You CANNOT have a unit which ignores pierce armour without destroying balance

[filtercoffee488]

@Pulikesi25

Why should I? This is an open discussion forum. If you post something, people are free to express their opinion about it. And since its something about balance and a new unit, I’m interested in it.

Okay, then stop asking why I am making a speculation thread. If you don’t want to talk about the unit before it is released (for the record, it is released), then don’t comment on this thread. If you want to speculate and are interested, don’t ask why I made the thread and am speculating.

@Pulikesi25

But you failed to see the point that this unit can have the mechanic (which might not be unique or innovative) and still get balanced even if its not balanced right away at the time of release.

Nice representation of other’s arguments. You haven’t outlined my main point even a single time. Also, extremely biased language there, isn’t it? “instead of seeing the purpose…”, “you failed…”. Alright, then I don’t need to be as neutral with you anymore.

This is the last time I am going to engage with you on this point. Understand the argument, or stop talking to me. I’ll try to use as simple of a language as I can.

I am going to ignore rate of fire for a moment, because that’s clouding your vision. Let’s talk about this in DPMs (damage per minute). For composite bowman, the damage is 240 HP. That’s a fixed value. It doesn’t change with respect to the unit (except siege).

For a HC, without bonus damage, their damage output is a bit higher than 143 DPM for a unit with 6 pierce armour (considering their bad accuracy, but ignoring misfires), 117 for a unit with 8 pierce armour, and 182 for a unit with 3 pierce armour.

For elite chu ko nu, the pure damage output is 288(base damage)+240(extra arrows) for a unit with 0 pierce armour. Sounds ridiculous, but wait. Against a unit with 8 pierce armour, damage is 123(base)+60(extra arrows, rough count). That is, 183 DPM. Against a unit with 6 pierce armour, it is 164+60=224, and against units with 3 pierce armour, it is 226+60=286.

Notice something? You must be able to see it. There’s a pattern. That pattern is, pierce armour is important for balance. If I want to create a unit which is extremely weak in melee, but can deal with archers, I can do it. If I want to a low HP anti-archer unit, like ghulams, huskarls, eagles, and even situational counter like woad raiders, I can do it. This is, of course, ignoring the ridiculous damage output of BAs, but that can be tuned.

Tell me, how do you make a good low-HP melee counter to this unit without that unit also being broken? This must also be done while keeping the BA’s stats roughly equal to that of other archers, and keeping the unit fun, and balanced to use.

I am not going to go through every variable and explain why most of them would break one or the other criteria. In fact, the only variable that is even likely to work is attack delay. i.e, how long the archer takes to target a new unit after killing a previous one (or, stopping near an enemy unit). But that will also destroy the unit’s micro potential, and nobody likes foot archers which you can’t micro. That’ll also make the unit significantly less efficient in smaller numbers.

This conversation is over. I don’t think we will ever agree, but you will realize the point of what I am saying later down the line. Have a good one.

[eMpTy]

First of all, calm down man. No need to get angry here.

It just seems like you are focussed on the interaction of anti archer units and this unit. Now just take a step back and imagine it doesn’t look like an archer. It’s just a ranged unit with attack that ignores PA.
Why in the world would you want to counter this with a high PA unit? That is the worst match up possible.
But there are effective counters to this. Fast units are decent
high HP units do well, Arbs are very effective and siege is just a super hard counter. And you cannot simply ignore siege because monks exist. By that logic, skirms are no counter because knights exist.

No doubt this is a strong unit but it nowhere near impossible to balance or even breaking the game.

Also as others have pointed out, you are not looking at the unit in the context of the game. You are looking at the scenario editor, 100 vs 100, who kills the most.
In this scenario War Elephants seem pretty OP, right?

In a game of AoE2 there are so many factors along the way: getting to the stage of the game where you can mass a unit, builidng castles, creation time, MOBILITY, find the battles that you want to take, unit composition, …

It’s not simply “create this unit = win” so no need to act like this is the end of AoE2.

[Geojak92]

I always hated how these ignore armor ujits basically trough some core poser of age of empires out of the window. Armor = less dmg received. A teutonic knight being treated sometimes with 13 Meele armor and sometimes with 0 when ignored. This is trash design. The player needs some level of consistency. The fundamental game mechanics should still apply.

