Could use a good buff, +2 attack is looking decent ontop of that +3 range with Lithuanians - as for Teutons they have extra garrison space instead of extra attack and would do well with extra 3 range as well.
While Lithuanians have full arrow attack upgrades, so a full 3 attack over Teutons with the +2
They literally have a bonus vs buildings. This alone shows us they are intended to be used vs buildings. The more range then tcs further supports this. If these werenāt supposed to be they would easily have been nerfed by now.
In castle age? Not really. Rams can be easily killed by even villagers. Military units are very susceptible to arrow fire.
Mangonels are used because they are one of the most cost effective answers and can be easily defended whereas rams cannot.
Itās not a little defense. Itās literally over twice the coverage area.
I donāt have a problem mangos eating tcs with enough numbers, one or two is far too cheap and that I have a problem with. Itās perfectly fine that mangos eat towers and houses and military buildings and archers and other units when microād - but not tcs, not with so little numbers and so cheaply bought while being easily defended.
2 mangonels cost over 300 wood and over 250 gold. That is a huge investment.
Furthermore itās going to take them a long time to tear a tc down. If you canāt mount a defense in that time thatās your fault.
Yeah totally cheap man. Seriously.
Itās allot cheaper than an archer mass, as well as easy to ātechā into for both archers and knights and infantry types alike - itās universally cheap and effective for the effect it brings to the table. 2 of them is easily done with very little effect/detriment on the eco.
Itās also better to use mangos than it is to go skirms in most situations, and cheaper on the eco as well.
Itās more expensive rhen a battering ram. As for it being being cheaper then archers that has no bearing. Apples and oranges.
Yeah youāre proving just how little you know. Even in early castle age itās hard enough to afford 2 stable knight and villager production at the same time. Imagine saying adding 160 wood 130 gold unit on top of that is cheap and easy.
Debatable. I frequently see single mangonels microed against.
200 wood for the siege workshop, 160 wood and 135 gold for the mangonels, while also being snipable from literally every cavarly unit in the game.
You are investing 275 wood and 100 stone to defend a res and to boost your eco, he is investing 200 wood for the siege workshop and 160 wood and 135 gold just to pressure your building. Not destroying easily, but pressuring. Two mangos are literally worth 520 wood and 270 gold of investement (because you need the workshop) and should be worth their value
And will take a long time to tear a tc down, assuming that it somehow gets ignored long enough to actually do so
I frequently defend with petards and mangos of my own with a decent amount of success vs both mangos and rams, still perfecting but working on the setup - currently I find that mass rams x knights do a good job in eating my tc formations If I donāt micro properly or donāt have a mango or three inside the siege protection walls to take down incoming rams. It can get pretty tricky. But mangos are a frequent sight, usually defended by archers, else I tend to counter with a single petard.
Without a castle - tcs tend to drop like flies to knights alone, or archers + rams - really depends
You do realize that when we talk mangonel pressure that it is largely an early castle age thing right? Mass knight + ram would be a late castle age type thing. Weāre talking about builds that hit before castles usually come up. If you canāt defend mass knight + ram that definitely sounds like a you issue, seeing as Knights of your own + some pikes should easily handle that.
If they have mass knight and you canāt deal with that, youāre overlooking.
Same with archers and Rams.
I can* still learning atm, and itās always been a me problem, my raiding elo is still below around an 800 range. Canāt pull off a scout rush let alone an archer or militia. And somehow Iām starting to reach into the 1200ās.
Hell, my eco tends to start falling apart if I use villagers to lure boars instead of the scout, thatās how bad I am.
My situational and eco awareness into military opportunity needs work. Lots of work. Same thing with constantly switching mono-tasking - the main reason I focus on one concentrated area for defense is because it absolutely falls apart if I start attempting an offensive at the same time as building the eco. Both offensively and defensively, I personally have to work into each phase slowly. atm itās just a matter of building experience and good habits, once the foundation is set, Iām guessing somewhere around 1400-1500 elo, then Iāll worry about adding in a rush variation or two when my understanding of my own defensive-eco is set in stone.
Well, all I see here is a change requested to make your playstyle better atm.
Makes zero sense from a neta perspective and makes zero sense from a balance perspective.
After all this discussion and general lack of support you received I hope at least you see that.
Gl getting to that which such a bad strat, you are probably gonna get killed by the first half decent player who realizes he can kill you with a stragiht fc/fast arbalest play
I suppose Iāll keep you updated.
I just want them to replace Teuton Paladins to Crusader Knights and Frankās paladin to frankish paladin skin.
This is at least reasonable. Though I donāt see why so many people want to nerf teuton paladins this hard.
You lose 60 health and .15 speed for some more attack basically.
As lojg as they are just client sided skins i see zero problems
because they are jealous of the might of HRE
Be it a skin or the actual unit, Iād like it to be well and visible by both allies and enemies, particularly for the crusader knight.
Itās just not as cool if both you and your enemies suddenly have their paladins switched out for crusader knights without context due to unrestrained mods that simply replace the skin of all parties involved. Itās 1000% more epic when with context.
And it tends to not be as cool if youāre the only one enjoying the view.
I am against this change. The unit would be way too strong in certain situations.
Also low mobility is already a problem for teutons, they donāt need to be pushed more in that direction. Actually quite the opposite.
But I would like to see a UU that is resistant or even unable to be converted. Especially a heavy cav variant. I think that could be very interesting, new mechanic.
Fair enough, however the crusader knight upgrade can very well be balanced, and if the reduced speed is a problem the unit can also be re-balanced as well as cost-wise for the upgrade being increased to somewhere between cavalierās and paladinsā or as high as a paladinās to offset that window where they would dominate cavaliers and gain traction sooner vs archers. A further method is to rebalance the research time of the upgrade itself.
The main effect of the crusader knight replacing the cavalier upgrade and the removal of paladin is to put that cavalry focused power-spike firmly in that window while reducing their end-game powerspike and shifting it to other focuses such as infantry, siege, and defensive structure mainly.
If the lower attack speed is also a problem, then shifting it to that of a paladin will have generic paladins and the crusader knights trading 1:1
Another effect of having less hp yet more armor- healing via herbal meds or monks is more effective and faster to be finished, as well as easier to be kept up with.