Cumans are classified as a siege Civilisation. But they need to proof this yet.
At the same time they have a basically useless UT with cuman mercenaries.
With Bohemians we recently added trash monks that didn’t took over trash warfare. So I think the game is well enough balanced for this step.
So my Idea is to replace Cuman Mercenaries with something like “Siege Nomads”, replacing the gold cost of rams with wood. In the exchange Cumans could maybe lose Siege Ram (possibly op in conjunction, but idk, needs to be figured out).
Cumans have actually one of the worst lategames, lacking a lot of key upgrades. So I think it would just help them to compensate for that bad lategame. Especially lacking siege engineers is strange for a “siege” civ.
Also I would maybe change the -100 W for archery range and stables to -75 W for archery range, stable and siege workshop. I think the rbw has shown that -100 w is a bit too much on empire wars like settings - and an expansion to siege actually feels natural for a civ that can start making siege in feudal aswell. I think that would lead to the civ being better balanced overall.
I don’t think it is a good concept to design a civ just around being able to get a military lead just by having more production buildings early on and snowball that to a victory. I’d like to see a bit more “flavour” on the civs, and I think trash rams can possibly add that kind of flavour to cumans, finally making them the siege civ they are described as.
Question 1: Who classified Cumans as a siege civ
Question 2: Who cares about that (daily remainder that Indians are labeled as GP but not the Burgundians 11)
Well I remembered it and now got an idea how to make that meaningful. Why shouldn’t you care about that? I also care about poles currently a bit flawed design besides their arabia winrate seems fine. But I think the civ could be improved as it is a very interesting civ actually with a lot of potential.
And ofc I care about civ potential, that’s why I care about cumans sieging potential, too.
Always have been a “cavalry civ” and nothing else for the tech tree. If I had to choose a second specialty it would be cavalry archer due to the speed boost, steppe husbandry and the cavalry archer UU.
Because that short description will always be restrictive anyway, so it’s better to focus on the whole picture. In this case, a civ’s late game not being pristine is fine (think of Huns or Malians)
I think their imperial age is also just fine tbh it just lacks the strength to end the game other civs have like Spanish who are similar but have bombard cannons
I think spanish have a way better lategame overall.
They have Supplies, gunpowder options, all bs upgrades, all defensive upgrades… Spanish are a quite good lategame civ - cumans are comparably weak in the lategame. Don’t forget, cumans don’t even get stonewalls to protect their eco from hussar raids (imo this is also bad in open maps and cumans don’t have a replacement tool for that).
I think it would only be fair if the second civ (after goths) lacking stone walls would have trash rams to compensate for the lack of defences, wouldn’t it?
Good point, how many layers of palisade are needed to equal a stone wall (fortified or non)?
Trash rams sound very strong. I think it’s a cool idea, but should only be for a civ without Capped Ram, or at the most Capped Ram without SE. Not a good fit for Cumans IMO, I like their new ram upgrade each age.
Edit: Maybe Turks would be a better fit for trash rams. They already lack Siege Engineers, and the Siege Ram would need to be removed (probably Capped Ram too). The nice thing here is that Turks lack Halbs or Pikes, so their rams are balanced by being vulnerable to cavalry. It would still be helpful for the Turks to have another unit they can make when then gold runs out, and it would soak up some archer fire to help fight enemy arbs without elite skirmishers. I think it would need to be a unique tech though, which would mean either artillery or sipahi would become a free civ bonus (I vote artillery, and keep sipahi with its gold cost). This also fits their theme of terrible siege except cannons (they dont even have onager).
Sorry. But this would be a total joke. Trash rams would be flat-out broken. Like cartoonishly broken. I’ll just spam siege rams, GG. You can basically nearly win the game just by making farms (for ram upgrade) and gathering wood. Spam rams, and GG.
That said, maybe some other buff for the Cumans? (but removing the cheaper stable and archery range bonus to replace it)
I don’t know why cumans need further buff and why people say their late game is bad.
Their late game is not the best but better than most of the civs.
Compare to other Cav or Cav archer civs. Their late game is definitely better than Franks/Persians. Better than Tatars/Huns.
I would say Cuman is better late game in 1v1. Supplies? irrelevant most of the time for both civs. Defensive upgrade? honestly that doesn’t matter much either. Gunpowder? only matter is BBC. BS upgrade? Cuman also lacking only Bracer. Remember only viable archery option for Spanish is just Elite Skirms, and Skirms are least important Trash in late game.
On the other hand, Cumans have fastest production of Hussar in late game which is huge. I think their trash war can be better than Spanish. Faster moving speed of Hussar and Paladin on top of that. Spanish have no bonus on their cavalry. Also Kipchak is better than Conqs in imp, which is very gold-efficient Cav archer and destroy Ram very quickly.