These kind of mechanics suck and now would be a great time to review.

I suggest change all ignore armor effects of this new archer, leitis and that dravidian tech to ignore half of the targets armor rounded up

So a leitis would attack a teutonic knight with 13 armor, ignore 6.5 of that armor rounded up 7. Meaning he will treat the teutonic knight as if he had 5 armor.

For the new archer this effect could also work since it means skirms are still retaining half their armor.

Yea we would need to make leitis a bit cheaper again and the dravidian tech cheaper.

But it’s time to fix this bull ssit

[Pulikesi25]

@filtercoffee488

If I want to create a unit which is extremely weak in melee, but can deal with archers, I can do it. If I want to a low HP anti-archer unit, like ghulams, huskarls, eagles, and even situational counter like woad raiders, I can do it. This is, of course, ignoring the ridiculous damage output of BAs, but that can be tuned.

Tell me, how do you make a good low-HP melee counter to this unit without that unit also being broken?

Why do you specifically want a low hp melee counter to this unit?

For some mysterious reason if you do want to make a completely new unit in the future that’s weak against melee but strong against this unit, there are still plenty of ways to do it:

1. It can also be a siege unit making this armor ignoring mechanic irrelevant. Can have high hp, moderate damage but huge negative melee armor.
2. Similar to Royal heir shotels and camels, the new unit can take -5 damage from all archer units (which doesn’t count as p.armor).
3. The new low hp unit can dodge projectiles.
4. The new unit can be ranged itself with a very low base attack but a huge attack bonus against archer armor class and either be ranged or have a high speed.

@filtercoffee488

Notice something? You must be able to see it. There’s a pattern. That pattern is, pierce armour is important for balance.

Ok so according to you if the base damage starts at 500+ dpm and then slowly decays to 186 for some of the highest p.armor units, that’s fine and balanced but if it stays flat at 240 its problematic? Is it the 50 extra damage per minute or in other words 1.8 extra damage per projectile in comparison the problem? And anyways lets even agree with you its a huge problem. What happens if you just reduce the base attacks to 2 and 3 for elites and non-elites, lower rof to 2.5. By your definition, DPM drops to 168. Is that a reasonable value that keeps you at peace?

@filtercoffee488

For a HC, without bonus damage, their damage output is a bit higher than 143 DPM for a unit with 6 pierce armour (considering their bad accuracy, but ignoring misfires), 117 for a unit with 8 pierce armour, and 182 for a unit with 3 pierce armour.

You haven’t ignored any misfire, all these calculations have the 75% accuracy factored into it. The only thing you’ve conveniently ignored is the bonus damage which does exist against all the low hp, weak against melee, good against ranged units which is your main point of concern. And when you take that 10 bonus damage into account, even for Elite Huskarls the “DPM” is approx 220, right within the ballpark of this unit. One other relatively low hp, anti-archer unit is Shrivamshas and those are just going to dodge the shit out of both hand canoneers and these units making the “DPM” irrelevant.

( Just wanted to mention that DP"M" is just an impractical calculation for most situations. Small number battles usually end much sooner and large number battles have several overkills when high dps units are involved. but anyways ignored that for the point of this discussion)

[TwerDefender]

@filtercoffee488

This is the core of the argument:

@filtercoffee488

I am not going to repeat myself, because I have done it 3 times already. You cannot buff this unit, but you can nerf it.
This unit is the equivalent of the statement “this statement is false”. It is the equivalent of the equation, x = x+1, x is a real number. There is no mid-point, there is no solution.
It follows the logic:

1. BA is as good as/slightly weaker than crossbow line against melee cavalry (and high-HP units) => BA is good against low HP melee units
2. BA is good against low HP (like champions) melee units => they are good against their infantry counter units
3. BA is good against low HP units => they are good against skirms and archers, as long something can soak up the arrow fire in front
4. BA is good against cavalry => they are always better at killing the front line arrow-soaking units than any other archer

The only solution here is to make them garbage against cavalry. Meaning, drastically cut down base damage/rof/whatever else. But that also means nerfing them to the ground.

