I’d rather they left this mistake in the dust.
All of them are questionable. They are all tiny by themselves.
Can we please stop using condescending language when talking about other cultures (we don’t know too much about)? This goes in ALL directions!
But I want to mention that for some reason the very same people that do that repeatedly also claim they would be “targeted” the most by it. Be a good example and don’t do this unneccesary stuff.
This topic is NOT a discussion about splitting civs, though ofc it can be what some people would like to see done to some of the older civs. However., it’s enough to state once you don’t want it and don’t deviate in an off-topic discussion please.
2 Likes
Back to the topic, which direction should the OG civ go for?
(1) heavy cavalry more formidable in terms of raw stat
(2) heavy cavalry easier/faster to tech in
(3) Tech hole less exploitable
(4) Counter pikes /camels/ monks better
(5) Weaken new civs heavy cavalry
If people keep changing to an off-topic about splitting civs, I’ll keep telling them to stop it.
I favor removing the other paladins and replacing them with “heavy cavaliers” over buffing the Frank paladins further.
Some civs don’t have halbs, and some of them don’t even have pikes, so a much stronger Frank paladin would just be an indirect nerf to all those civs, which is not good. It’s not fair, like the Spanish having better light cav, better skirms, better gunpowder, better monks, and a better navy on top of having an almost as good paladin as the Frank one.
It would be good for civs with sub-par paladins too.
Like the Byzantines: currently, you need to pay more than 2k resources to get +20 HP and +1 pierce armor over generic cavaliers. And you need to train lots of paladins to make the upgrade worth it. But with a very cheap “heavy cavalier” upgrade (let’s say around 500 resources), you would get the HP of a fully upgraded cavalier without paying for Bloodlines, while also getting extra pierce armor.
1 Like
I read this already in this topic. I am not too big fan of that tbh.
We would end with 5+ unique Paladin equivalents similar to the Savar.
I don’t see the point in that. It only makes stuff confusing. Paladin is a recognizable unit, you know what it does. We only make an already very complex game even more complex - and it doesn’t fix anything, it’s just eye candy at best.
(PS: I would be totally for a “unique skin” dlc or something like this, because this would mean if you don’t activate that you can still recognize the Palas of different civs no problem) And stat-wise: We know Palas work in the game, if we make unique units with unique stats for every paladin civ, this would all need balancing again…
1 Like
5+ unique Paladin equivalents?
What if the simple solution was to reduce bloodlines to 15 HP
Most of the OG civilisations are in good or excellent health. Only the three mentioned in the thread title could do better.
- The Britons need their 20% (or even 25%) bonus back. And the only way to do it is to move it as a bonus civ.
- The Franks have an unnecessary silver UT. Like:
- The Teutons are a tricky case. Apart from the issue of merging Cavalier and Paladin, there are still a few minor tweaks to be made imo.
The Franks were only good for like 1-ish year.
The deal was +32 HP and Husbandry over the next best paladin combat-wise. Not just a measly +12 Paladin HP, generic knight and sub-par scout line.
So thinking on the reduction of Bloodlines to 15 HP there are a few stipulations to consider such as certain mounted UUs which either would get +5 in base or elite to compensate Saracens might have their camel health be 30% instead of 25. Sipahi and Chatrahs might include an extra 5 HP.
I’m not sure but one thing is certain: Franks don’t just have 17 HP as paladins, they have 5 more HP as knights and 9 as Cavaliers to help further their lead and they don’t pay for Blood Lines to get this edge
Alternatively;
- Mounted units get +15 / +25 / +35 HP in the Feudal, Castle, and Imperial Age.
- The Paladin upgrade no longer gives extra pierce armor, but the upgrade is 600 resources cheaper.
- New Frank UT: Knight line gets +1 pierce armor. Bearded Axe rolled into the Elite upgrade.
I know most of you are not English first like I am so no need to be mean. If you don’t understand the theorycrafting of a 15 HP bloodline situation don’t need to be rude
Hah! No wonder your grammar sucks: you’re a native just like me!
You can never fix the Frank HP bonus without nerfing the generic paladins first.
“Heavy Cavalier” is one way to do it. Or you make the other paladins cap at 160 HP with bloodlines as you suggested, but then you would need to make the Paladin upgrade cheaper due to providing fewer stats.
+15 / +25 / +35 HP is way better than the current bonus. No more a cav civ having generic knights anymore, even if it’s just +5 HP.
isn’t that already the third time you posted that?
I also disagree. Whilst it doesn’t change too much for Paladin (which most people referred to when discussing the bonus as it seems currently there are just “better” paladin civs out there, including persions which don’t even have paladins technically)
It mostly affects other units like scouts and CA - and whilst it is surely an option to change them a little, these buffs are just massive and would change the way franks are massively. And I don’t get why you want to do that, you don’t even talk about it. (And I am against that)
I don’t need your approval.
If you don’t like it, then you don’t like it.
Which explains this
“Cavalier” is a Provençal word, and literally means “Knight”.
“Chevalier” is knight in Freanch, and “Cavaliere” is knight in Italian.
All this talk of “Knight” → “Cavalier” upgrade has never made sense to non-English-speaking players
3 Likes
I imagine those words have slightly different pronunciations to match the language using them? If I’m not mistaken, cavalry, chivalry, and cavalier (and its variants) all come from the same root meaning approximately “horse man” or “horse rider”. I guess the root is Latin or something.
Also, “Provençal”, I know I’ve heard the word somewhere before, but I can’t quite decipher its significance (or its pronunciation). Is it a dialect of a larger “language”? Or is it an “academic” term for something?
You could at least try to express why you want to give Franks 85 HP light cav and 75 HP CA in castle age.
For me that’s really odd, given that Franks were always considered a heavy cav civ.
I don’t say there should be no better compensation for the lack of bloodlines for Franks, practically I do that with my concept - and in my proposal the units come actually quite close to that value in castle age after the research of the UT. The difference is ofc that that UT costs something and it doesn’t scale higher in imp.
And even 60 HP scouts would be extremely strong, I don’t say that’s unthinkable of, but it needs heavy compensatio to be balanced. It’s 3/4 of the effect of bloodlines for free.