The leitis may be “too cheap” but it’s still a specialist unit on a civ with a very short lived eco bonus. The reason everyone loves the knight line is they’re well rounded generalist units. The leitis is better against cavalry, camels, and pikes in exchange for being weaker against archers, cav archers, and pretty much equal regarding monks.
It’s also one of the slower to train melee UU at 20s (e.g. 33% slower than Boyar). This leads to a lot of dynamics problems where the unit is good on paper, but getting enough of them to justify the elite leitis over the paladin presents some problems.
Empirically at least it doesn’t seem to need balancing, but maybe it’s underrated. Or maybe these dynamic problems do justify the lower cost. But if it aint broke don’t fix it.
The awesome leitis is imo preferable to the Lithuanian paladin in almost every scenario. Just like the mangudaï is preferable to the Mongol cav. archer in almost every scenario. (One scenario where the mangudaï is worse than the Mongol cav. archer: countering halbs. Mongol cav. archers are much stronger thanks to their much higher bonus damage.).
Do you know that amongst so many other things the leitis also currently does practically the same as a heavy camel, only usually better and for 10g less?
Anyway, think about it the other way around:
The 14+4/8 paladin destroyer leitis has 1,35 base speed just like every other paladin or paladin-like unit except for the boyar. Who wants to buff it up to 1,4 base speed and why?
I can’t think of any good reason… The speed difference was probably a bonus from the time when the leitis costed 80g (!), but that’s long gone. Therefore the speed difference doesn’t make any sense anymore and has to be corrected. It’s just a correction, nothing more. Noone unaware of the change will notice any difference.
I’m afraid this will be my last post in this thread, as I doubt I’ll ever convince you and you certainly won’t convince me, therefore the thread isn’t going anywhere. However, let me respond once more.
The leitis w. a minority of two relics is great against archers as well! A paladin even w. four relics needs half more hits to take down an arbalest than the leitis w. two! This matters A LOT, as the leitis doesn’t need to survive for as long as the paladin to win the battle. SotL proved this when comparing the tarkan and paladin, showing the tarkan advantage with more pierce armour isn’t as great as it looks like.
As soon as there are 29 arbs left, they get crushed so badly by the leitis it’s painful to see. The 50g cost is what makes the leitis as great as it is. For two paladins, you can goldwise field three better paladins, aka leitis.
The leitis isn’t seen all that much because I think a lot of people underestimate the leitis true value, in the same way some other UUs are underestimated. Pros are using 37 civs. and soon to be 40+. No way they know for each UU when exactly it’s worth going for it. Therefore the archer and knight line are king, as those are known values. But it does happen that that’s not the ideal choice in the long run. For instance in post-imperial teamgames when there are enough castles to assure production. That’s at least what OrnLu thinks as well:
28 april 2021 video, 14min50 Two Pools 2 Recap - YouTube
I can tell you why: because your reasoning for the change is more or less independent of the change. Even if everything you said was true, it wouldn’t justify lowering their speed because a .05 speed change is orders of magnitude less impactful from something like attack ovalues or gold costs. You even said yourself the change would be minimal. Why change stylistic differences when you don’t need to?
On a secondary note your entire analysis is a form of comparative statics. You’re looking past all the dynamics that are required to get elite leitis. It’s extremely hard to take such arguments seriously. E.g. you need 4 relics to 2 shot xbow in castle but you skip over this point in favor of analyzing the post-imp game state.
As a piece of constructive criticism, incorporate more dynamic analysis and make sure the reasoning lines up with the change proposed.
Everybody complain Leitis isn’t good unit now due to 1 PA but Cataphract has same pierce armor like 20 years but nobody say Cataphract is weak unit because of this. Leitis is cheaper than Cataphract, cheaper upgrade and has much more damage comparing to Cataphract. Cataphract anti cav armor make him stronger only against Genoese Crossbowman and Kamayuk comparing with Leitis. Other than that, Leitis counter infantry and Halberdiers just like Cataphract. Leitis even beat heavy camels cost efficiently because it is cheaper than Camels. Only İmperial camel and other buffed camels bearly beat Leitis. Leitis is better against archer because has more damage and kill arbalest in 2 shot. Leitis still beat archers very convincingly even though its little PA. In conclusion, Leitis is still very strong unit and it doesn’t change anything how common it is used.