All that ranged melee damage and everything else are side tangents. Address this properly.

so much wrong with this:
Composite archers are going to be strong against units that usually rely on pierce armour to beat archers. But there are other ways to beat archers: bonus damage, higher range, splash damage, speed to close the distance, high HP.
eg even though Elite skirms will take quite a lot of damage from them, they will do lots of bonus damage in return. Light cav/Hussar can just run in and kill them

so let’s adress these points one at a time:

BA is as good as/slightly weaker than crossbow line against melee cavalry (and high-HP units)

not necessarily true, they will get fewer shots in while the melee cavalry closes the distance

BA is good against low HP melee units

something like karambits can still swarm them, other low hp melee units like shotels or urumi will still massacre them if they close the distance

BA is good against low HP (like champions) melee units => they are good against their infantry counter units

infantry archer-counter units usually have other strengths to counter archers other than pierce armour. eg huskarls and ghilman can still close the gap really fast and then deal bonus/pass through damage

BA is good against low HP units => they are good against skirms and archers, as long something can soak up the arrow fire in front

this is a giant leap in logic.
first of all, why isn’t there anything soaking up the arrow fire for the other side?
secondly, due to the low range they are way more exposed than skirms and other archers (except chukonu)
thirdly

BA is good against cavalry => they are always better at killing the front line arrow-soaking units than any other archer

first of all genoese crossbow exist

I expect a good composition against them could be Light Cav, Elite Skirm, Onager
or halb ram skirm

I think armenians as a whole have too many options and might lose arbalester, last archer armour or something like that.
In the end they will be a death-ball civ like teutons, where engaging them head-on is probably ill advised. Instead harassing their army with cav archers or raiding them to death will be the main way of beating them

[filtercoffee488]

You aren’t reading my arguments correctly. Thats on me, since I used maths language.

@filtercoffee488

BA is as good as/slightly weaker than crossbow line against melee cavalry (and high-HP units) => BA is good against low HP melee units

This means that statement 1 implies statement 2.
“A=>B” means “If A is true, then B is true”. It doesn’t mean that I’m claiming that A is true.

@TwerDefender

not necessarily true, they will get fewer shots in while the melee cavalry closes the distance

Okay, go and crunch the numbers. BAs do upto 800% the damage of crossbows against units like tarkans, and they will do at least 200% more damage against regular cavalry, even accounting for the lack of thumb ring.

“not necessarily true”? No. Absolutely true, except against someone who uses cavalry with no armour upgrades.

@TwerDefender

huskarls and ghilman can still close the gap really fast and then deal bonus/pass through damage

Go watch the video where Hera demolished huskarls with these things, with micro.

@TwerDefender

first of all, why isn’t there anything soaking up the arrow fire for the other side?

That’d how logical statements works. Did you read the next statement? I literally accounted for it there.

@TwerDefender

Composite archers are going to be strong against units that usually rely on pierce armour to beat archers

Surprise! That’s what most of the game is balanced around.
Most units rely on pierce armour to deal with archers. There are civs like turks who don’t even get elite skirms.

@eMpTy

It’s not simply “create this unit = win” so no need to act like this is the end of AoE2

Stop. Go and read the rest of the thread. You have contributed nothing new and I don’t have the patience to spoonfeed the arguments.

Also, I have no idea who is acting like this is end of aoe2.

[TwerDefender]

@filtercoffee488

This means that statement 1 implies statement 2.
“A=>B” means “If A is true, then B is true”. It doesn’t mean that I’m claiming that A is true.

i got that, but if A isn’t true, the statement is tautological. eg “dark age milita counter cataphracts => aoe5 will be set in middleearth with mechanized infantry” is a true statement

@filtercoffee488

BAs do upto 800% the damage of crossbows against units like tarkans

of course the effect of armour ignoring will be the most extreme against high armour targets.

@filtercoffee488

they will do at least 200% more damage against regular cavalry, even accounting for the lack of thumb ring.

but also accounting for range?

