True, but I meant specifically “Knight like” units. Konniks fall in line after Stirrups (though the Bulgarian Knights with Stirrup might be the exception…).
No, not always.
Imagine an Knight with 10 attack hitting a Teutonic Knight with 10melee armour twice a second vs a Knight with 20 attack hitting the same Teutonic Knight once a second.
The faster hitting knight does 2 damage per second.
The slower hitting Knight does 10 damage per second.
High attack values also have the issue of “overkill” where you “waste” some of your attack hitting a unit with much more attack then they have HP left…
High or low attack rates can be very good or bad depending on the matchup and armour of the opponent!!!
Cataphract at least have much poor stats than boyar for their attack and Armor. They can countered by mass archers or mass heavy Cavarly. If Boyar have trample damage and resistant to cavarly bonus damage, its stats (attach/Armor) should be completely adjusted to more acceptable level like Cataphract.
And it would become Slavic reskin of Cataphract. Not Boyar.
Then Boyar have literally no counter except very few unit like mass Elephants or mass FU Aztec Monks (If we not adjust stats similar to cataphract). Elephants are very slow and easily convertable. Why we need such game-breaking unit?
I’m not sure, if I completely got your point, but I agree with you that the counter of the Boyar (the halberdier) should still defeat it. I would only give them a very small cavalry armor bonus, if at all. I just wanted to point out that in general the design of a unit is not completely static and could be (and has been) changed. So the current design cannot be used as an argument to not change it.
I completely agree with you! It is always preferable to have some differences between units. And as the Boyar, Leitis and Keshik apparently were all designed to be just powerful melee cavalry, they changed them to be more distinct. And that’s exactly what I meant: Just because a unit is designed in a certain way, it is not necessary for them to stay this way, if they are poorly designed.
Sorry, but why you want to buff boyar? Making comparisons to cataphracts is senseless because a) catas dies to arrows and b) they’re super expensive to full upgrade. Boyars are the slavic paladins. Yeah, they have some less hp, but they melt pretty much any melee units. I don’t really understand why you people want to give them more attack, or a faster fire rate, or evem make them resilient to camel and halbs, which are their hars counters. Boyards are amazing
They both take 17 hits to kill each other. Boyars are fasters, and the elite cost way less than cav + paladin. Teuton palas are slower, so while they resist a few more arrows, they take more time to catch up archers. And btw, I think teuton palas are a little to good. It’s not Boyars are bad. Teutons palas are borderline OP
Besides that, any thing that have less attack than 18 when FU will do better against teuton palas and worst against elite boyars
Can we please not do this again. There’s a whole thread proving how the teuton paladin is better.
+5g, and bottle necked by a castle means the paladin still wins against every single thing when you factor cost and actual numbers fieldable. Because you can produce them in much better numbers. If you include the cost of the castle a boyar is much more expensive to tech and train.
If you include the down time of access to the rest of the castle(like literally training the boyar you’re upgrading, trebs, conscription, UT) while you upgrade the boyar the tech is arguably as slow as the paladin tech…
Similar to the comparisons between camels and leitis.
On top of ALL of that… The teut paladin is affected by more civ team bonuses…
No, slavs don’t necessarily need a buff. But they aren’t S tier. They aren’t wiping the floor or getting bans like mesos.
They have room to be buffed without breaking the game.
I think the small anti cav arm buff is the best. Keep em expensive if need be.
Again, Boyar have great stats. Teuton palas are maybe OP, but that doesn’t make boyar bad. Plus, boyars are a great option for slavs, since you probably wanna go for them in tg, when gold is limitless
The one thing I don’t understand though is why there is a focus on the Teutons when the Lithuanian Paladins are better assuming you get at least 2 of the 5 relics. Lithuanians offset the +2 armor with at least +2 attack and still have husbandry
I still think the Teuton paladins are fine without husbandry and given how gold intensive their roster is you don’t really see them that much
That being said - I wouldn’t have a massive issue with giving them an additional +1 PA and / or -10g off the unit cost. There may need to be a slight nerf somewhere else to offset
I completely agree that the Boyar currently doesn’t make much sense. It seems like a redundant unit to the paladin. But it’s kind of worse than the paladin. It essentially has the same cost as a paladin with similar effectiveness, but Boyars are worse against halberdiers, camels, Genoese Crossbowmen, Samurai, Leitis and any pierce damaging unit due to their lack of health, but same armor.
I think either their cost should go down, or their stats should be improved.
Personally, I would prefer the boyar’s stats to be improved, rather than its cost to go down.
In this case, one idea would be to increase its cavalry armor between +4 to +12. This would at least make it on par with the paladin against anti-cavalry units, but still be worse against pierce units.
This is very dangerous and might run into a situation where no counters to Boyars exist. They might be worse against pierce attacks than Paladins, but they’re still pretty good in that regard. Against melee units they’re even better than Paladins (btw. the difference against Pikes and Camels is not as big as you think it is).
What’s supposed to be the counter against them? Ranged units are even at best.
Also they are part of a civ, which doesn’t get Paladin and has a very strong eco bonus. I think they’re fine as a high gold cost option for Slavs (which is viable). They don’t need to turn into their go to unit. Slavs are very strong already anyway.
Thank you for the catch. You are correct in stating that I seemed to have slightly underestimated the Elite Boyar’s effectiveness against camels. After some tests, I found that the Elite Boyar performs just about equal to the paladin against Heavy Camel Riders, but it does still perform worse against halberdiers.
I still think the Boyar at least needs its cost to be slightly lowered to fit with how effective it is. (It even moves slightly slower than the paladin)
You are comparing the Boyar with the Slavs econ bonus as a whole.
What I am doing is looking at the Boyar as an individual unit, and comparing it to other generic and unique units on a cost-efficiency basis. And it’s not that great for its cost.
Even just a slight reduction to its cost, would solve this problem.
If we are talking about just some kind of QoL buff - like -5 Gold. Maybe also something like +10 Food, -15 Gold. I think I’d be with you. But I would be very careful with buffing a unit, which is not that weak and belongs to a pretty strong civ.
The problem is that how the Teutonic Paladin outclasses them, and is easier to buff an unit without invalidating any weakness than nerfing a civ that’s already fine.
A stuff like +1 melee armor won’t hurt them
But it would create a new one: Buffing an already strong civ. Not every single UU needs to be strong in every single situation. Slaw already have two very, very strong options (pike/siege and mass kts) and giving them another one might just break the civ.