The Tartars need a buff and so does their hill bonus

The Tartars hill bonus displays itself as +25% but that is actually misleading because a standard hillbonus is +25% for the player on the hill AND -25% for the player fighting those units. So a standard hill bonus is really overall +50% because it’s +25% for you and -25% for them. Or, another way of looking at it is that you imagine that the standard hill bonus is just +25% but because the Tartars hill bonus doesn’t give the opposing player -25% it’s really only half as good. So the Tartars hill bonus is effectively only really +12.5%.

Spirit of the Law did a good video on it.

The +25% is misleading, then. Because it’s only really half as good as a standard hill bonus.

I think that the Tartars hill bonus is weaker than intended and is one of the reasons why the Tartars are the weakest of the new civs … and after many of the older weaker civs have now been buffed … Tartars is one of the weakest civs in the game. Sure, they have the nice ‘herdables get more food’ bonus but other than that they fall down compared to so many other civs.

So, I think that many of us agree that the Tartars need buffing. Who is with me on thinking that their hill bonus needs to be increased? And the video is worth watching if you haven’t seen it already. May even be worth a rewatch if you saw it a while ago.

1 Like

It’s not misleading at all. The bonus does exactly what it says it does; it makes no reference to decreasing the damage taken while on a hill. You’re combining the hill bonus with the hill penalty. These are two different (related, but different), things, so there is no “false advertising” here, as there was with say, the Malay Age advance bonus (and you’ll notice that nobody is clamoring for that to be buffed to 80%). The fact that people who are less knowledgeable about game mechanics might think that it’s “weaker than intended” says nothing about how useful it actually is, and any buffs to it could easily make it OP in certain situations (trebs on a hill, units that deal bonus damage, mangonels, etc). Yes, it’s niche, and its effectiveness is influenced by micro, but it’s a good bonus in the hands of a capable player.

As far as the Tatars needing a buff, I think the jury’s still out. On release, they were overshadowed by the obviously OP Cumans and the Steppe Lancer, and in the current balance, I really don’t think we have many good data points as to how good they are. They don’t seem to be top tier, but I don’t know that they’re at the bottom of the pile either. The sheep bonus is easily one of the top best Dark Age/early eco bonuses, the Keshik is actually a pretty solid unit for its cost, and their cav archer/light cav/ steppe lancer options are at least decent.

1 Like

I didn’t say that there was false advertising. It’s just that people think of it as a +25% hill bonus without thinking that the standard hill bonus is more than that because the enemy also gets -25%. People see “Oh wow + 25% on top of the +25% that most civs get” and then they forget about the -25% to the opposing player doing half of the work.

Basically, it’s not that good of a bonus because it’s only half as good as the standard bonus so it’s really like having a total of +37.5% where most civs get +25% or having +75% when most civs get +50%. It’s not that good of a bonus.

It’s not misleading if you think it through and think about what the standard hill bonus is like … and you see how it’s not that good if you do some tests (or just watch the Spirit of the Law video I posted).

Maybe I am not explaining it well but my question is whether anybody else agrees that both (a) The Tartars need a buff AND (b) their hill bonus needs a buff. And if you think that buffing it would make them OP then just check the video I posted to see how underwhelming it is at the moment. I was here to ask that question … I wasn’t here to say that false advetising is going on and I never said that.

I doubt their sheep bonus is that remarkable … as gather rate bonuses tend to be better than longer lasting bonuses … and at least with the Mayans the longer lastingness is for ALL resource types.

I think it would be a strong bonus on low resource maps. But 8 sheep, 2 boar and a berry patch is usually enough food early on to get a civ going.

Or, maybe it’s a good bonus but the Tartars are so weak in other ways that it’s barely noticable. I dunno, on the whole gather rate bonuses seem to be better. Imagine if the Mayans had increased gather rates for all resources instead of longer lasting for all resources? Huge difference.

I don’t think they were bottom tier but they weren’t far off and now that a lot of the other weaker civs have been buffed they’re definitely bottom tier. Maybe they’re strong in late game but so are the Goths …

I’m really not sure what your reference point is for what makes something “good.” It seems that the numbers aren’t as big as you like, but I don’t see an anchor point as to how that makes the bonus bad. The Slav farm bonus, for example, is a small number, only 10%, yet it is an excellent eco bonus. There are dozens of threads here with people complaining about how strong/weak something is with little justification other than their opinion. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t find anything particularly convincing about your argument, just that you expected the bonus to do more.

I’ve seen it before, saw it again. I guess it depends on what your expectations are for how good it should be, and I can’t say that it seems to underwhelm my expectations. I mean, it can help you win fights you otherwise would have lost, or to win fights more decisively than you would have, what’s not to like? This is reminiscent of how people talked about the Vietnamese archer HP bonus being bad because they were expecting it to stack up to, say the Briton, Ethiopian, or Mayan archer bonuses, but it was never meant to be the defining civ bonus in the way that the archer bonuses of those other civs were.

Anyway, I’m open to investigating the possibility that Tatars may need a buff, but I don’t have any reason to think that their hill bonus needs a buff.

What makes something “good” is how it is in practice. Like I said, it would be a good idea to watch the video I posted. In practice the bonus is very underwhelming.

The Tartars are weak and their underwhelming hill bonus is one of the reasons. That is the point of this thread.

Okay, you say you’ve seen the video before and you’ve seen it again. If you can’t see that many other civs have bonuses that are a great deal stronger and, so, that’s, perhaps, one of the reasons why Tartars are weak then I don’t know how to explain it.