@filtercoffee488

“not necessarily true”? No. Absolutely true, except against someone who uses cavalry with no armour upgrades.

or something like shirvamsha riders, or coustillier where getting an extra volley in on the approach makes a huge difference

@filtercoffee488

Go watch the video where Hera demolished huskarls with these things, with micro.

same as hand cannons then

@filtercoffee488

That’d how logical statements works. Did you read the next statement? I literally accounted for it there.

you didn’t, you just assumed that someone would use cavalry as the meat shield. Rams exist! and again none of this takes into account range

@filtercoffee488

Surprise! That’s what most of the game is balanced around.
Most units rely on pierce armour to deal with archers. There are civs like turks who don’t even get elite skirms.

most units? yes, most civ? no. will some civs struggle against this unit? yes
her are some civs which don’t use pierce armour units to deal with archers:
bohemians - hussite wagons
britons - use their own higher range archers
burgundians - coustillier can be used to hit and run
celts - siege
ethiopians - better archers and siege

this is just me going down the list. all of this can still be balanced with a long creation time for this unit or a high cost. civs with better imp timings can also just treb down the castles. your approach to balance is so narrow, that’s why you make frankly uninformed claims like ‘you cannot have this unit without destroying balance’

having played with them I feel like the production time needs to be increased significantly. atm they produce so fast

[flacbr]

100% agree. After doing that change, it would be just a mater of adjusting Leitis as well as Dravidians (other than other tweaks that Dravidians obviously need - since theyre byfar the worst designed civ right now - id´s say buff Urumis too). With proper tweaks, Urumis could be a less extreme unit - one that isn´t total trash vs pierce, but also not dumb vs high armor melee units - the result would be Dravidians would be more fun to play with AND against. And of course, the DLC wasnot released yet, so theres still time to think about something else for the Composite Bows.

Nothing of what i said will happen though.

[TwerDefender]

yes, as much as I disagree with OP that this isn’t ‘destroying balance’ I still think it is weird/lazy game design and only ignoring half the armour would be more interesting. maybe even just buff leitis by giving them +1 attack

alternatively make it so that each relic gives leitis 20% armour ############ up to 80% at 4 relics

[Grep0sofHeckels]

@SirWiedreich

15, because Malians miss blast furnace and the base attack of elite is 13.

Yeah a pretty big mistake, I’ll edit my previous post a little but I still believe that the vast majority of it was still salient anyways so it will mostly remain the same. I was also unnecessarily rude, my frustration in trying to make a decent response in a reasonable time got to me. My apologies @filtercoffee488

I didn’t really talk about the other aspects of cost, training time, etc. Because I mainly wanted to emphasis the damage dealing similarities to the Compbow, and checking armor values was already taking a decent amount of time. Arguments can also be made that the Gbeto’s worse cost, res, is made up for by other factors such as much higher speed, much better damage against Siege/Buildings, no Archer Armor class.

@SirWiedreich

This is my biggest problem with the unit. Some amount of mold-breaking is good, but this goes too far.

I don’t really think given what I’ve already being saying about the Gbeto that the Compbow is massively different to what we have, since we already have plenty of anti-armor ranged units in the game that either achieve this with sheer damage output units (Gunpowder, Onagers) or Ranged Melee that prey on the universally lower melee Armor stats of most units (TAXmen, Gbetos). I think your point here would have more ground if it say had no Archer Armor class.

What I see the main gimmick of the Compbow is versus Gunpowder and Ranged Melee, is that it does similar anti-armor whilst also having High Accuracy + Ballistics + Range Upgrades, with that and other qualities it is more rewarding to Micro. In exchange for worse damage against Siege and Buildings (both). Which I think is fine personally? I think just slightly reducing PA or -5 Health will be enough to render them balanced,

@UpmostRook9474

they still need the armor for skirmishers when they already have no Thunb Ring, don’t they?

Yeah, you can give them negative Archer Armor or lowered health without losing Ring Archer. but if that isn’t workable could give an alternative like Plate Barding. Or Armenians maybe will just have to cope with it like Lithuanians losing Blast Furnace for their Infantry as collateral damage from the Paladin nerf.