CUmans don’t get SE, actually. And I also thought about siege ram being possibly OP without gold cost. Capped Ram is OK imo.
Well people claimed that for trash monks also. Haven’t seen that proven yet. I agree that it is quite strong, but actually halbs eat rams, so you can’t just spam rams, they will be destroyed and as cumans lack bracer, their skirms are also less effective against halbs. (hussars against a ram push is usually a no go even if they would kill the rams even faster, but a few halbs would stop them too easy.
Ofc best answer against that, if the opponent has still some gold (relics eg) would be champions. Cumans have big probs against lategame champs.
So I think it wouldn’t be op, but I agree that it is quite strong. Still it just makes somewhat equal conditions as cumans lack stone walls.
Yeah as long as cumans have some gold to their disposal they are strong, as basically every cav archer civ. But once they are out of gold they suddenly have basically nothing as they lack so many important key upgrades, stone wall is just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s good, but other hussar lines are better actually. Still cause cumans have no stone walls as mentioned they are so vulnerable to hussar raids themselves that their over average hussars have a hard time to shine - if the opponent makes use of his technological advantage.
And here the trash rams would come into play and make it basically equal conditions.
Units turned trash by a bonus or tech, are either light when it comes to their gold cost (magyar hussar), lack some critical upgrades (persian crossbow) or a little bit or both for the malay 2HS. Or impossible to manage in large numbers like the bohemian monk. It would be too strong for the siege onager, also considering the fact that cumans have early rams.
I’m also not really following the idea that cuman late game is weak. I would on the contrary say it’s very, very strong in most circumstances. While they may not have the best hussars, they can field more of them at any one time and achieve numerical superiority to the point where they can at least trade with any other hussar civ. It’s the main reason The Viper has called cumans one of the best late games in 1v1 arabia (yes he said that in stream believe or not). Hussar base build time is 30s, it doesn’t matter if you have 50 stables or not, the cuman player will have numerical superiority in at least one area in the map and you’ll have to react to him sooner or later.
Nobody’s using stonewalls to stop hussar raids in 1v1. Maybe people should but I’ve yet to see this thought consistently (in fact, almost never). Missing stonewalls isn’t really a big issue in 1v1, nor is missing bracers when you have an insanely cheap CA UU with a thrash upgrade.
Cumans are the most versatile steppe civ with an actually usable infantry line, it’s only their unique early game (that’s so easy to punish in 1v1) that prevents them from top tier status (in open maps).
Cumans are top-tier on most maps and notably top 3 on Fortress/Arena style maps etc., they don’t need any buffs. Cuman Mercenaries could be reworked, yes, but even then it’s far from the only useless UT in the game, there is stuff like Paper Money, Greek Fire, Andean Sling etc. that are similarly niche/useless techs.
Also Cumans have a strong late game because of FU Hussar, OK Halbs and most notably, a very strong gold comp (FU elite Kipchaks are a very good unit if you can get to them, though they are not good vs every civ, for example they lose to Mangudai blob, they also stomp Frank army composition fairly hard and Frank late game is good).
I don’t think we need any more trash units that actually are gold units. Imo the idea was okay for malay and magyars as the units the UT applies to don’t cost much gold anyways. Trashbows are also kinda fine bc Persians otherwise lack that important range option. Trash monks I find pretty stupid (irrespective of how strong it actually is) and trash rams would even be more stupid.
The main problem here is that oftentimes in late game people transition to 2 trash units and spend the remaining gold for siege (usually siege ram if the civ has it). So making these also don’t cost gold is another potential balance breaker.
And if your suggestion is to take siege ram upgrade away that’s super weird for a civ that has capped ram already in castle age. Btw one of the uses for that is getting capped ram on your way to imp and upgrade to siege ram immediately.
I don’t even think it’s more of a problem on arena compared to arabia. With cuman you basically never wanna go late game arena as you die to most of the stronger arena civs at that point. And even if arena games go longer on average than other maps you don’t spend a lot gold in castle age so there is plenty of gold to take in imp. So not sure it would make a large difference for cumans here. Escpecially if you take away siege ram in exchange that might actually be a nerf to cumans on arena.
Nah times when people picked cumans a lot on arena are certainly over. It’s a decent civ but they have rather bad imp cimp for this map. Recently people started tatohs strat with trush into second tc and fast imp which seems to have a lot of potential but apart from that there are better civs. After the recent buffs it’s probably safe to say that they are stronger on open maps.
Where did you get that from? Franks are pretty weak once you run low on gold.