Remember, my question with this thread is addressing those who hold the same opinion to see if I’m the only one. If I’m alone in thinking that this bonus is too weak then, fair enough, there’s no reason to buff it in that case. But what I’m trying to do in this thread is see if there are other players out there who think the same thing but aren’t expressing those thoughts. Maybe there are others who think that the bonus is overwhelming and that is one of the reasons that the Tartars are too weak?

I understand that some people think the Tartars aren’t weak. But there are plenty of people who do think they’re far too weak of a civ and that they need a buff. So now I’m seeing if there are those who, like me, think that their hill bonus could be the culprit, and may need a buff.

Okay, fair enough, but I’m asking if there is anybody else out there who thinks that their hill bonus DOES need a buff. I want to see who else can see that they probably do.

Again, “underwhelming” is a relative value judgment that is informed by what you expect the bonus to do. Since it does what it says it does, I don’t find it to be underwhelming at all, and in fact I view it as a fairly good, but very micro dependent combat bonus. If you expect this bonus to define and benefit Tatars as much as say, the Japanese infantry bonus, then I can see how you might be disappointed. As with my earlier point about the Vietnamese archers, not all civs have bonuses that are on the same level, and comparing one bonus to another sometimes misses sight of other attributes that can make a civ strong.

So there definitely can be some value in comparing similar civ bonuses, but it’s not always a good idea to assume that all civ bonuses should be on an equal power level with all other civ bonuses (see my example earlier on Viet archers). It’s how the whole civ, including the bonuses, unique units and techs, and unit and tech availability work together that determines how good the Tatars are. It’s possible that they are too weak but I’d like to get more data points before I get firmly behind that conclusion.

Well, I guess I’ve said my two cents, so I’ll leave it to those who agree that they are definitely weak to continue the dialog. If anything, the route I would consider would to be to buff the Steppe Lancer slightly, perhaps by making Silk Armor apply to them. My bottom line is that I don’t see that buffing the elevation bonus is the obvious way to fix the Tatars (assuming they are to weak), but that other areas may be more worthy of consideration. Assuming the Tatars are weak, even if you, say, double the elevation bonus, many people will still not like how situational that is. So the hill bonus is nice, but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket.

Welp, if you get your 8 sheeps that’s 800 times 1.5 = 1200 food! That’s like getting 4 whole sheep for free!
Also, if you are lamed and lose 3 sheeps you get 500 times 1.5 = 750 food, while a normal civ would be stuck at 500… If the enemy steals 1 of your boar, the bonus food from sheep alone can overcome the 340 food loss…

I think their problem is that they don’t get any good late game unit except for CA. The hill bonus could be buffed a little, but it’s not their main issue. I wouldbuff their SL, maybe make their UT affect them, and give them extra armor as well. With those 2 options for army composition rhey would be an okey civ

1 Like

i agree the hill bonus isnt the issue (so many people dont even know about the generic high ground bonus as it is, and then some think its only for long ranged units, so really dont think there’s any false advertising)

but i do definitely think tatars need a buff of some sort (as ive discussed with cactus before, basically all they have going for them is good CA, but then so do for example turks)

  1. their SL is only superior to mongol in certain situations (low damage ranged units basically?)

  2. they have sucky UT

  3. the extra food(while nice, and definitely more powerful on certain maps) is quite a lot weaker than most other factions eco bonuses as you are not getting a direct 1.5 buff, as the herdables lose food for being harvested for such a long period (and they suffer on nomad maps with low herdable counts)

  4. hill bonuses are unusable in some maps(med,arena,etc), and very difficult to use for a lot of players on most maps (when i say a lot of players im referring to non top tier players, which technically forms the majority of players)

Brutal trebuchets, FU camels, Elite Keshiks, bonused Hussars, Cavaliers, Hand cannoneers, Elite cannon galleon, Siege rams, Heavy scorpions, Bombard towers, and now at least their halberdiers can inflict good damage before going down, and this change patched up their weakness to camels. Late-game isn’t a problem for them.

Trebs are just regular one. +1 distance doesn’t do that much. Yeah, hill bonus helps a lot, but that’s it. Camels it’s not a unit you use to win the game. And keshik, yeah, nice UU, but again, UU is hard to mass. Yeah, they have options, but again, not the best ones I guess.

Altough, maybe you’re right, and their late game is not the problem. I think they lack a less situational bonus. Hill bonus and parthian tactics only apply in certain situations. And sheep bonus, as stated before, is not enough. I think maybe buff their steppe lancers?

Good point, so I test it to see how strong it actually is. If we have 6 villies harvesting from 1 sheep at a time, in the end you get:
710 food if you’re a generic civ


1042 food if you’re Tatar

Of course there is a bit of variability. For instance 710 time 1.5 is 1065 and not 1042.
However that’s only roughly a 2% difference with the calculated outcome, so I’m pretty confident with these numbers. Only difference is that it almost compensate for losing a boar rather than overcoming the loss, but it still sounds pretty good.

1 Like

The difference is of roughly 350 woods, which is equal to 120 wood in dark age farms.

1 Like

thats great then, so they are effectively on par for the 50%. and i guess with more workers on the sheep, you will get the corresponding savings on meat loss as well.

Tatars problems lie else where, the hill bonus is definitely a bonus that can be used to a huge success in many different situations, it’s quite strong in fact.

The problems arise for Tatars when you consider their eco and sheep bonus, it’s not as amazing as it might seem. That’s why they are just an average civ, not the worst, not the best.

1 Like