That’s still ten less still HP than a paladin with bloodlines, and far less HP than any elephant unit. Besides the units are costly in themselves, and can only be made in a castle.
It’s either that or make them much cheaper to the price of the Lithuanians’ Leitis. So they are easier to mass at least. A unit that can only be made in a castle should be cheaper than a paladin in certain cases.
The byzantines don’t really have any ‘power units’. Like Korean onagers, Turkish bombards, Persian war elephants. Lack Bloodlines, siege engineers, and don’t even have blast furnace.
If they had elite cataphracts with 170 HP they would at least have one power unit. We have civilisations with the Khmer with super elephant units so why can’t the byzantines have at least one.
They will still be weak to archers compared to the paladin since they have less pierce armour, can only be made in a castle, and have very expensive upgrades.
It’s not that I think.
Cataphracts are so niche, and so powerful in that niche, that every buff to them feels a waste imho.
It’s like giving Huskarls 2 more pierce armor to deal better with something like camel archers/mangudais or war wagons. It’s simply not needed.
Byzantines if anything would need a buff for team games where they are vastly underpowered and where their trash bonus is almost meaningless.
If you’re going to buff the elite, I still think splitting the buff is better. Let logistica improve hp+10.
Otherwise that’s still a huge jump from 110 to 160, while logistica remains a very expensive tech for what it brings (until you take the elite upgrade) since you’re paying 1600 Res for a slow to mass unit just for trample in MOST cases.(paladin is only 450 more for vastly more than what the UT gives in most cases)
Whereas giving+10hp, means the player doesn’t have to float as much to get the Elite tech, but still has an option to upgrade the cata in a slightly more meaningful way.
What this means as well is the player needs to make the full 3400 investment until they get the “power unit” which means these detractors have less of a leg to stand on, as opposed to the straight up buff.
Either that, or reduce the cost on both tech.(like from the other thread)
I would still do the buff incrementally. Instead of such a big jump. Like we know there’s room for a buff. But 20 might be too much. Considering some matchups could potentially turn into a ROFL stomp in the wrong case(I don’t know who, maybe Celts?)
well, they already are decent vs cavalier so mine was merely a statement. they are not good vs cavalier on a resource efficiency basis since they cost so much both to produce and upgrade than a cavalier.
they are also much more used and competitive in many situations. catas do need some help in some shape or form, since they cost an arm and a leg to upgrade and logistica does not make even that big of an impact as shows in the SOTL video unless you are fighting fictional dream battles like 40 vs 40 which are never going to happen
And this is normal as cataphracts are more of a unit to counter infantry, which are not the core of competitive plays.
Yeah, they are not cost efficient against cavaliers. Byzantine players should not forget the cheap heavy camels and the fact that they got a unit stronger thanna regular cavalier on every level behind the paywall of the paladin upgrade.
I agree, a civ does not need a power unit to have a strong late game. Cheap and well synergized units are good too.
There’s a difference between needing a buff (Bengalis/drav) and having room for a buff in specific areas
For example I would never say buff franks, because they’re boring, but they’re simply too easy to play at the moment, regardless of how simplistic their play style is, so there’s zero room for a buff.
But I think there’s room to buff the cata, specifically because it is such a niche unit and doesn’t have much bearing on the byz meta, which is fast imp arbs(and is specifically getting nerfed). If anything the cata is almost in direct contrast to that meta, specifically because it has such a high paywall.
Like Huns could have their UTs reworked 100% because they’re hideous, but the civ performs so well I would be very reluctant to touch them. Same applies to mongols’ nomads. Same applies to China’s great wall UT.
Conversely civs like saracens and slavs had room for buffs. Are they now suddenly OP? They’re better than they were, but not OP by a long shot
Or Celts strongholds could get a buff, because it’s in direct opposition to their meta. Meaning you can safely buff it without making the civ over bearing.
Possibly, but being good in 1v1s and meh in teamgames is far better than being bad at 1v1s and decent in TGs (current Bengalis, but even this is more of a closed map thing). So overall, the need to perform better in TGs (and especially closed map TGs) is usually not sufficient to justify a buff.
IMO Cataphract performance is beyond fine, and the unit is well designed and well differentiated from knight line. Although I tend to agree with those who say that the Elite + Logistica upgrades are just too expensive.
Atheism is nonsense of course, but I’ve always thought Marauders was fairly solid. Heck, there have been a few pro matches just in the last week and a half that have featured an effective Tarkan switch.
In general I like the idea of making things (especially UUs) more useful, but there’s always the danger of buffing an already powerful civ. Frankly I don’t think every civ even needs 2 UTs (Mongols and Huns don’t), that’s more just one of the legacy effects of FE’s cannibalization of Goths for spare parts. The existence of weak UTs will always create a niche of players who want to buff them regardless of the civ’s power level.