus that applies to every unit. While there isn’t always hills, most maps have hills in strategic points. Also, there are civs that have way less valuable bonus as their civs (example indian fisherman bonus is way more situational).
For example, they have the most powerful cav archer line in game, even more than mongols. Same number of cav archer of Tatars wins both the cav archer and mangudai of mongols, WITHOUT the hill bonus which is possibly normal given their techs but lets see the difference in hill bonus vs without.
All techs available to that civ has been researched
wow who thought fighting uphill against a civ with hill bonus would be a good idea. If anything the keshiks need a nerf, they’re too cheap and fat, almost negates the need for going hussars.
also your comparison doesn’t make any sense, mongol cav archers have 3 less armor and fire faster, should’ve gone for a generic cav archer civ like indians or japanese
It is not about fighting uphill because you want to. They are cavs archer they have mobility to take the hill and if you try to take it back, you will be killed and your army will be slaughtered because you can’t move and attack.
Tatars do not need a nerf. People need to learn, that hill bonus in a regular match is not neglible and vs Tartars you really want to be on your toes. Apart from that it also stands to reason, that Tatras have not the strongest Cav Archers, but Turks with their UT Sipahi. Furthermore, Tatatrs are characterized as the only Cavalery Archer Civilization. Them not having one of, if not the strongest CA would be kinda odd.
It also stands to discussion, that just pitting two unit types vs. each other is rarely represantive of how they will perform in the game where people mix in counter units and meat shields. You also did not adjust the MU of CA vs a counter unit to the ressources spend. You are also dicarding that the counter units such as genitours and Skirms do not cost gold and are very cost efficent.
I think at this point Tatars, Turks and Magyars are at the top concerning CA. There is not much value in pitting these units against each other to find out who wins that. What counts is that Magyar CA are good at hit and rn and raids (increased damage and range), Turks CA are much more survivable in a straight up fight and can forgive slight misplays while Tatars CA are a tad more survivable while being able to exploit the hill bonus due to good mobility. They are also easier to tech into due to free TR and PT.
Yep, those fat boiz need to lose some weight. Gonna crush those horses. All that Tartar sauce really adds up.
But yeah, Keshiks cost as much in total res as a samurai, but they are way, way better. They’ve always been a little too strong, the recent Tatar buff has just brought the civ into the spotlight more and exacerbated the effects of having a super UU.
TaToHs? Tater Tots? Tooters? Can we not do to “Tatars” what has been done to “Bonuses” in other threads?
Agreed. The +1 damage puts them in the DPS range of Mongol CAs, but they get all the upgrades, and the +1 range really seals the deal and allows them to stay further out of harm’s way. The Turks and Tatars/ Tankiness is a nice boost, but Magyar CAs are the best at the things CAs are supposed to be good at, and the +1 range definitely improves their survivability.
Ah, silly me. I should have realized that the definitive test of how good a cav archer is, is to make it fight other cav archers (especially cav archers with a UT that will help them do better in fights against other cav archers).
Stuff like being able to do better against knights, infantry, siege, villagers, and other units is clearly irrelevant. The only reason that people should ever make cav archers is to fight against cav archers with more pierce armor.
If we want to determine the best cav archer we make them fight against each another. It is obvious here?
You don’t wanna go directly into a knight line without any meat in front anyway. And the tatars effectively can survive better against range due to their pierce armor. With infantry, they can’t reach you and anyway, you ought to have meat shield. Against siege, again more pierce armor meaning better defense against scorpions and a onager shouldn’t be able to hit you with your speed if you aren’t distracted. In case of a villager, you need 3 late game and 4 early in both case to shot one
hmm 20 v 20, they actually won vs Turks. But if you give the Magyars the range advantage they win. But Turks are still tankier against the wider range of units and Magyars are better in combat overall. Magyars best all cav archer+hussar civs in direct combat with their superior huszars and recurve bow range and attack
I agree that tartars are strongbut cav archers are not the problem, keshik hp/price is the issue.
