So archers take 2 bonus damage instead of 1.5 in feudal and 2.66 in Castle instead of 2 while fire 18% faster. Too big buff to compensate a small nerf.
Sicilians is Infantry & Cavalry civ.
Honestly I wanted 15% food reduction on military unit (except scout line) for a new civ at some point of the game. Sicilians is most definitely not that civ with 50% bonus damage reduction + conversion resistance + extra armor for the knight.
Why an Infantry & Cavalry civ needs strong Archer in the late game? The only other Infantry & Cavalry civ in game is Bulgarians and look what type of archer they got. Burmese is closest to be Infantry & Cavalry civ and even their archer is pure garbage. Your best argument will be Malians. But Bracer is more important than TR for late game.
And Japanese and Vikings is also described as Infantry civilization and they don’t make any infantry with your logic as you didn’t consider pikes as infantry. Vikings train Berserk but that is also UU just like Serjeant.
Because they already have by far the best Cavalier in most situation and often compared to Paladins against Halb+Arbs+Camel. They are even better than Paladin against Camel.
Why a 1300f/750g, 170 seconds upgrade has to be weaker than a 500f/400g, 45s tech that can be researched simultaneously with Cavalier upgrade?
I understand game philosophy so much better than anyone else in this forum that I want Arbalester with TR and Bracer for an Infantry and Cavalry civilization.
@MatCauthon3 said this information, thus I know. In reality, Sicilians is Archer&Cavalry civ. Serjeant is only used after Mid Imperial Age. 75% of games finishes before Mid Imperial or one side become already far ahead. 50% bonus absorbing is very strong in Skirmisher vs Skirmisher fight. 5 Sicilians (Elite) Skirmisher beat generic 7 (Elite) Skirmisher without problem, result is total massacre of generic Skirmisher. With my change, It will be equal match. You can check strength of my nerf with Scenario Editor. You underestimate my nerf.
Thumb Ring move in Imperial Age. It is simply Imperial Age buff. I nerfed Sicilians early game heavily though. Sicilians is currently too strong in early game with scout and Knight play. With my change, it will be medium in early game and stronger in late game.
Imperial Age tech is supposed to be stronger than Generic techs except subject civ is OP in before Imperial Age like Vikings, Chinese, Franks etc… It is rule of the game. Imperial Age Unique upgrades must be stronger than Generic upgrades if this civ lacks generic upgrade. For instance, Bulgarians stirrups (33% attack speed for cavalries) is stronger than stable techs. Bulgarians Cavalier isn’t stronger than Paladin, okay but Bulgarians Hussar and Konnik is affected by this upgrade as well. Therefore, stirrups is stronger than Paladin upgrade which is necessary for game logic. Another example is Bulgarians bagain is stronger than Champion tech. Britons +3 range is immensely stronger than thumb ring. 25% attack speed of Mongols cavalry archers is stronger lacking last armor upgrade. -60% gold discount of Poles is stronger than Paladin+last armor upgrade in short term (Poles can finish game with this tech before late Imperial).
Game logic and applications by Devs support my “Imperial Age Unique upgrades must be stronger than Generic upgrades” idea. Devs are idiot but they almost do a good job in this subject.
Therefore, I am proposing to buff infantries in Castle Age for weeks. Infantry in castle age need buff. Japanese and Vikings will go infantry and fulfill their intended infantry civilization role if necessary buffs is applied. You trying to justify a mistake with another mistake. Japanese and Vikings not going infantry is wrong game design and it must be fixed by buffing infantries in castle age.
My proposed Sicilians Cavalier wouldn’t be stronger than Generic Paladin. It is basic math.
My Cavalier would be better against only Arbalests,
Equal against low damage units (light cavalries, light infantries) and counters (Halberdier and Camels),
Weaker against units has more attack than 6 ranged attack or 7 melee attack (80% of units has more attack than 7) like heavy infantries (sword-line and unique infantries) and heavy cavalries (Knight-line, Unique Heavy Cavalries), all cav archers (heavy cav archer, Mangudai, Camel Archer, Magyars Cav Archer, War Wagon, in conclusion all cav archers) gunpowder units (HC, Janissary, Conq).
I nerfed Sicilians’s heavily but people think this is buff. +1 melee with Imperial Age Tech isn’t buff to Knight due to 50% to 33% nerf. New Knight die to Pikeman 20% faster (current Knight tank 10 hits, my proposed Knight tank 8 hits) die to Halberdier faster. Knowing basic Mathematic is important in this calculations. Your problem is not knowing mathematic.
In conclusion, it will be weaker than Generic Paladin and its only advantage would be cheap upgrade like you mentioned.
Hauberk nerfed to +1/+1 from +1/+2 and cost reduced to 400f/400g from 500f/400g
Serjeant cost to 55f/30g from 60f/35g
First Crusade no longer spawns a wave of Serjeants from each Town Center.
First Crusade now enables Serjeants to construct military production buildings in addition to Donjons (Not including Castles) and cost reduced to 300f/450g from 300f/600g
Or really anything else that is interesting as long as they get rid of the town center spawn. I think emphasizing their uniqueness as an armored infantry that can do front-line construction is a cool way to take it though.
I like this. It would help them to apply more pressure. Considering their momentum window is too short compared to franks, mayans and bulgarians in castle age for example.
I wish Donjons were better, that would give some weight to the Serjeant’s ability to build. Right now they’re just expensive towers. They perform much worse than Yasama towers, and cost 50 more stone.
To be balanced, I think that two Donjons need to be at least equal to a Krepost in Castle/Imperial Age. Both options cost 350 stone (although Donjon also has wood cost) and produce unique units, without being able to research techs. Two Donjons would take up 8 tiles vs Krepost’s 9, and although the Donjons have more map coverage, they have less firepower in that coverage.
A few key differences right now in castle age are armor (8 vs 2), attack (10 vs 5), and number of arrows (5 vs 2).
That could be interesting too. Make a couple Serjeants in Feudal Age and let them stone wall your weak areas. That would save some villager time and justify their cost. It would not be early enough for them to Palisade before Scouts arrive, so some villager time would still be required to wall.
Even a Serjeant castle drop might be interesting to explore. I’m not sure if that would be too powerful, especially if they got the Sicilian 2X build speed on castles.
I think that would need to be a castle age unlock. All you would need to do is use a few serjeant to wall up a donjon and Noone is getting in. You have the cover fire and you could build up the serjeants while they take out a wall add unleash killing what ever unit is near and rewall at no real cost to your eco. It already socks fighting off d9njons if they get a second up. Imagine a walled or stone wall donjon on your gold