The developers are to be applauded for recent changes to the game, especially to Teutons. I think I realized why I do not like this civ. To me, any decent infantry civ needs to have siege ram–not just capped ram. Aztecs, Vikings, Bulgarians, etc., all have siege ram. To be fair, Goths do not, but that is because they win by swarming you and not by traditional tactics.
To me, infantry will never be as good at protecting a treb in imp as a swarm of archers. Teutons do not get bracer, and even if they did, they don’t get arbalest. Therefore, to me, you have to either give the siege ram or give them the back the archer options. My two cents.
Japanese, Malian and Malay all do just fine without siege rams. Furthermore, Teutons have Ironclad, and while it doesn’t replace Siege ram, it makes them situationaly slightly better. And the fact Teuton have overtherwise a full siege workshop more than make up for it.
I just want to point out that (aside from Goths) Malians, Malay, Japanese, Burmese, Franks all lack siege ram. So your rule that “all decent infantry civs have siege ram” is not even a vaguely followed guideline at this point.
Perhaps I should say all the infantry civs that are actually good. Franks are not an infantry civ. And Japanese have the Kataputuo (sp?), so that is why they are fine with just the trebs. Otherwise, the push is way too slow. Malians with their trash infantry is closer to a Goth swarm.
I was just stating my opinion. I played with them in imp recently and it occurred to me what the problem is. Its the siege, for sure.
Burmese, Malay are still good infantry civs, without any bonus to siege, while Franks can function as an infantry civ too. It’s not because the tech tree doesn’t say “infantry” in the description that the fact they get FU champs+halbs+ a good infantry UU should be forgotten.
Not only Malian infantry isn’t bad (ok their pikeman is lacking, but the champ is good) but they aren’t trained faster so you shouldn’t play them like Goths but more like other infantry civs.
How are Franks (FU champions and halberdiers, infantry UT, infantry UU) not an infantry civ ? That’s just as much infantry as say Celts (FU champions and halbs, infantry bonus, infantry UU).
But whatever, that’s besides the point. The point is that many of the top Infantry civs don’t have siege ram. Japanese, Malians, Goths, Burmese all have top tier infantry without siege ram, and they are all considered good civs.
Your opinion that an infantry civ needs to have siege ram is your own and you are entitled to it, but there is little objective evidence to support it.
Wth. Teuton siege is pretty good, mind you. Siege onagers, heavy scorpions, bombard cannon, Siege Engineers, > Ironclad <. You come here and dare say teutons workshop is bad, cause the only thing they miss > at all < is siege ram. And on top of that they even get an UT to help each and every one of the lot. Get a grip mate.
What’s the reasoning behind that? Halbediers are the perfect unit to protect trebs since your opponent most likely will use cavalry to snipe them. If he uses infantry himself you go for your own non-trash infantry.
Also because your civ has a lot of infantry options doesn’t necessarily mean you need siege ram. Civs like Celts, Slavs, and Vikings do need that but Teutons are fine relying on trebs and bombard cannons. Although iron clad capped rams have less dmg output than regular siege ram they tank more melee damage so it’s not like you can’t use rams with them.
You just have to adapt to each civ’s strenghts. If your civ’s play is arbalest in early imp, siege ram is quite important. Same goes for halbedier and siege compositions which, of course, would fit the Teuton gameplay but since they have great heavy cav and otherwise full siege techs there needs to be some drawback to compensate. Try to adapt your gameplay to what Teutons have to offer in imp which is by no means little.
OK, didnt know that about Chu ko Nu. Must have been some time since i played vs. Chinese and used RAMs.
I think what He means with ironclad being more effective vs. Trash than vs. Paladin is that ironclad negates roughly 50% give or Take depending on Upgrades halb damage while only about 25% of Paladin damage
FU halb has 10 attack, rams have -3 melee armor so it turns into 13 attack. Siege ram 270 hp. Divide by 13, you get 21 attacks.
Capped ram has 200 hp, with ironclad its melee armor is 1. FU halb has 9 attack against it. 200 divided by 9 is 23 attacks.
With Blast Furnace light cav/hussars, both die in 20 hits.
However, if either unit is missing blast furnace, the advantage just gets better for the ironclad capped ram. But come back to paladin, it actually kills ironclad capped ram in 12 hits while a siege ram dies in 13. However it is already clearly evident that the ironclad capped ram is already almost equal against high melee damage units as a generic siege ram. So basically, they already have a siege ram, while their other siege units are as fully upgraded as anyone elses, but they actually have more survivability against melee attacks than anyone else aside from the celts.