The cataphract literally resists anti cavalry damage, has trample damage fully upgraded, and attacks insanely fast.
and pikes, and camels.
the leitis still takes full damage from halbs, taking 37 damage an attack. meanwhile the cataphract takes 21 damage an attack, and deals 29 damage a shot to halbs and that doesn’t include the trample damage, its entirely possible for a group of cataphracts to basically 2 shot halbs Leitis will never achieve that. i have watched 20 elite cataphracts win against 65 japanese halbs. 20 Elite Leitis in that situation would just straight up lose.
only if you’re talking equal resource fights - which shouldn’t happen because 1) The leitis requires a castle to make, so you should be able to easily outmass them with camels out of a stable and 2) the leitis upgrade is much more expensive then the heavy camel upgrade. seriously. you need something like 60 camels vs 60 leitis before you get to the point where the costs are actually evened out, and that doesn’t include the cost of a castle vs the cost of a stable.
Only if the Lithuanian player has 2 relics, and if offense matters so much against archers why do pros get armor upgrades first and only get attack upgrades later on in the game?
no, it really doesn’t. I have seen the cataphract used more then i have the leitis since the leitis nerf.
no, it really doesn’t. I have seen the cataphract used more then i have the leitis since the leitis nerf.
Even Cataphract can beat arbalest in close range and Leitis is better statistics comparing to Cataphract. I don’t think Leitis have problem with archers in melee fight. Of course, Leitis get a lot of damage in high distance but Cataphract is worse than Leitis because Cataphract has same hp and PA but is more expensive unit. I checked Leitis vs Infantry and Cataphract vs Infantry videos in total resources (Leitis is 120 resource and Cataphract is 145 but in reality gold is more valuable than food). Interestingly, Leitis is just little worse than Cataphract in terms of countering infantry. If we assume 1 gold = 2 food, Leitis will be better than Cataphract in terms of countering infantry. Okay against Kamayuk, Genoese Crossbowman and halberdiers, Cataphract is better but I don’t accept pikes and camels because Leitis also beat Pikes and camels (Cata is better but Leitis beat as well).
I disagree with the idea that You can create more camels than Leitis. Camels are expensive unit, you can not simply create 50 of them because Lithuanians counter all your camel army with only 20 halberdiers. Purpose of countering unit (because camel has pretty much one purpose) is destroying your enemy but camel’s only superiority is creation time.
Lastly, in terms of raiding Leitis is far better than Cataphract. Due to 1 PA, Leitis isn’t great in raiding but killing villagers in 2 hits (with 2 relics) still very useful. And Cataphract is terrible at raiding with this 12+2 damage and high cost.
maybe if you don’t factor in micro or the fact that arbs are easier to mass up and cheaper. in actual gameplay these units get beat by archers hard, there is a reason you rarely see them and don’t see them all that much in team games.
1 gold = 2 food? depends on when in game you are.
already covered Leitis beating Pikes and Camels. its a falsehood. stop using a SOTL video that uses 12 pikes vs 10 leitis. even knights would win that fight.
i would assume you were scouting him and seeing what he’s making. if he’s making leitis and halbs i’d rather go with a cavalry archer or archer, which most camel civs have either solid archers or cavalry archers.
well yeah. but no one would use either for raiding. but fact is that i can confidently say since the leitis nerf - i’ve seen the cataphract used more in high level pro play then i’ve seen the leitis used. food for thought.
I am assuming Imperial age 2 relic Leitis vs imperial age pikeman because in castle age, both Cataphract and Leitis isn’t useful unit I guess. In this case, Leitis beat Pikeman. By the way, I rely on my logic instead of what pro players do. Daut had won a game by creating turtle ship (all turtle ship is easily killed by galleys) in Redbull final against Liereyy and he won the match as well as all match series.
Nope. To claim that they are even remotely similar in terms of their anti-infantry capability is a total joke. The Cataphract is one of the fastest attacking cav units in the entire game, combined with an absurdly high bonus damage against Infantry. It’s bonus damage against infantry is so high that it accounts for over 3/5ths of the overall damage it’ll do against generic FU infantry units by itself.
Then you count in the trample effect of Logistica, and it’s practically impossible to engage Cataphract with Infantry units whatsoever. Mass halbs are still efficient against Leitis if engaged, which is far from the case for the Cataphract, which legitimately has one viable counter. That’s a far cry from the unit you are talking about, a roundly efficient unit with a huge list of weaknesses.
