actually the idea of making it spammable makes sense. Like a ranged pike as it is supposed to be. Even a cost reduction (say equal cost of ckn) can work. If you reduce the TT by pavise it would become something meaningful. Which is good for a unit which such a cool appearance
Well, pavise itās similar to the viets bonus, +1/1 as a bonus is similar to the viets one (but in the same way that franks and teutons paladins bonus are similar) but pavise and the +1/1 would be actually different, more strong, but with a price.
Itās weaker in the long run, because they have less armor, but itās stronger in the early game since you save resources.
That why I think my bonus is more balanced, better effect on one units, but more balanced overall, since you have less resources.
Also, consider that free armor buff also their skirms, so itās actually stronger.
Well, a lot of civs have similar bonus with similar effects (like franks and teutons, aztecs and burmese and so on) in my opinion the important thing is that the Italians bonus is stronger than the viets one, since they have to pay for it.
If you donāt give the free armor itās balanced, consider that half of it it locked behind a tech and a castle.
Thatās itās another problem, unrelated to the archers one, I agree that it would need a buff, but right now there isnāt a easy solution.
There is actually little difference, +2/2 it actually allows to absorb a couple of hit more both from melee and pierce, so there is no need to buff just one of them.
Thatās their main problem.
Well, if their standard abrs get a decent buff, Iām fine that the GC is only good vs cavalry.
With +2/2 (half free, half from the UT) I think that their xbow could really make the Italians viable.
i dont get this issue people have with over lapping bonuses or tech? hows them teutonic paladins looking? franks say hiā¦
thereās absolutely nothing wrong with giving a faction similar tech or bonuses, especially ones different enough as armour vs hp
not sure if someone wants to run a couple hundred tests but ill bet some money that higher hp helps vs the splash damage of onagers ā¦ ergo making viet archers better at surviving compared to arm buff for porto arbsā¦
and guess what?? mongol CA fire faster!! OMFG that overlaps with ethiopians! kill it! kill it with fire! delete that bonus NOWā¦ jokes but you get my point
It is a killing problem. That is why I would say that, a huge pavise secondary effect could be needed to fix this. Otherwise you leave pavise as it is, but you buff the TT.
Then, either free archer armors or +1/1 as a civ buff to give italians some reason to be played.
Imo, the weaker solution is free archer armors + massive TT reduction by pavise (at least same TT of a ckn).
A stronger option is +1/1 as a civ bonus + direct buff to GC TT.
I am more conservative, preferring the first one, but I would be pretty happy to see one of the two. Currently Italians are almost as unplayable as turks, so a huge need for a land buff
Not against overlapping personally, but it is like an unwritten ruleā¦ several people are against
There is no problem for a bit of overlapping, but if the Italians have to pay for a weaker version of a bonus that etiopians get for free, then itās a problem.
However, I prefer giving them +1/1 for free, itās more on their them, and itās also historically accurate.
Thatās the best in my opinion, otherwise you still would have to wait even more for pavise when you have the urgency of GC.
It buff skirms too, so it more versitile, and you have more resources to put in other up. From a xbow perspective +1/1 itās more powerful, but in general itās more weaker.
I think this is more balanced. A single unit is stronger, but overall you have all other units standard and less resources (some complained that combined with the cheap age up it was too much).
Franks Paladin is still better at raiding and against Archers. Teuton Paladin is mostly just a Melee Monster, but Mangudai and Kipchaks slaughter them with a bit of micro, while it is much harder to get away from Frank Paladins.
Teutons Paladins also have a lot more trouble against Halberdiers and Heavy Camels, since they take the full Bonus Damage, and cannot retreat so quickly.
I think we could give them Free Archer Armour upgrades, but compensate by making Pavise much more expensive, to make sure they do not get Super Arbalests very quickly.
Alternatively to armor, we also have a bonus that no civ has used so far: faster moving archers.
One could have 5/10/15% faster moving foot archers starting from feudal. Itās possible that it becomes too strong howeverā¦hard to say without testing, but probably worth considering at least.
2 Likes
I doubt that arbs with free armor or +2/2 are OP, they would still one of the most squishy gold units (after the HC).
Mmm, that a thing of most of the UU archers, also it wonāt be in theme with the Italians tanky archers.
The point is that pavise is worse than a viet civ bonus but it costs. If you think of franks/Aztecs/mayans UTs this does not make sense. Civ bonuses are weaker than UTs.
The thing would be to use pavise to fix the TT. So even if pavise is expensive, you will pay for it since it drops the TT of archers, finally making GC viable. My point is that the TT should be at least the same of ckn, even less considering how powerful the ckn is.
The other possibility, liked by @DoctBaghi, is +1/1 armor as civ bonus, without free archer armors, plus a simple reduction of GC TT
I am more for free armors plush second effect of pavise on TT. It is more conservative
They would begin countering other Arbs and HCAs, aswell as become able to walk under Towers.
If Italians had Free Archer Armour upgrades, then Pavise (essentially another Padded Archer Armour) should have a price increase, so it becomes more of a commitment to go for Arbs, instead of having it the base default.
Let us not forget that Italians also have good Infantry, FU Hussars, cheap BBC and HC, and even decent Cavaliers.
For being so open-teched, a price increase to a UT in exchange for 3 free upgrades, is a great trade-off.
Fine if you make it fixing the GC TT
It could apply only to the Archer line units, and to GCs, Skirms or HCs.
True, but for 3 free upgrades, a cost increase to Pavise would be very justified.
Yes if you give the second effect on the TT. So you make GC viable 
I mean, GCs already murder Cavalry, which is the only weakness of the Italians (and even then just with Paladins, because Arbalests + Pikes murder Hussars or Cavaliers).
Would be cool if pavise affected HC too, since italians are supposed to be a gunpowder civ too. Hardly going to make them op anyway.
They already get 5 for every other civās 4 HC (or BBCs), so I think it would make them way too strong.
Compared to that, Turk, Indian and Ports HCs would be pathetically weak and unviable.
Italians get a great anti-Gunpowder unit, and a huge Gunpoweder unit discount (affects even Cannon Galleons), so they have that theme filled out, whithout needing the Pavise applying to HCs.
GC is mode expensive than ckn, slower to create and, because of that, potentially weaker vs cavalry (also if you consider that often cavalry are used in combination with skirms).
I would say that unlocking at least the TT behind a UT is due. Currently GC is not viable because of that. It also fixes pavise, giving a reason why paying so muchā¦
Not sure if it can reduce arbalest TT, maybe by a different percentage