They mean putting the archers on staggered formation, and still having the Chakrams shred them, even though they are now more spaced out.
1 Like
the justification is that Sicilians were a cavalry civ in history, since they are the successors of the Normans. Them having good Knights just makes sense. You could make them into a purely infantry civ but then you need to give them like BBC and such.
because the civ makes sense. Average on Arabia, slightly above average on Arena, and a decent counter to Meso civs and OK on Regicide Fortress. Not every civ needs to feel “super unique” like Mongols on Valley or similar. Sicilians are an Infantry & Cavalry civ, they do Infantry and Cavalry well. Without Hauberk they wouldn’t be a cavalry civ because most civs have FU Cavalier, even ones like Italians who are “Archer civs”.
1 Like
But then just remove the serjeant from that civ please.
It’s a really cool idea to give a heavy armored inf UU to an archer civ. But this current sicilian design just does make it awkward. Ok if their identity is now just their hauberk with resistance to counters thing, whatever. But then they don’t need the Serjeant at all. Even Donjons are weird then. Just make a new civ that is designed to have a unique Trush strat that isn’t as technical so it can be used at lower level without being a noob basher strat and still somewhat competitive at the highest level cause it eg doesn’t requires forward vills.
With 42 civs growing in the game I just don’t like wasted bonusses that could make for a great civ identity. There are so many civs already lacking a good identity and we waste cool stuff on other civs. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
They already have good Knights, being resistant to bonus damage is mostly relevant on Cavalry. Having Knights which are semi-Cataphract is so unique and so valuable in 1v1s. I dont get the point of overkilling it with another bonus.
Watching pro players play Sicilians is just sad, simply boom. (which totally make sense, I dont blame them for using this doomsday Hauberk weapon)
Their Knights are both strong and unique. In fact, they’re better than most “Cavalry Civs” Knights in many situations. There’s no comeback mechanism against mass of Sicilians Knights when you cant utilize Pikes/Camels efficiently against them.
It’s such an unique aspect, no other civ can do an all-in Castle Age pure Knights push like Sicilians.
(And of course the conversion resistant bonus, that, again, relevant mostly to Knights)
But people seek convinience, it’s never enough for them it seems, it has to be either a Paladin or an over-the-top UT to justify an identity. I find it too reductive, Sicilians could be such an elegant Cavalry civ with some other adjustments (once Hauberk is removed/replaced).
I dont know if you’re sarcastic or not 
First, Hauberk is the one which should be removed.
Secondly, even without Hauberk, Sicilians are a Cavalry civ, having 2 unique and highly utilizable features that apply to Knights. (Halb/Camel/Monk resistance)
Thirdly, when it comes to civ design, no matter the amount of civs, they have to have depth, designs like Britons, Franks, Burgundians, Goths, Bohemians, are just bad, childish approach that focuses on one dimension. No neuances or any artistic touch to them. Bunch of gimmicks and an overly themed concept.
Cavalry civ should have an Infantry UU, that’s pretty much the only positive thing I can say about Franks (as opposed to Burgundians).
Strategy deserves a healthy degree of complexity. 
you realize that their Knights have bonus resistance and that’s it until Imp? You make it sound like Hauberk is given at the start of the game, when it isn’t, you need to reach Imp alive, you need to build a Castle, you need quite a good amount of resources to purchase the Hauberk and you need to have 30+ Cavaliers to begin with to make the upgrade worth it. Sounds like a lot of conditions.
because that’s what you do when your civ has generic units and no bonus in the Castle age. You know who else also booms in Castle age? Vikings, Magyars, Khmer, etc. Almost like if your civ didn’t get a relevant combat bonus, like +1 range of Britons, or faster firing Siege of Celts, there is no point to do a high variance play involving Mangonels, spamming army, and controlling resources in the Castle age when you can boom a bit and go for the same play in Imperial age, where it’s less risky/high variance.
no they’re not because the counter to all-in Knights is 2x Monastery, not Pikeman. Camels work, sure, and here I admit Sicilians are good, but most Camel civs have good Knights also and can do their own Knights to fight Sicilians.
Shut down by CA, shut down by 2x Monastery, shut down by (stronger) Knights (like Lithuanians), shut down by defensive Castle. Almost nobody bothers doing Castle Age all-in Knights right now. And not cuz of Pikeman resistance but because of Monks.
the unit makes sense, it is stronger vs Archers than Paladins, and weaker vs melee than Paladins. Cope all you want, the unit design makes sense, it’s stronger than Paladin in some situations, and weaker in others.
I love how you conveniently omit that this resistance is locked behind a Castle tech and dismiss that as “not a big deal”.
Which Sicilians do have, their gimmick is that they can’t counter gold units very well, don’t have a very strong eco bonus and are a bit weak to Archer-line in general. Their civ design makes sense.
