Land demo unit is a bad idea. Demos are already seen way too frequently on water. There should be no explosive units of any kind before a civ "discovers" gunpowder.
Disagree. Demos are by far the most fun and interesting naval unit. More demos plzDemos are already seen way too frequently on water
That is only because the other two are even worse.Disagree. Demos are by far the most fun and interesting naval unit. More demos plz
Couldn't you do exactly the same, but better, with knights?This may only work at lower levels (around my noobish 1200 level) but I've had decent success with Steppe Lancers. Works best with Cumans because of their 2 TC feudal boom. But also because their lancers are faster. They're insanely fast which helps reduce quick-walling shenanigans at my level.
I wall/tower and boom in feudal then I hit castle with 4 or 5 stables ready to pump out Steppe Lancers. At this point the opponent is usually pushing with mangonels and some units. But as soon as I have 10 to 15 lancers, I push back clean up the forward and then send the by now 30 to 40 lancers to his base.
There's not much they can do, the ball of lancers can not be easily countered and being that my eco is so far ahead, it only keeps growing while my opponent is struggling to produce any military. One of my favourite builds and it rarely fails. But yeah noob level I know.
Couldn't you do exactly the same, but better, with knights?
I agree. Plus, they do okay against camels. I see it as a unit that do well against its counter units, while being weak against heavier cavalry/archers. While not suitable for tg, it's viable in 1vq. I believe that cumans should get an attack bonus for them, and that's itSteppe lancer is the ultimate anti infantry unit. A cataphract that costs less, drawback is the need to micro
Im being dead serious
This is absolutely not how the numbers line up. Even if you disregard the fact that food is gathered slower than gold (plus requires more resources in the form of wood required to build farms), Steppe Lancers cost 115 total resources compared to the 135 of Knights. This means 27 Steppe Lancers for every 23 Knights. Making the equivalent of 40 Steppe Lancers being approximately 34 Knights. So "20 Knights for every 40 Steppe Lancers" is wildly inaccurate.
- increased cost - you're talking far fewer knights...like maybe 20 knights instead of 40 lancers. Mass is the key here, overwhelm with numbers.
This is absolutely not how the numbers line up. Even if you disregard the fact that food is gathered slower than gold (plus requires more resources in the form of wood required to build farms), Steppe Lancers cost 115 total resources compared to the 135 of Knights. This means 27 Steppe Lancers for every 23 Knights. Making the equivalent of 40 Steppe Lancers being approximately 34 Knights. So "20 Knights for every 40 Steppe Lancers" is wildly inaccurate.
Your other points are all good but considering Knights are statistically superior in HP, attack, reload time, and armor, they generally just end up doing worse vs everything except villagers
This is a good point. Another thing to add to your list of advantages, Steppe Lancers take only 24 seconds to create whereas Knights take 30 seconds, and considering lancers are only 15% cheaper than kts, being produced in 20% less time ends up being more efficient when it comes to creation (you're producing more resources-worth of units in the same amount of time). This is fairly important if you took longer to get to castle age (due to the 2 TC feudal boom) and need to pump out units quickly in castle age to save your ass against some mangonel/monk pushAs for food eco, I'm not too worried about that because the 2 TC feudal boom sets up a monster food eco.
I can't agree here, First of all, as @crashDismounted has said, the numbers are not 20 vs 40, and even if it were you'd need to factor the creation time.
- ncreased cost - you're talking far fewer knights...like maybe 20 knights instead of 40 lancers. Mass is the key here, overwhelm with numbers.
- reduced movement speed - knights are not going to be as effective at beating quickwalls or killing monks because they're slower than steppe lancers
- lack of range - +1 range is great at sniping pikes and just generally being a nuisance while raiding eco. This also helps with the above point of beating quick walls and killing monks
- no style points - using knights is kinda getting old let's be honest. Steppe Lancers give you ultimate style points to flex over your opponent
But all three civs with steppe lancers also have camels which are even better against cav archer, with same speed as lancers, but more HP and bonus dmg against cavI would consider Steppe Lancers over Knights when fighting cav archer units,
It is because they were added to look cool (see @daehiise post earlier in the thread) and justify the more or less unneeded content expansion that came coupled with DE without sufficient thought being given to their gameplay design.I don't understand why so many people voted 'remove from game'. Not everything needs to be top tier. I wouldn't mind it changed somehow, but removing it when it's clearly useful in some niche scenarios doesn't make any sense to me.
Cumans don't get Heavy Camel thoughBut all three civs with steppe lancers also have camels which are even better against cav archer, with same speed as lancers, but more HP and bonus dmg against cav
The issue with this is that they already kill xbows in 4 hits, so in order to make them better you'd have to make them kill them in 3 hits, which is a very large increase and would mean you'd have to give them +3 bonus vs archersGive them a bonus attack against foot archers. Maybe they can counter archers more then knights or cavalier i think.