Magyar have better cav archers than the other two.
One extra range, one extra damage, completely changes the unit. Until imperial they’re completely generic and then the Huns are the best until Sipahi, but once Recurve bow gets in, Magyars have the best CA.
You get the range of an Arbalest with 2 more damage, way more HP, and way more mobility. It’s practically impossible to quantify how important those three factors are together, but it’s massive and impressive. They don’t die and they handle way more things.
Practically speaking, a Magyar cavalry archer deals 33% more damage to a E. Skirm than a generic HCA, 50% more than an Arbalest. It’ll do substantially more damage against units who are generally considered archer resistant than the traditional archer unit, and it’ll do it from a longer range. That right there, is 115% of the extraneous effective hill bonus that the Tatars get, and the Magyars get it everywhere, with range tacked on. Way better against non-ram siege. Way better against Hussars and other high pierce cavalry (which is most cavalry). It’s really not a close comparison.
I think Turks and Huns have better CAs, for the more realistic scenario. Tatars are good because you save on 2 upgrades, but they are not special at all.
Realistic as in “you are going to have them and afford them?” Yes to the Huns, No to the Turks.
The turks don’t have a good eco bonus to make their early start strong, and you really need a good start to eventually get into cav archers because the transition is rough. Neither does the Magyars, but if it’s disqualifying for the Magyars, it is certainly disqualifying for the turks given than Magyars are at least going to get some free blacksmith techs that they can take advantage of to exert some manner of pressure and ease the transition.
The Huns are cheap, but they’re missing the armor tech in Imperial. One of the best things about HCA is how durable and pop-efficient they are, and I’d rather spend 20% more resources on an HCA with +1 attack, +1 range, +1 armor, and +2 pierce armor. The Magyar HCA deathball is just on a separate level from all other cav, and I’d take the effectiveness of that unit over practically any other option.
It is important to note that the Magyar Cav archer has one hidden bonus I’m not properly respecting that counts big time in this evaluation, and that’s having a cavalry trash option that handles siege oppressively. The Magyar Huszar makes the Magyar HCA brutal to deal with because the Huszar will snipe the siege if you try to commit to kill it and leave the siege line or use rams for cover fire. Add in their already significantly buffed damage against traditional archer counters and it’s oftentimes incredibly hard to find an effective answer to them. Vietnamese have you covered. Besides them, it’s tough.
Then it’s on opinion. You are free to disagree. I disagree. Having extra range means taking less damage, means extra HP is less relevant. This is one of the practical reasons why Elephant Archers don’t generally get used. Their main advantage is something you don’t need in a practical army composition. The extra range should more than offset the lesser health given how many fewer shots will be taken against them as a whole.
EAs have the problem that they are not needed in the Indian game plan, not that they are so terribly bad. They actually work well against units that traditionally counter Archers, and do a lot of damage to Towers or when raiding.
But when you already have FU Cav Archers, FU Hussars and Imperial Camels, you just do not bother with EAs.
For all levels Tatars have one of the worst win rates of all civs. That will tell me one think: If Tatars this bonus is broken, they must have high win rate. They dont. So this bonus isnt broken. If Tatars need a change, it will be a small buff, no nerf.
We can assume that civs are balanced if they are roughly around 55-45% win rate (making them all 50/50 is too unrealistic) so Tatars look just fine by this criteria and need no change.
The only civ taht desperately seems to need to be buffed, is Portuguese, which have a winrate lower than 40%. The goal for all cive should be between 45%-50%.
but you dont use your cav archers to soak damage, you use it for raid the enemy and with hit and run tactics.
Mangudai its 10 times better than the tatar cav archer
Did i see a post to nerf the Tatars?! What the hell is wrong with you people?! The Tatars is in the worst 5 civs in the game, and they are the worst in the DE new cive and you suggest a nerf for them?!! And for what, for a hill bonus?!!! Hahahahahahaha your post is completely a big joke man, if you said that you suggest a small nerf about the Keshik cost i will forgive you, but nerf the hill bonus because the CA can win very easy with it?!!! Hahahahhahah
All the civs already have a hill bonus attack, the Tatars just have more and this is not OP or broken at all, i wonder from where did you get your nerf idea?! And the Tatars CA are not the strongest CA in the game, the Magyars have the best CA in the late game, and the Mongols have the best CA in the castle age, so what for the Tatars except their +1 PA and in the late game? A hill?! Hahahahahahaha
Hill bonus and CA are just fine, but Keshik need some re-design indeed.
Maybe a higher food cost, but a more significant gold generation hability would be interesting :
like 65 food 40 gold and a 0,5 gold generation per seconds while attacking (instead of 0.36)
The problem with the Keshik is that they are really weak, their class is “raiding cav”, they are so weak, so if they have a high cost then what the advantage they will have instead?!
the extreme irony though is they are slightly more tanky, but do less damage, that is literally the opposite of what a raiding cavalry should do… they generate gold per second spent IN combat… again counterintuitive of what raiding cav should be doing… they should be spending as little time in combat as possible, killing and running away …
instead half the time im almost inclined to leave them in a fight to gain gold…