Tartars are strong late game, that’s why you need to pressure them hard in feudal, just focus on not letting them reach imp. Since herdables are their only eco bonus, you get a big advantage playing eco heavy civs and pressuring full feudal or early castle. I know that’s pretty difficult for inexperienced players tho.
If your a strong lategame civ then you counter them with preemtive walls with some skirms behind (if cav archers) or monks (if kgt or steppe lancer) when they push with siege just make ur own.
Countercivs to Tartars:
Vietnamese: make imp skirms & rattan for cav archers, they get halb to counter stable units & keshik (they miss blast furnace but halb get x3 bonus vs cav so doesn’t affect them) + stronger eco bonus then tartars so out booming is a possibility. Lack of siege ram might be a problem.
Goths: probably the strongest counter to cavalry civs, hurskarl and halb spam wrecks tartars. If tartars tech into hand cannoneers just go skirm or mix a lot of rams in ur comp. You’ll just kill all and tartars has no chance to come back cuz of the spam.
Teutons: extra pierce armor on infantry, their unique techs very strong vs tartars: “ironclad=+4armor siege”, “crennelation= +3 range castles”. imagine a castle push with siege rams, elite skirm and halb… only fallback is that it’s a slow civ. spread towers on the map for map presence.
Persians can go full castle pressure on tartars and outboom them in the meantime. Tartars get early castle advantage cuz thumb ring. when u reach imp you have around 10-20 vills advantage if you play safe. Those vills make the difference. You are most likely to reach imp first, just compensate by making more army and use your momentum. (Persians is almost always a good choise, just because it’s an overpowerd civ, you’ll always have a chance playing persians). pressure in castle/early imp. They lose a lot of potenial in late imp. If it’s a hybrid map you’re gonna win 4 sure.
Koreans : slow civ so you need to wall and go mangonels, also do tower defence and make it a late game with towers everywhere on the map, korean towers block off the tartar raiding potential and give you the option to take the map while snowballing. Tartars is very mobile and Koreans are not, so be sure to use defensive towers otherwise no chance against tartars. (same way of playing teutons, except your towers are a little bit better).
Byzanthines: halb, skirm and camel -25% cost, reach imp first, get town watch free to see incoming raids. If i’ts a hybrid map you’re gonna win 4 sure. just pressure with camels and trash.
Scaracens: !strongest counter! Mamelukes eat cav archers (new patch: Elite Mameluke firing delay reduced), strong camels with +30hp eat steppe lancer + siege ram = unstoppable push for tartars. Mamelukes can take good trades against Tartar cav archers even with hill bonus.
Indeed tartars are strong but i think they are in a good position right now. Hill fights are mostly a choice to take by the defender and engager. you can wall of hills or put castles on them to nullify the tartar bonus. And tartars don’t always get to their late game. so the strong cav archer push takes a lot of time. Tartars also have a big disadvantage to other civs on hybrid maps, getting no naval bonusses. So they are only playable on land maps.
My conclusion: tartars don’t need a nerf, other civs need a buff to be playable again.
Thinking about Turks, huns and incas… because these civs only have 1 strategy.
Man, is that thread even real 11. Such and OP bonus that you can counter by taking the hill first or not taking fights you can’t win. That’s too hard lol.
I swear mine was accidental.
Keshiks were absolute trash in their release state. And I don’t think they are too strong, else why would have devs buffed their building speed?
I guess you can go eles too. +50 HP is no joke, Tatars monks are trash and their halbs are too. And if they try flaming Camels you can abuse their lack of any armor whatsoever and just snipe them with your archers.
Late-game you win, sure, but Tatars are just better (as are all civs) in the first 3 ages anyway. I don’t think it’s a good plan.
I don’t get it Persian have better trash…
Against the civ that get siege ram + sniper trebs? Doesn’t sound good.
A good counter that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: you see these sweet, gold plundering Keshiks that everyone deem too cheap? What if these guys could work for you instead for an even cheaper price? What if Tatars lacked both Faith and Heresy?