[SirWiedreich]

@Grep0sofHeckels

I don’t really think given what I’ve already being saying about the Gbeto that the Compbow is massively different to what we have,

I’ve acknowledged that the comparison is mostly reasonable with regards to general damage output. The problem is that in terms of economics, Compbows are not very comparable to the units people keep bringing up. Conqs, Jannisaries, Gbetos, Chakrams and T-Axemen all have a substantial food cost. Hence my earlier point that Gbetos likely become broken if you swap costs with the Compbow, or even replace their food cost with wood. Massing those units can be very strong of course, but the food cost means you have to sacrifice or delay booming, techs, and Imp timing if you go for them. The couple gunpowder units that only cost wood and gold (Organ Guns, Hussite Wagons), are balanced by being significantly more expensive and fairly slow, yet even they (along with the Conq and Jannisary) have been the subject of recent nerfs intended to specifically make them worse vs. siege and in low numbers. Compbows are in the same conversation as most of those units in terms of DPS, but for a much lower cost. Which I think will show itself to be a pretty obvious problem.

Regarding the other aspects of the Gbeto though, I don’t think building damage is that relevant overall - you don’t rely on one unit to kill everything, and even Gbetos want to avoid defensive structures. The extra speed is nice, although even Compbows don’t seem too afraid of much that they can’t run from. Similarly, they can just run from siege, or add their own.

@Grep0sofHeckels

What I see the main gimmick of the Compbow is versus Gunpowder and Ranged Melee, is that it does similar anti-armor whilst also having High Accuracy + Ballistics + Range Upgrades, with that and other qualities it is more rewarding to Micro. In exchange for worse damage against Siege and Buildings (both). Which I think is fine personally?

The theory of a high DPS unit of the archer class is fine. The main issues I see with the implementation is that ignoring all PA easily leads to too many lopsided interactions (what most of this thread is about, no need to rehash it though) and that it seems too cheap/accessible for how strong that ability is.

@TwerDefender

Light cav/Hussar can just run in and kill them

I don’t think light cav will generally be a good counter (until lategame as part of a comp like Hussar +Skirm or you’re okay with taking iffy trades to kill a gold unit). Even knights don’t look so great unless you have significantly more res worth of knights. The ignoring of 4 and 6 PA on FU Castle and and Imp lightcav/knights/cavalier only lags slightly behind the Genoese bonus of +5 and +7 vs. cav.

Obviously the unit can become balanced with changes over time. I don’t think it’ll be quite as bad as when Gurjaras were OP last year, but hopefully it doesn’t take 4-6 months for them to throw in a few nerfs once the need for them becomes more obvious.

[AlphaCreator727]

After watching the video

ELITE COMPOSITE BOWMAN vs EVERY UNIQUE UNIT (Total Resources) | AoE II: DE

I don’t think they are OP

[SirWiedreich]

@AlphaCreator727

After watching the video

Problem with MikeEmpires videos is that there’s no micro and no real context other than “total resources,” which isn’t that helpful. Ranged units in such a case will almost always be shown performing far below their potential. IIRC it was a MikeEmpires video that people took to mean that Urumis would be massively OP last year.

[Pulikesi25]

@filtercoffee488

Stop. Go and read the rest of the thread. You have contributed nothing new and I don’t have the patience to spoonfeed the arguments.

What exactly are you hoping with the thread? Just everyone agree with you.

Your point on how a low hp non-broken weak against melee anti archer unit can be designed to counter this unit has been answered. There’s nothing broken about this unit design. Stats can and will be adjusted for balance if necessary.

[FreeWinPlz1739]

@SirWiedreich

Problem with MikeEmpires videos is that there’s no micro and no real context other than “total resources,” which isn’t that helpful. Ranged units in such a case will almost always be shown performing far below their potential. IIRC it was a MikeEmpires video that people took to mean that Urumis would be massively OP last year.

It is not a problem, because there is no way to find 2 players with equalized skill level.
In real battle, sure the opponent can micro whatever he want, but I won’t give him such a chance because I won’t fight if I can’t win,

[filtercoffee488]

@TwerDefender

i got that, but if A isn’t true, the statement is tautological. eg “dark age milita counter cataphracts => aoe5 will be set in middleearth with mechanized infantry” is a true statement

No, your example doesn’t work. Even if dark age militia countered cataphracts, you cannot be 100% certain that aoe5 will be set in middle earth.

