so it’s not the cataphract they can’t counter, it’s cataphract + skirmisher, with the heavy lifting being done by the skirmisher. you’re moving the goal posts.
except it makes them a problem in castle age (5 PA means 50 shots to kill) and early imp (63 shots to kill), as opposed to where they stand now. so it’s NOT JUST A LATE GAME PROBLEM YOU HAVE CREATED.
Yeah Sorry but i never saw paladin having huge problems with cav archers.
yeah sorry. the leitis is only good against archers IF IT CAN GET TO THEM. outside of that it’s utter trash to them. if Leitis is so much better then cataphract please explain why i see cataphract more then leitis?
my comment was about a source - a source that normal players don’t understand it. you talk to all the normal players?
but the cataphract is more population efficient at raiding, and will get to targets faster then infantry, and will last longer. all things which you ignore.
doesn’t matter. the fact is that you said they were cost effective. the math says your wrong.
i have literally never seen ANYONE except you say that you should use Jags against cavalry or for raiding villagers.
Goal post was What can Meso civs do against Byzantines late game and I said that Meso civs except Mayans die to late game Cataphract. It is very normal that some civs are countered by certain units, I showed instance for this like non-bracer civs die to Cavalry Archers.
It is true that new Cata is also good in Castle Age but it is still hardly countered by Monks, heavy cavs, camels and need castle and heavy food price.
Paladin die to mass cav archers Problem is making HCA upgrade and massing 25+ cav archers. I watched a game that Viper beat Franks with Tatar Heavy Cav Archer.
We are seeing Cataphract more because Leitis has very good alternative which is Paladin, Byzantines Paladin isn’t good alternative. Leitis is more useful than Cataphract btw, it is matter of choice but Leitis has huge versality difference. You are seeing Leitis is utter garbage against archers while Cataphract is worse against archers because it is expensive and less damage. They have totally same hp and armor. Cata is worse in dealing archers.
This claim is totally false, unique infantry is better in raiding than Cataphract no matter what situation is.
Yes, Jaguar is cost efficient. In game, you wouldn’t create 40 Jaguar and stop to create more Jaguar. Enemy will create Paladin and you create Jaguar, in long term, Jaguar is better due to low gold cost.
stop ignoring the point - you said that current cata is only a problem in the late game.
your new cata though, moves the problem point from late game to the moment they can start making cataphracts. which is way earlier.
quoting this so others can see you saying that an infantry unique unit like the samurai and jaguar is better at raiding villagers then cavalry is.
Aztecs have monks vs catas which counter them really well. Incas are indeed kinda dead late game but you still have your early imp momentum. If you open arb for instance and your opponent makes skirm your eagle switch will come in way faster than cata switch. It’s a question of how good you can use your time window.
You’re both wrong actually. Franks have of all the heavy cav civs the least problems with cav archers as they not only have the tankiest palas but also the best timing. That’s very important.
If you allow the HCA to get to the critical mass of 50-60 (franks 3 more). Palas become cannon fodder again.
Teutons are especially vulnerable to cav archers cause their palas lack mobility. In the aftermath Teutons have huge problems against cav archers besides having access to paladins.
You’re hypocrit here. Basically everybody just takes units in the wider context of the civs. If we would always write out all the context scenarios why a unit excels especially with certain civs. Like the Huskarl is especially strong with goths and their super cheap standard infantry.
If we would write all that stuff it would be ridiculously unreadable and every post become a master thesis. And you also don’t do it in your posts.
He said it is incomprehensible. Which is true. Both damage bonus and reduced taken bonus damage aren’t explicetely shown anywhere in the game. If you want to comprehend you need to look it up on the wiki. So he doesn’t need any source for it. What’s that nonsense? Do you need a source about what “incomprehensible” means?
And you wonder why people don’t always respond to you demands here. Because they are just absurd. At the same time you make very one-sided and narrowish claims that actually show your lack of in-game experience. Have you ever heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect?
I also don’t see a reason to make Jags against a cav civ. Maybe against Teutons, but otherwise it’s a weird unit choice there. Nevertheless it doesn’t perform as bad against Paladins and can maybe get good trades when having the numbers advantage:
I’m not being hypocritical. his argument was that the Cataphract is impossible for meso civs to deal with. which is flat false. the combination of cataphracts with other units is a problem because they cover each others weakness incredibly well. on the other hand the composition in question is also going to be very expensive because of the cataphracts cost. either way, it doesn’t mean that you should make the situation worse by making Cataphract a 1 man meso civ wrecking crew with 3 and 4 PA baseline which means that archers will be laughed off by it and infantry are already countered by it, leaving no reasonable answer to the cataphract for meso civs or a civ like Vikings.
my claims are absurd? have you read HALF THE CRAP HE WRITES THAT YOUR DEFENDING? you want to call anyone out about absurd claims, call out the guy who wants to make the cataphract uncounterable by civs lacking heavy cavalry, who thinks CKN need buffs, who thinks that somehow Huskarls are good against cavalry, and thinks that Arbs aren’t good against Cataphracts.
and that’s the problem with his statement. to get to the point where jags would trade cost effectively against paladins, you’d have to outspend them. which was what i pointed out earlier.