2 Likes
You guys should create another post if you want to discuss Sicilians lol
4 Likes
“That’s it”? it’s tons.
Especially against civ that have Camels.
In 1v1’s this bonus on its own is enough to shape a whole civ identity, something to always consider, always there on the playground. Again, mostly relevant to Knights.
What?
Vikings is Liereyy’s go-to Fast Imp 1TC civ.
Magyars can go for either a CA play or Hoang rush, or even a prolonged Feudal Age into a Light Cav upgrade.
Khmer can do so many other stuff (my favorite civ hands down), too versatile.
Sicilians are poorly designed, once this Donjon-Serjeant isn’t utilized you end up with almost a generic civ, that has only Knight to play with.
These powerspikes are great, but they’re not essential in order to go for a non-boom strategy, I go random civ + 1TC play with almost every civ (high-ish elo), most civs have something unique to offer, including Sicilians, they’re so good at it, ironically, Sicilians Knights are so solid at maintaining momentum, gives no room for an economical comeback for the enemy since Pikes are no effective any more.
The fact Sicilians can go for a versatile Castle Age yet choose to boom and play for Imp Cavalier composition just shows how broken this Hauberk is.
On Arena perhaps. Arabia is too open these days for a reliable puristic Monk play.
(Not mentioning the fact they resist conversion if you decide to go for an all-in Castle Age with the UT investment)
Hauberk Cavalier indeed stronger than Archers, but also stronger than Paladin when facing Halbs. That’s the irony, the unit has no strategic drawbacks. Childish design.
You’re right. I should stop 
I feel it could be a mix of change of formation or reshuffling when right clicked nearby or away. Otherwise don’t think tc arrows target different units when all units are in range.
From what I’ve experienced, they don’t die when opponent garrisons just a few vills under tc to drive them away like they do for knights. Because they cost very little gold, Gurjara players are fine letting them roam around tc without worrying about losing numbers and that’s what causes the thing you refer to as Huskarl effect. But if you garrison all vills inside tc, the charge isn’t sufficient to save.
Raiding and picking off stray ranged units is their only purpose. Probably their cost can be changed to 65-25 or 65-30 or Kshatriya effect reduced to -20%.
In general I just feel most of the problems are in the late castle age which is their strength.
Just asking
Removing Hauberk and the conversion resistance from Sicilians
How would you buff them?
Make them more Donjon-Serjeant civ (and kind of water civ)
More like when they were released
Great question, open for discussion, I bet we all can figure it out.
It’s much easier than buffing Burmese or Portuguese.
I’m all for this kind of buff, the Donjon-Serjeant nerrative deserves a buff. However it’s deeply rooted in our meta, Trush is out of the question, you can’t really trush these days effectively ever since they : 1. Nerfed Towers 2. Changed Arabia. So Donjon is inherently problematic as the core feature of the civ.
Further more, even if Trush was viable, you first need to send vills forward to place the first Donjon, and just then create Serjeants, it’s a little weird. Perhaps let them make the first two Serjeants in the Barracks? TC? I have no clue. Perhaps different stats in Feudal Age? Who knows.
Besides this one, you have Arbalester with Bracer and one of the best Cavaliers in the game, in 1v1s. And a decent eco bonus, not great but it does save wood. So we have a great core of a civ, it’s just missing two unique techs pretty much to become a polished civ. (same goes for Flemish revolution)
I’d personally consider them a good candidate for a Free Onager bonus.
Anyways, it’s much easier than we think, we dont need those Tarkaphracts that overshadow every single other dimension about this civ.
If sicilians just could train some Serjeants from barracks in Dark Age so they could make a Donjon Rush without exposing the vills…
Ofc with the disadvantage of having at first no units to garrison so they would als need to train some archers probably.
1 Like
I mean what if serjeants could be made from the tc from feudal but after you build a dojon
Also we kinda slip of topic with gurajas and i think for the scillian problematic there should be a seperate topic
3 Likes
Can someome please tell AllergicTable49 that it’s “Narrative”, not “Nerrative”? It’s really annoying, nerrative isn’t a word.
@TheConqueror753 he is banned for ban evasion appearntly so you dont have to worry
1 Like
I’m not totally sure how that happened, but not complaining, it’s great.
I disagree with him 99% of the time but I didn’t see any reason to ban him before ban evasion. Why did he get ban on the first place?
Honestly i have no idea why he got banned but he was troubling anyway so he might got banned someone saw through the bs of an other acc he made and reported it
Also cant remeber a account of him before
It doesn’t really matter I don’t think, he was the most toxic person on the AoE2 forums by a long shot, and it’ll be a lot better with him gone honestly.
2 Likes
The pathan equalizer and now allergictable saga
Anyway we should get back on topic
On that note would it be wierd that i think gurajas are rather meh and hindustanis are stronger?
1 Like