why +1 attack and +1 melee armor? you know Indians lost the final armor upgrade so they take MORE damage from melee units, right? giving them 1 more melee armor basically reverses the loss of the final armor upgrade.
This is a good start
1 Like
Imagine farimba imperial camels with zealotry and magrebi camels 11111111
1 Like
- Their vulnerability to building fire is a big problem
- Their cost does not reflect their niche use
Pikes counter them hard, infantry has balanced exchanges, arrows destroy them. If all you can do is one thing at the expense of all else in aoe2, then you are not likely to be used.
1 Like
I share the thought that for the Cost the Camel should be a slightly better Generalist than it currently is, therefore i think the heavy should get +1 Attack. It shouldnt be the Main Bulk of an army but i think the heavy Camel should perform in imperial similar to how the regular Camel performs in Castle age. The Camel power increase is relatively Low compared to Other unit Lines.
Also i didnt really See the need for Indians to loose the final Armor tech. I even thought the Camel was supposed to somewhat Substitute the Knights Role, however now the Indian Camel is Worse than Generic in early Imp.
1 Like
Maybe we can stop this non sense, Camels have only one purpose, counter cavalry, and they are just fine doing that.
1 Like
Not for the Indians (20 char)
1 Like
You donât play Camels as if they were knights, even if you are playing as Indians. (or at least I donât recommend it)
??? no.
or partly saracens
yes
People keep saying that the camels are doing just fine as a cavalry counter. In imperial age, the heavy camel actually does enough damage to cavalry to justify how bad it is elsewhere. In castle age, however, the performance advantage against knights is so small that it barely even qualifies as a counter unit. As a relatively expensive gold consuming unit that is absolutely terrible against anything outside of cavalry, making camels in castle age is a great way to lose games. Even a mix of knights + camels can work rather well against a pure camel composition. I would say the easiest thing to change without upsetting imperial age balance would be to toss in a couple more cavalry bonus damage only to the camel rider and not to the heavy camel rider.
- Camels are actually cheaper than KnightsâŠ
- You can literally destroy knight only army using camels. If opponent goes double gold unit, its an investment for you to transist to imp faster. Also you can add mangonels and/or archers yourself.
Camels fall slightly in late castle age imo, but camels can buy you so much time. I dont think they are severely underpowered.
Imo people here are exaggerating camel vs ca. Yes in low numbers they die due to low pa but in high numbers outperform knights bc they are faster than ca while knights are slower. Also they create faster, are cheaper and deal more dmg here. So with decent eco you just spam them and you can continously reduce opponents ca mass while against knights they can micro way easier. As the camel player this gives you all the time to focus on macro and raiding.
At the same time they got another extra pa so in early imp you basically get last armor for free which is certainly a boost. Yes you lack one melee armor but thatâs not too important. And no even Indian camels arenât really a knight substitute. Maybe imp camels but not before. In castle age they are at best a bit more universal compared to regular camels. At that stage best way to use their cav is light cav vs archers and camel vs cav.
1 Like