Also, that’s not what a tautology is. Tautology is a statement which always true. “x=x” is a tautology.

@TwerDefender

but also accounting for range

It’s like 1 range. Regular archers have 5 range, this one has 4. These things aren’t gbetos or throwing axemen with like 5 range.

Also, don’t pretend like you wouldn’t take double the damage over +1 range any day.

@TwerDefender

of course the effect of armour ignoring will be the most extreme against high armour targets

The point is that it matters.

@TwerDefender

same as hand cannons then

I already addressed this. Look above. HCs don’t counter cavalry.

@TwerDefender

you didn’t, you just assumed that someone would use cavalry as the meat shield

Rams aren’t good when you have warrior priests, extra HP infantry or even teammate’s cavalry in the front line. Rams will also slow down the push, which is bad for a cavalry civ.

@TwerDefender

this is just me going down the list. all of this can still be balanced with a long creation time for this unit or a high cost.

Which will just result in another unit which isn’t usable in arabia, but ridiculous in team games.

[filtercoffee488]

@Pulikesi25

It can also be a siege unit making this armor ignoring mechanic irrelevant. Can have high hp, moderate damage but huge negative melee armor

Okay, so no more units like eagles from now. Or let eagles be siege weapons.

@Pulikesi25

Similar to Royal heir shotels and camels, the new unit can take -5 damage from all archer units (which doesn’t count as p.armor).

This is the funniest solution. We had a perfectly working solution. Pierce armour. Now you add a mechanic that screws over pierce armour. And you have proposed a solution which is functionally just pierce armour, but backwards. What’s next, add the backwards melee shield to teutonic knights and everything else to counter wootz steel?

Why? Why go through all this nonsense? Why ruin a working system then to come up with a less elegant solution?

@Pulikesi25

The new low hp unit can dodge projectiles

Sure, people loooove shirvamsa riders right? It’s not as if there are people who still want the unit deleted from the game, and people who still comment about how much they hate that mechanic in every gurjara thread.

Last solution isn’t melee, so I’m gonna ignore that.

@Pulikesi25

What happens if you just reduce the base attacks to 2 and 3 for elites and non-elites, lower rof to 2.5. By your definition, DPM drops to 168. Is that a reasonable value that keeps you at peace?

This is literally the nerfs I’ve proposed multiple times in this very thread. This will nake them bad against cavalry, and making them bad against cavalry is the solution.

@Pulikesi25

You haven’t ignored any misfire, all these calculations have the 75% accuracy factored into it.

I said “considering their bad accuracy”, meaning 75% accuracy is factored in. However, missed shots will still do some damage to any unit which might’ve been hit. That is not factored in.

@Pulikesi25

The only thing you’ve conveniently ignored is the bonus damage which does exist against all the low hp, weak against melee, good against ranged units which is your main point of concern.

HCs are supposed to be anti-infantry units. Not anti-cavalry units. Which is why I’ve ignored the bonus damage.

@Pulikesi25

What exactly are you hoping with the thread? Just everyone agree with you.

I keep hearing this braindead line. Where did I say that everybody should agree with me? Look through my history. I welcome disagreements and counters to my opinions. It feels like you want everyone to bend your opinions and you are just projecting.

I expect people to actually understand the point I’m making, whether they agree or not.

@Pulikesi25

Your point on how a low hp non-broken weak against melee anti archer unit can be designed to counter this unit has been answered. There’s nothing broken about this unit design. Stats can and will be adjusted for balance if necessary.

Lol. You didn’t even understand the point till I exaplined 5 times. And your solutions are complete garbage. So stop pretending like you’ve made a good point.

[Pulikesi25]

@filtercoffee488

This is the funniest solution. We had a perfectly working solution. Pierce armour. Now you add a mechanic that screws over pierce armour. And you have proposed a solution which is functionally just pierce armour, but backwards. What’s next, add the backwards melee shield to teutonic knights and everything else to counter wootz steel?