Yeah I read a lot of what he wrotes. I disagree on a lot of points there aswell and think I can help him by widening his perspective. As I also try with you.
Nobody is forced to follow my arguments. I try to convince by providing additional information. And as I know that it wouldn’t help anybody if I would provide “full truth”, I just try to give different perspectives.
The thing is, with some experience and some realistic view on yourself you will figure out that you (i.e. me) produce as much crap as anybody else. Only marking the crap of others is no good adviser, cause it prevents you from even trying to get deeper understanding than the shallow “pro wisdom” they speak out in their streams, cause that’s always only a little part of it.
except i literally never see you do anything about his points. but you have no problem rolling in here on me. you literally have responded in this to me multiple times but blatantly ignore his bullcrap. so how about you go provide him with some of this wisdom. you’ve literally had days to respond to his comments and you’ve ignored it. only to unload on me.
yes demanding he provide proof that huskarls are good against cavalry is so unreasonable. the same with other infantry units as well.
you came at me first remember? you rolled in about me being unreasonable while ignoring all the unreasonable things hes spent days talking all sorts of unreasonable things and telling others to not be stubborn when literally no one has agreed with him yet.
These were responds to him aswell, I only citated you cause you answered to him aswell and wanted to continue the discussion and didn’t want to break the flow.
Unfortunately this happend, but at least I tried.
And I really dislike to citate myself.
Funnily neither Aztecs nor Byzantines take a high seed in the “worst designed” civ graph here. The question is what’s the main design difference between Byz and Goths that makes Byz felt “well designed” and Goths not.
One is completely defense oriented civ while other one is “Offense is the best defense” oriented civ with only one single way to continue the offense with no eco.
I was actually talking about a situation that enemy side survive all of attacks of Franks until late game, at that point, Franks die to 25+ (maybe more number is needed as lower limit like 30+) FU Cav Archers just like other civs I mentioned which are Teutons, Slavs, Celts, Malians, Bulgarians because Franks has no unit against massed cav archer in late game. Paladin counter Cav Archer before FU and massing 30 Cav Archer as you know. Of course before that, Franks has a high chance to beat enemy thanks to its good eco and knight-line. We agree on this topic. There is same situation in Byzantines vs Meso Civs. When Monks become useless due to high gold cost and huge number of Cataphract, 125 HP 4 PA Cataphract would streamroll Meso Civs but before that Meso Civs has a chance to beat Byzantines thanks to good eco just like Franks.
We were arguing about whether Jag, Huskarl, Samurai, Genoese etc. are all purpose unit and I said that all unique infantry units are all purpose unit (they said they are mostly counter unit like Cataphract) because they can be used in different tasks, Jaguar isn’t counter of Paladin but it can fight back against Pala while Cata has narrow purpose (counter infantry and anti cav units) which is defined as counter unit (for instance skirmisher, halberdier and camels are counter unit because they have one job which is countering certain units) in the game.
I think sticking into Jaguar Warrior is better, switching Champion is time and resource wasting. Champion is cost efficient, yes but I am not sure about spending resource for its gain.
I would argue that the Romans are not completely defense oriented, but rather intelligently defense oriented. That is their defense orientation is a guise for forming a snowball.
To be fair i honestly think that with all the changes vietnamese kinda lost their identity a bit yes its still anti archer archer but their overall gameplan is just mediocre
Not “They are bad at their gameplan” or “Their gameplan is muddled.”
Vietnamese, upon inspection of anyone just trying to look at the civ to understand what they want to do:
"Archer civ… Reveals enemy TC’s? good for rush… wait, no dark age bonuses. (before DE, no bonuses besides archer HP, three years of literally no eco bonus) okay… Elite unit is an archer/skirm mix, with FU+ archers, FU+ skirms… Siege ram? No?
So you want me to play Mayans without the most important Mayan lategame tool, without the Mayan early eco or production bonus, and without Eagles. Yeah, just gonna play the Mayans then."
You don’t even have to read Paper money to understand the Developers literally phoned it in on the Vietnamese.