But that is a unit that has a different mindset behind it than mine.
It will not let me change the poll, so I guess you could make your own poll, make it know to the community, or I could put that in a future poll about civ bonuses.
Aura units are just bad for this game.
1 Like
the problem with this feature is it makes it much harder to raid wood and gold lines, and isnât that punishing on those resources as it is on farms.
One issue is very apparent. If we intend to see decades of new civs there might be some tad bit of bonus and unit overlap. How do we circumvent this issue?
Some of these sound pretty similar to units that exist already, but with some extra buffs.
Teutonic Knight with trample damage.
Genoese Crossbowman with blast damage. (I also find it a bit hard to imagine an archer with a blast radius making sense. What kind of weapon is it using?!)
Sicilian Cavalier with a Persian ally.
This might be ok. I think the radius version would be better - otherwise how would you tell it which several units to target?
Iâm not keen on this. I assume it will affect allied units and be convertible, and that the effect is strong enough to matter. Then if it stacks with civ bonuses or unique techs some things could become overpowered, but if it doesnât it would be confusing.
It would probably be an explosive arrow type weapon, other than that, idk. I just thought the idea is cool.
It has way less armor and HP, and the trample damage would only be there if it needed it.
Sometimes, people donât want to play Sicilians, and most of the time, your ally is not Persians, so I think this would be better because it is just stronger in that role, but weaker in melee.
I canât say. This is an issue you should bring up with the devs and not me.
In some cases, I couldnât agree more, but if implemented right, they could work out fine. For example, this musician would be expensive enough to not be overused, but cheap enough to be good. 400 gold for +1 armor or attack, or both seems balanced when you take the speed down on the guy, and consider that longbows or other archers could go in and instantly kill him if the army has holes in it.
I should add that the existence of a unit doesnât prevent the addition of a similar one. For example, there are several high pierce armour anti-archer infantry units.
Did anyone ever use one? It sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
I was originally going to say it was like. Sicilian Cavalier with bonus damage, but then I realised itâs possible for them to get that damage. I take your point about the low melee armour though.
A ranged unit with blast damage will have friendly fire. So if a group of such archers are attacking up close, they will kill each other.
it wouldnt be an arrow, but some kind of grenadier would have historical basis
I am not sure i am in favour of adding more civs though. 42 is a lot (and fits neatly into BO21 series)
You could also just use grenadiers if you want a similar thing
1 Like
Since it could be a VERY powerful unit, that could balance it out.
1 Like
Did real shrivamsha riders go in with only a loincloth and yet still crushes archers? Probably not, but it is cool in the game anyway.
The Sicilian cavalier still takes 2 damage from just the archer line, and I want it to take only 1 damage from cav archers, longbows, etc.
Fire arrows and lances could be a very easily Jurchen sort of tech to offset an otherwise steppe civ feel to give them some blasting powers.