I checked now. Halberdier even pikeman can be efficient against Leitis. I admit my mistake but Leitis is effective against infantry like Cataphract. You can test, 25 Leitis is as good as 20 Cataphract against infantries. Cataphract is only better against berserker (and it is not so much) because it nullify +6 bonus damage and Leitis not. Knight line countering Cataphract (even cavalier can be viable in little numbers) is big minus for Cataphract. Against halberdiers, Cataphract has big advantage but Leitis is better against all other units because it is 20% cheaper and better stats.
Leitis is stronger and more flexible unit I guess. Cataphract has direct counters which is cav archers, paladins and foot archers but Leitis don’t have direct counter. Pro players generally prefer knight line over Leitis because Lithuanians has best knight line in the game but if enemy select weak archer civ like Slavs, Celts, Teutons, Franks etc., Leitis is definitely preferable.
Of course, I could be wrong but “pro players use Cataphract more commonly. Therefore, Cata is better unit.” is not good explanation I guess.
You mean besides camels, the pike line, and archers in general?
depends on when in the game and what you are fighting.
in early castle age lithuanian knights are inferior to a lot of knights because they still need to research bloodlines, defense upgrades, husbandry, and collect relics.
against halbs or monks i’d still rather have teutons who have conversion resistance and extra armor means they survive an extra attack.
against archers i’d rather have Franks with the extra health.
and while the leitis may be the preferred option (over knights anyway) against Celts, Slavs, Teutons, and Franks, it still requires a castle to mass them up, so you’re probably gonna end up using knights at least until imperial age.
I mean, you’re ignoring a plethora of unique units that don’t work against the Cataphract at all. It’s not just the berserk, any Chieftain infantry gets nope’d by the Cataphract. Eagles get smashed, Kamayuk doesn’t work, Genoese Crossbow is mortal, Mamelukes get maimed, Camels get crushed.
The Leitis has one thing going for it over the Cataphract in general, and that’s unmassed strength against general power units. Mass on mass, the Cataphract is superior in absolutely every facet and it’s not even close. Step off.
Mamelukes beat Cataphract with micro. Leitis is worse against Mamelukes but Cataphract also die to Mamelukes. Leitis beat Eagles as well. Paladin also beat Eagles. Eagle isn’t good against heavy cavalry generally. I mentioned about Genoese and Kamayuk but these 2 are unique units and they are rarely used. Leitis also beat chieftain infantries like Cataphract. Cataphract is better but not much.
Everyone know Cataphract and Leitis more or less. I put forward my arguments, you put forward your arguments. There is no need to overextend this discussion and flood this post I think.
I’m just gonna leave this table here for reference. Compare the Leitis to 0 relic knights with the following format:
knights compared to leitis / paladin compared to elite leitis
and you get the following table. (Incorporates the +2 base attack and slower attack speed of leitis compared to knights)
Bonus Damage Dealt Against
Bonus Damage (4 relics)
The bonus damage dealt shows that with relics the Leitis actually is surprisingly comparable to many units which have explicit bonus damage against units. Except it applies to many more units.
However remember units like the Cataphract get 5 AoE damage which also bypasses armor as well as attacking 11% faster. Elephants also have trample damage. The leitis isn’t really “better” than these other units, it’s just got a different specialization. Oh and elephants cost much less gold than leitis as a percent of their total cost.
it’s going to take all day to micro those mamelukes to kill cataphracts when you’re dealing only 9 damage a hit.
not as hard as cataphracts do.
yes but the point is that cataphracts are going to be the best at beating them because they deal tons of bonus damage and take zero bonus damage from eagles.
Leitis with 4 relics would do 22 damage to Chieftains Infantry while taking whatever they would normally take + 5 bonus damage (so a champion would do 17 damage to a leitis). meanwhile a cataphract would do 29 damage (and trample), and on top of that will take zero bonus damage (so that same champion would only do 12 damage). so the leitis has a damage differential of 5, while the cataphract has a damage differential of 17, without factoring in trample damage.
and that assumes the lithuanians player actually has 4 relics. if he has the more likely 2 or 3, hes doing even smaller damage differential.
how you can say “it’s not that much better” is beyond me.
to put it further in perspective. the leitis would require 4 hits to kill even a normal champion. so its going to take 41 damage
cataphracts require 3 to kill even Vikings champions. its going to take 24 damage.