The problem with underused UUs is due to several factors. A UU needs to be unique enough to be noticeably better than the civ’s generic units in some normal situation to be made, while not being OP. Also, it can only be made in a castle so investing at least 2 castles is usually a must. Finally it needs to be cheap enough to be used. I think a lot of the problem with underused UUS is that they are not good enough in their niches compared to generic units to be used.
1 Like
Again, the fact that a UU isn’t seen frequently isn’t a sign of being a bad UU. As you said the 650 stone castle is an inconvenience, but not insurmountable, so it’s just about see if the UU perform the role for what they were made for.
For example, the GC struggled to keep up because they couldn’t be massed in time, and it was a unit that still needs a decent mass to be used. Now being trained in less time and being a bit less gold intensive they can perform their anti-cav role. But still, we will never see it as a replacement for the arb, and Italians will still play standard xbows 9 times out of 10.
Konniks are fine, their UT makes them attack faster, and they are a strong unit overall. They were even used in the HC4 qualifiers.
You kidding? 50g is ridiculously cheap price, they can fight cost effectively a lot of units. Also, they are supposed to fight mainly melee units, so it’s just balanced that they have low resistance to range units.
Mamelukes are strong, just to heavy on gold, and I agree that a bit of a cost reduction may work, but they will always be mainly a TG unit.
Arambai have 1 base PA, not 0,and they still are a strong unit with and area of damage and an unique aspect after the last patch. Now at least they can’t snipe buildings in low numbers and before the UT.
Yeah, but they also cost half the gold of a CA, so it’s just like an half trash unit compared to a standard CA.
They are a buffed knight with more MA and attack, and cost just 5 gold more (and 10f less), what do expect?
Ironically, the BallistaE isn’t fine,
Ironically, BallistaE is one the units that have more counters, since it’s considered both a cavalry unit and siege unit, and among the one that you listed that needs a change the most…
Well boyar is a buffed knight in melee fights, but they have less hp. The elite version can kill paladins, but they may be weaker against halbs and without a doubt they are weaker against ranged units.
I’m not saying they are a bad unit or a bad design, but they are a little overpriced
1 Like
The problem with the premise is that half the forum disagrees with you.
Every unique unit that’s actually viable gets complained about here because it’s unfair for certain civs that have a bad matchup against it and then they get enough traction that they need a nerf.
Meanwhile, those units that are busted aren’t really comparable to the legit busted options that have been around so long we just accept that they are, or should be, busted by virtue of their history of being busted. Really, shake-ups are what get complained about, so make a UU viable and you’ll get complaints regardless of it’s strength. We buckle and post threads instead of letting the meta adapt. That’s why UU’s aren’t viable outside of the ones that have been here since the 2000’s
1 Like
Unique units should be unique. They should not be a better version of an existing unit. Them just beeing all around better would just make it boring: why ever build something that isnt uu, when they are just better?
We actually see this in the mangudai: mongols have exactly one composition to go for in imp. Thats no choice and therefor no strategy (altough getting there is, ofc).
There is another reason why uus should not just be a stronger version of an existing unit: Balance. Imagine huskarl get buffed to the point they can fight champs. What can archercivs do versus them?
Once you understand this, you will see how small the space for good UUs is. There are just limited number of niches, and so many civs.
The devs did come up with a few nice ideas. A trash unit, that is not limited by res but by production? Thats interesting! A raiding unit that kills on first hit, but is weak after that? Hard to balance, but nice concept. A heavy cav that counters cav counters, but is weak to archers? Nice.
But again, there are just a limited number of (working) possibilities and for every good concept there are at least two failed ones. But buffing the failed ones will for the most case Not save the conceptual problem.
4 Likes
I agree with most of that, but keep in mine that here we are talking about yo make it viable, not necesarely a Main option. If it can’t be a good enough unit, why add it?
Tbh just very few are Bad, IMO the biggest problema is that they are too expensive to create or upgrade.
They’re pretty bad against Longbows. Too much difference in range, also too slow to cover the distance. I also wouldn’t recommend Ballista Elephants against mass Siege Onagers. Never tested Huskarls, but I imagine they’d do well against the Elephants.
Ballista Elephants are definitely an amazing addition in a lategame team battle, but they are not invincible. Just don’t try to beat them with Paladin, Hussar, Halb, Champion and co.
Plus the unit is actually pretty much useless in a 1v1, because no one in will allow any Khmer opponent to boom to the point where they can mass this unit.
Rams absolutely destroy Ballista Elephants.
I would like to introduce a buff for Konniks, or Bulgarians in general. To offset it, I prefer letting go of the the siege discount bonus.
Stirrups is researchable at Krepost. You still need to research a tech to get better value but researching the tech becomes easier and is synergised with the availability of Konniks.
Cataphracts or Leicai?
Because every civ needs a unique unit, and the community wants lots of civs (and is willing to pay for them for 20 years now). As i explained, there isn’t really much room for too many truly unique UUs, but you have to introduce more…so there happen to be useless UUs.
1 Like
Not all UU need to be so different from a generic one, and they are not gonna be good just because of that… britons and celts UU are just a little better than arbs and champs, but they improvements plays very well with the civs bonuses.
Compare that with shotel warrior, they are very different from the militia line, but they are not viable for the civ as they don’t synergyze very well with xbows (maybe against eagles but militia can do it for less gold). But those cases are the few, most units just need minor changes to be viable. for example GC needed several changes from release but now they are pretty solid.
There are UUs that are different from the generic units and fulfill their niche but people still ask for buffs because they don’t use the unit this way /don’t understand how to use them.
There are UUs that are good in both castle age and imp, and people are pissed about them some are only good in either age, but then people want them to be buffed until they become meta in both ages.
So it’s also a problem of unrealistic expectations.
4 Likes
Agree mostly with you
Konnik “slow motion” is needed because it is so strong with 120hp+45hp in CASTLE AGE, not too mention the 12 base attack. Sure 2.4 could be too slow, but there is stirrup to increase it to 1.8. So maybe making it 2.2 default and 1.8 after stirrup is viable;
Leitis can still be used for Melee fight in closed map, but sure lots of archers in open map where Paladin are much better now;
Arambai still have 1PA, but I agree that they are hugely NERFED as their main strength lies on killing buildings and cavs. The compensation of 100% mis-hit damage doesn’t make it up in most cases;
Kipchak needed to be buff for training time IMO as they are a cheap unit which need to mass;
Mameluke needed to be more cost-efficient as they don’t work well in small groups; probably shorter training time too.