Why? Why go through all this nonsense? Why ruin a working system then to come up with a less elegant solution?

In theory its the same concept. You block some of the attack with a different mechanism. Whether its very fast regeneration, dodge or just reduced damage like royal heirs or hussite wagon mechanic or p.armor. Armor of course has been the primitive but devs have already introduced other ways of reducing damage taken.

@filtercoffee488

This is literally the nerfs I’ve proposed multiple times in this very thread. This will nake them bad against cavalry, and making them bad against cavalry is the solution.

Thank you and the exact point many of us were making. And now if you do agree that this is nerf can balance the unit without making it useless, it means we CAN have a unit which ignores p.armor without destroying balance. The exact opposite of the thread title.

@filtercoffee488

Sure, people loooove shirvamsa riders right? It’s not as if there are people who still want the unit deleted from the game, and people who still comment about how much they hate that mechanic in every gurjara thread.

Last solution isn’t melee, so I’m gonna ignore that.

There’s always people who hate some or the other mechanic. Imo, its more of how powerful the civ to which the unit belongs is and how the unit with that mechanic plays into the real game against conventional units. Like people hated Shrivamshas not just because of their own stats but also because of how powerful Gurjaras were. Same goes for charge mechanic and 50% discount Burgundians and Coustillier and so on. But I think from the release perspective its necessary to keep new civs and units much stronger than community favorites. Otherwise people who want to climb the ranked ladder will just ignore the DLC and continue picking their existing favorites and the new civs might go unnoticed for a long time.

@filtercoffee488

I keep hearing this braindead line. Where did I say that everybody should agree with me? Look through my history. I welcome disagreements and counters to my opinions. It feels like you want everyone to bend your opinions and you are just projecting.

I expect people to actually understand the point I’m making, whether they agree or not.

The use of words and phrases like “braindead”, “go to a different thread” are just plain toxic. The whole thread seemed to be about you trying to force the opinion that this unit is broken because it can kill eagles, ghulam and huskarl which are anti-archer units.

@filtercoffee488

Lol. You didn’t even understand the point till I exaplined 5 times. And your solutions are complete garbage. So stop pretending like you’ve made a good point.

Lol. Everyone understood your point very well. We were just trying to make you realize how this unit can be balanced and isn’t game breaking, which you finally did. And the solution is garbage because its a pointless solution to this garbage question.

@filtercoffee488

Tell me, how do you make a good low-HP melee counter to this unit without that unit also being broken?

Truth is such a unit isn’t needed. Skirms, siege and other ranged units are perfectly reasonable.
Anyways the funny tantrums and insults apart, I guess you now see the point on how this unit can be balanced even using core battle stats. Cheers hf with Armenians.

[filtercoffee488]

@Pulikesi25

Thank you and the exact point many of us were making. And now if you do agree that this is nerf can balance the unit without making it useless,

Hold on. Are you repeating back what I said in the very post and way before you first commented on the post back to me and pretending like you are saying something new? And then pretending like I realized it after you said it?

Also, drill this this into your head, because you can’t read properly. If you lower the DPM, they become weak against cavalry, while remaining good against huskarls and eagles. Now, you might not think that anti-archer units failing to be anti-archer is not an issue. But that’s just plain stupid.

Okay, this is pointless. I am not interested in engaging with you on this topic anymore. I can’t deal with manipulative people whether they are deliberatly doing it or not. And you are being extremely snakey and manipulative with your statements.

To be precise, you were portreying many things I realized and wrote out both in the original post and many of the comments as something I didn’t realize. Also, you were, in several comments, putting words in my mouth, and portrying opinions as fact.

For anybody else reading this, I have no issues addressing any of the issues this person has presented. Because those are also similarly mischaracterized. Feel free to chime in and question me. I just don’t want to deal with this person specifically.

[Pulikesi25]

Just don’t use toxic words man. There’s nothing manipulative or snakey, its a discussion forum and the topic of discussion is whether or not this unit is broken and can’t be balanced without rendering it useless, along with a lot of other things related to the mechanic. Anyways it seems like you looped back to eagles and huskarls, so I too feel its pointless to continue. I will end my discussion here as well and we can agree to disagree with each other.