What you said does not conflict with I have said. Don’t use words like “partially true” or “not strictly true” to ignore.
If you gave an archer civilization Bloodlines that they didn’t have, wouldn’t it be considered a buff? Even though the player may make wrong decisions, improperly invest a lot of cavalry instead of archers and lose the game, wouldn’t it be considered a buff?
Gaining new abilities is inherently a net gain, no matter big or small, regardless of the user’s operation.
What I’ve seen is that you’re going to abuse the Teutons’ tower bonuses to create a very large, balance-breaking advantage, especially in the late game of a team game.
I believe a lot of people would agree that the Teutons do not need a “fix” like this, especially if you’re doing it with features from other civilizations.
Yes, that would be a buff, but giving them Bloodlines for free would be an even bigger buff. Making TK’s mounted would be akin to free bloodlines, whereas giving them the ability to build towers would be more along the lines of allowing them to research bloodlines; in other words, a more subtle buff.
I don’t think anyone is going to make the claim that towers are in any way overpowered. Especially not Teutonic towers, lacking bracer. This would be a small change to improve their niche, nothing more.
Much the contrary, I think that most people would agree that TKs are fairly useless right now, and could use some help. But that help needs to come without profoundly boosting the civilization as a whole, hence the suggestion, which I believe would have minor impacts at best on their overall performance, while giving their unique unit a bit more utility.
They have Keep and Arrowslits, 2 important tower techs no less than Bracer. You let them not need villagers to the front, which is another very big advantage and a main reason this idea is regarded too similar to Sicilians. If, as you said, it works well with so many other bonuses, it should have a very noticeable effect, not just a “little change” that makes them less niche. Otherwise, it would be a simple redundant and more niche design.
On the other hand, TK is decent, albeit a niche. You still have opportunities to see them being used, for example using them instead of Halberdiers to launch attack with Mangonels, Rams and sometimes Monks is a very effective tactic.
IMO, if people want TK to change, that is hoping them faster (eg from 0.7 before to 0.8 now) or other stats change simply, not such a new ability. I even think it would be also acceptable if the cavalry mode was designed to be 1 HP only, but I’m also looking forward to simply increasing their speed.
I have said all I have to say. You can stick with your ideas, but I won’t try again to tell you why this should hardly be implemented.
I wish that were true, but unfortunately, it really isn’t. They are easily one of the worst unique units in the game. Now that elephant archers have been removed, they may be the most useless unique unit in the game. If you want to defend Siege, you will be better off with halberds. If you want to attack an enemy, you will be better off with champions. The only time they are really worthwhile is if you can get your enemy to attack them with melee units, but since they’re so slow, that’s virtually impossible.
Basically, the only way they can have any sort of use at all, is if your enemy makes a huge mistake.
Even civilizations with fully upgraded Towers rarely use them, so I find it hard to believe these ones would be too overpowered. Yes, the different bonuses work together, but only to the point of making them barely usable, not overpowered.
I absolutely don’t think that this bonus would get used in every single game, but that’s not the point. You don’t build Tarkans or cataphracts in every game, either. The point is creating a realistic and useful Niche that they can occasionally fill.
If you did see it happening every game, that would be a stronger change than I am hoping for. That’s the problem with bonuses to things like Pierce armor or speed, they can rapidly cross a line and become overpowered, and then you’ll see them in every game.
What I want is more akin to Flaming camels. The sort of thing that only happens one in 20 games, but when it does, everyone watching gets super excited to see them take down a bunch of elephants. Those are the games you remember.
Eh, of all the military units that are dressed for the occasion of construction, I wouldn’t put TKs in the top 20. Serjeants are heavily armored as well, but get a pass because they don’t have the big sweat-inducing surcoat on top of that, and axes can be believably pressed into service as hammers in a way that swords can’t. Apart from many other considerations, this would just look silly.
I’m sympathetic to a small flavor/viability buff for TKs, but don’t think this is a great fit. Mainly because it’s already taken by another unit that needs more work put into it to improve its viability.
Sorry about that, I meant realistic in a gameplay sense, not in the sense of historical realism. I e, if a bonus is too difficult to code, that would be unrealistic. Or if it would be too powerful.
Honestly, I think at least part of the problem with Serjeants is that people aren’t very good at using them, largely from lack of practice. That being the case, having another civilization with a somewhat similar option would actually be good for both of them, allowing players to get a bit more practice with how to use them correctly.
Yes I think it is the reason for average player. Donjon and Serjeants can be a deadly combo when using correctly in average level. However for pro player it would be either too OP or better user Cavalier with the less bonus damage bonus. Therefore Sicilians is in a weird status that receive the recent nerf that cannot be understanded by many player