Doesnt matter if it affects only imp. The point is the unit was too population effective and it got nerfed for it.
Don’t make claims you can’t back up, or have you somehow talked to every single member of the community
You can’t just ignore DM and other post-imperial games.
I wasn’t surpriesed. What do you expect from a such extreme unit like the teitonic knight. They’re atleast viable now in this situations they are intended to be. In my opinion, teutonic knights are in a very good position now, amd that speed buff actually made wonders.
Except they are not. War Eles are way better when it comes to an actual fight, while the strenght of the paladin lies in their mobility if you compare them to eles.
In maps where you don’t have to run around or chase units, where you have a single front they arenalways prefered to paladins, if you have the eco to make them.
They are viable, just becase you feel like they should be the main core of a persian army every game it doesn’t that’s their role. They are not optimal for every situation and that’s it should be.
1 Like
I’m not ignoring the very specific settings of Michi, 4v4 BF or DM. I’m clearly taking into account how much percentage Michi, 4v4 BF or DM games are actually played.
And the clear fact that this game’s balance has never been done primarily from the perspective of Michi, 4v4 BF or DM, ever.
This game was never done on UU as core of every civ army and here you are anyway
2 Likes
Dont get me wrong, I totally agree with you on this.
Every Unique Unit does not need to be the main core unit for that civilization in all settings. Totally true.
Then why do we have to buff a unit that perfectly what’s intended to do? Persians do not need to do this already strong option (on top of the others that they have) to be stronger
2 Likes
I do not know exactly how you come to this conclusion, and that too so easily, since I myself hate to break it to you that it is far more likely that they don’t, if for a second you give a thought to settings other than the very specific Michi, 4v4 BF or Deathmatch, that is.
Because that’s a unit super pop efficient that is intended for late game. When you are that strong in every department you have to have a weakness: in this case the cost and the speed are what make this unit balanced. Is it a unit intended more for team games than for 1v1? Yes, like all the really costly units.
Is it way better than paladin when it can force a fight? You can bet it is. When you have a map like oasis and many other, where you have only one front to care about and no need to chase a more mobile army they are strong as hell. If you buff them you create an ever more strong option for Persians that they don’t need.
I hate to break it to to you, but you just look like a low elo player with a really small knowledge about how this game works who just want to buff stuff for the sake of it. I’m not that great of a player too, but at least i try to not look like a prick every time i have to argument something like you costantly do.
Also very wrong. The Huns will remain the strongest DM civ for obvious reasons. Followed by civs like the Slavs.
There are already such HUGE differences between the strength of civilizations in DM already that all tournaments in DM are always MIRROR.
Adding 15% more speed to a unit is not going to break the civ balance balance of that which is already well known to all tournament organisers and pros to be ALREADY broken. 11
Speaking of statistics (using your own reasoning), only approximately 1% of the DM matches are in tournaments. So you’ve run into a contradiction here. Either your reasoning is wrong, or your statement is wrong.
What im saying is that the fact that all high level matches in DM are mirror shows that the players and organizers all know that there is already no Civ Balance in DM.
Exactly, but it doesn’t mean you can make it even worse.
The point is that the Huns followed by the Slavs and Incas are already known to be by far the top tier DM civs due to their Pop bonuses. Whereas Persians is known to be not exactly top tier.
And the fact you agreed to as well, is that in DM civs are very far apart in viability. Especially at the top.
Therefore there is almost zero chance of Persians becoming even more powerful than the Huns who literally start with 200 popcap needing no Houses or Castles (and hence becoming “broken”) by buffing the Persian UU from a 0.6 to a still quite low 0.69 movement speed (like was done for TKs and Turtles).
And then consider that the S-tier DM civ Slav had their Boyars (which are much more seen than WE even in DM) got buffed in Pierce Armor, the most important stat for most Cavalry.
So a much more powerful civ than Persians in Deathmatch had their more frequently used (and arguably more viable) UU buffed, while the Persians can’t have their less frequently used unit buffed slightly?
I know but what war elpehants would be broken. What I am trying to emphasize is that you can’t make war elpehants viable in normal matches while not breaking them in DM and other post imperial games like the 4v4 black forest which has huge popularity. Giving them a small speed buff would do nothing in normal games and would buff them even more in post-imp games. If you want war elpehants to be a viable choice for persians like the mangudie is for mongols, then you had to completely break the balance on other maps and gamemodes like black forest and death match.
This is the main problem.
1 Like
0.6 speed going to 0.69 speed isnt going to make them suddenly viable in normal games either, so you have no cause for concern here.
This is happened before many times and those units didnt suddenly become viable.
I ask the change only to make them not as bad as they are in certain settings.
And to atleast allow some players to go for them in normal settings. This unit shouldn’t be so easily forgotten.
Small changes are pointless because it would result in nothing changing and big changes are bad because while war elpehants would become viable in one place it would become ridiculousy op on another place.
3 Likes
No, Small changes is exactly what you do in these situations
0.69 base speed will not be broken in any setting, while still giving the WE something to show for.
15% speed buff would make war elpehants much more op in post imp games than more viable in random map games
Of course this is hardly measureable but the thing is that it is just pointless to make such changes.
4 Likes
I would really like to see the WE base speed increased to match where they are with Mahouts and come up with a different imp age unique tech. WE are basically useless without Mahouts, which makes them useless in Castle Age. If a unit is essentially non-viable without an upgrade it needs to be adjusted. Upgrades exist to add strength and create differentiation between player choices. They shouldn’t be mandatory before the unit is useful at all. I personally think Persians need SOMETHING to buff late castle/early imp. Just SOMETHING. Right now there is basically 0 reason to pick Persians over Teutons unless it’s a water map. Having War Elephants viable in Castle might do that. Even then, they may need some additional eco bonus when u get to Feudal (i personally liked the 5% faster TC in Dark Age, but i assume that was removed due to Feudal times being too fast) I think literally every feudal and castle age strat open to Persians works better on Teutons (other than Teutons lacking Camels, but their knights get bonus armor so they still do well in cavalry wars).
2 Likes