Yet more ways to make Steppe Lancers relevant

I consider these the core features of Steppe Lancers:

  • They have 1 range
  • They are cheaper than knights, but more costly than scouts
  • They have similar dps to knights, but much less durability (glass cannons)
  • They’re faster than knights
  • Their final upgrade is less powerful than Paladin
  • They train relatively quickly

Now the niches this should open up are:

  • They should be a good raiding unit
  • They should be very effective (more effective than knights) when your army outmatches your opponents army (eg when you have invested 2x as many resources into your army)
  • They are a rapid response force

Conversely the weaknesses should be:

  • They should trade less efficiently than knights in a pitched battle with equal resources

So, what stats would wedge open their niches, without generally making them more powerful than knights?

:heavy_check_mark: They should have a slow attack speed [to increase the effect of the 1st attack, so they trade better when they have a numerical advantage]
:heavy_check_mark: Calculating hp*attack/RoF/cost/cost, knights should have the bigger number [for pitched battle effectiveness]
:x: They should have 2 pierce armour [to allow them to raid]
:x: They should train very quickly [to allow them to be a better rapid response force]
:x: They should be cheaper to upgrade than Hussar [to be a better raiding option in early Imp]
:x: Elite Steppe Lancer should be a superior option than Cavalier [to be a better power spike in early Imp]

In addition you could consider making them faster after the Elite upgrade, up to the level of Shrivamsha Riders.
Making the Elite version train super quickly so that a single sneak stable in the back of someone’s base can wreck their eco, like you’d get from 4 stable Hussar production could be interesting. To make use of it you’d still need mountains of food and gold in addition to the sneak skills.

There’s a danger that buffing their pierce armour and stressing that they’re cav that’s countered by heavy cav could leave them too strong against Eagle civs. I don’t know what to do about that.


As we come back to the SL theme I will bring up my standard elaboration:

IMO the “easiest” way to make SL work is to just give them a specified role in theses civs army compostions. As these civs are all CA civs, they could be specialised for sniping siege. For that they could even have less HP, but one more range and a bonus vs siege. With that they also would excel against skirms aswell.

Imo the range design of SL just doesn’t allows to have 2 PA or more HP in castle age. They would shred archers/xbows to pieces. Also we have always the lance of damokles hovering with the current design and this is that massed SL become basically uncounterable at some point because of the absurdly high damage output from 1 range.

1- do mongols need another anti siege unit?

2- will lancers being anti siege make using siege harder vs mongols or are mangudai a far superior option anyways?

1 Like

It would open one more option for mongols in the midgame.
But as you pointed out, mongols probably won’t make SL if they have acess to their mangudai.
So I won’t answer your questions cause I think they are kinda misleading. I don’t think you would make SL if you have acess to mangudai bec of various reasons. But it surely would be an option for mongols if you don’t have access to mangudai.

If the desire is to make them weak to archers but strong vs TCs, you could give them the “spearman” armour class.
I mean they do carry a long spear :grin:

With archers doing +3 vs “spearmen”, that could actually open up space to give them 3 pierce armour, making them excelent raiding units.

Castles and towers deal +2 vs spearmen, but TCs +0.


Interesting… But may we then not just cause the next “Shrivamsha effect”?

I mean the idea on it’s own is really cool (I like playing with these bonusses aswell), but with the experience of the shrivamsha I currently wanna stay away from pure raid designs tbh.

I think even this idea:

If elaborated well could actually work. Cause if then the elite upgrade becomes nerfed a bit the danger of the massed ESL becomes less threatening. Especially if in the process the gold ratio of the unit gets raised. Then it would be more of a midgame unit. Which would give these civs a unique option to play instead of their CA which is more a lategame powerhouse. A lot of CA civs suffer from that midgame weakness. And this early acess to SL could definetely open options there. But then it definetely needs to be made sure you can’t just make a giant mass of ESL in imp to completely overwhealm the opponent.

1 Like

This is the problem. It bridges the gap between Mongols excellent early feudal and the lag until they have multiple mangudai on the field

So you basically strengthen the window for other civs to kill them

Still say you can’t buff SL until you nerf Mongol SL. It’s like trying to buff camels while Hindu and gurj camels exist

Why buffing militia line is made more difficult while civs like malians bonus exist


Mongols have more HP on SL. And they are not OP. They could be in Imperial if they had last armor. But we can safely say Castle Age SL can get more HP.


OK up to the amount of mongol SL would potentially be OK.
But then the Mongol bonus needs to be removed in castle age,

Yes I agree. Just make the +30% hit points apply on Light Cavalry, Hussars but not Steppe Lancers

1 Like

So HP 60 → 80

Or we can make the bonus staggered.

A regional unit that is available for only 3 civs with no bonus? I think 20% will be fine if HP is 75.

Standard SL HP 60 → 75
Elite SL HP 80 → 90
Elite SL upgrade cost 900 food, 550 gold → 750 food, 450 gold

Light Cavalry and SL +30% HP → Light Cavalry and SL +20%/+30% HP in Castle/Imperial.
Standard SL HP 98 → 110 (Not sure if it is balanced though)
Elite SL HP 124 → 137


Cavalier level hp? :pleading_face::pleading_face::pleading_face::pleading_face:

I know the armour is much lower… but still.

I don’t see how other civ’s SL can be considered balanced with 110, while Mongols are crawling around with this

Remember Mongols are only weaker Vs ranged units, but that’s not what you use SL on.

And even then comparing to cuman SL t’s 22 Vs 20 hits for arbs,

19 Vs 18 for HCA, so hardly much weaker Vs ranged, while being vastly superior in melee.

That’s why I keep saying, Mongols can’t keep that bonus if we expect SL to be balanced for the other 2, unless the other 2 get a bonus as well.

You mean cumans? (Their bonus is inconsequential)

But if you really want a bonus, change Mongol TB from scouts to scouts and SL +2LOS


Yes I am considering the same thing. Before poles release some people think that Poles Winged Hussar is a full attack unit that is weak againist archer because of lacking Plate Barding Armor. And eventually it melt foot archer even better than Poles Cavalier.

Tatars with +2/+3 armor will be better.

One of them has better bonus actually.

Extra speed is good for micro. It will be tricky to balance their SL due to higher speed. So I’ll just leave them. They are insane in DM btw.

Make Stepple Lancer Anti cavalry unit :slight_smile: like a pikeman.


*like a camel rider.

I asked the same an year ago. Remove Camel Rider from SL civs. Give SL +3,+5 attack bonus vs Cavalry and +2,+4 vs Camel.

1 Like

it is true, good idea :slight_smile:


I think giving Ghulam blast damage to SL maybe good since it reinforce its power on countering archer

Or we can take the complex route - LC and SL extra HP is locked in UT replacing “Nomads”.

1 Like