My bad. I missed a word. They do not have “good” Heavy Cavalry Archers.
Well, the train them much faster, and their’s also move faster than other HCAs, so it is really not so bad.
It is just underwhelming whn compared to Paladin + Kipchak or Hussar + Siege.
If anything, Cumans have better HCAs than Goths, and I have been able to win with Goth HCAs.
1 Like
Goths aren’t known for Cavalry Archers or even Archery Range. Missing Thumb Ring is just the end of a road which even didn’t start. Had they Thumb Ring, I surely said that an extra pierce armor (1 extra attack vs 2 extra pierce armor) on Cumans meant better results without micro. The extra range is much helpful. To start with, Cavalry Archers already lag behind Crossbowmen in terms of range.
But they have better HP and Speed, and Cumans Cav Archers are the fastest in the game.
Same can be said about meso and cuman and huns.
But lithuanians neither has historical single player battle nor campaign，like an abandoned son in aoe2de family.
Perhaps adding in the Nubians would be a good idea and the Nubians can use the Middle Eastern building set considering their origins within what is now Egypt.
2 Likes
Good suggestion. I can also suggest the… Hungarian’s “adventures” of the 9th and 10th centuries. I think that would make for a fun raiding style campaign. Not sure if we’re allowed to link URLs here but you can google kalandozások.
As for new civs, there are some interesting ones that I’d like to see…
Polish
Ruthenians
Swiss
Lombards
Basques
Catalans
Armenians
Pechenegs
To be honest the Cumans having Paladin strikes me as an odd decision, they definitely were not the kind of people to field armored heavy cavalry. (The Persians on the other hand, does make sense, they did in fact field heavy cav in battles)
it gives the civ something to use in late game, especially team games. they lack bracer so their archers and cav archers aren’t going to hold up.
1 Like
All the civs are covered by existing ones, expect Armenians
5 Likes
umm Bulgarians are covered by Slavs, didnt seem to cause a big problem
maybe try an unique, stronger version of elite steppe lancer (royal/imperial steppe lancer?) rather than paladin to fit the game more.
1 Like
it would have to rival the paladin in strength to even give them a case. and then the problem becomes steppe husbandry.
1 Like
steppe husbandry can simply include that new unit so no issue there.
to rival paladin, some area can be improved like giving more hp a bit more damage/armor to the unique steppe lancer while retaining 1 range, thats pretty powerful. less damage armor and health than a paladin but 1 range more than makes up for it.
yeah thats totally why we see people using steppe lancers over knights.
1 Like
it won’t matter, because the real reason someone use something is if its good enough and convenient. make this unit good enough to cover for paladin’s role will and can replace paladin.
and if you make it that good, you run into the problem of its production time with steppe husbandry. which was my point earlier.
1 Like
it won’t be that good, we both agreed on to take “the role of paladin”. so strength will be similar to paladin. cumans already pretty balanced imo so as long as it can replace it should be fine.
they could simply increase the train time of this unit to double if needed, or better yet, make it so after research they’d gain unique lancer unit to the cumans in stable that is not an upgrade to steppe lancer that isn’t affected by production time. many ways to go about this.
Yet another Unique Unit that people will complain never gets used?
Steppe Lancers were already a bad idea in the first place. They are either OP or worse than Knights.
It is better to just go with the standard units. AoE2 is about Knights and Crossbowmen. Unique rosters are for AoE3.
which just proves why the idea is all sorts of bad. you have to break all sorts of established trends/rules in order to even make it work. and i don’t know if i would say cumans are pretty balanced as is.
1 Like