I laughed when I saw 2 they are fine options.You should make more "They are fine" options so your desired outcome can get the most votes.
I laughed when I saw 2 they are fine options.You should make more "They are fine" options so your desired outcome can get the most votes.
Lol, as I already semi ignoring this and pick_goths posts, didn't vote nor read it, that's funnyI laughed when I saw 2 they are fine options.
Plate Barding Armor for Celts would be a MASSIVE buff. Celts are only missing two upgrades on their hussars, with Plate Barding Armor being by far the most important one. If you give them that tech, they have 75 HP hussars like Burgundians, which are functionally equivalent to Chinese/Portuguese light cav, which are more than passable. In trash war the strongest composition is hussar+halb, which Celts could do sufficiently if you gave them Plate Barding Armor, and they would be likely B tier in trash war, not C tier. Giving the civ Plate Barding Armor would put their hussars ahead of Britons, Byzantines, Ethiopians, Franks, Goths, Japanese, and Vietnamese, and would put them on the same level as Bengalis, Burgundians, Chinese, Portuguese, and Sicilians when it comes to light cav/hussars. That would be a tremendous buff. Would also allow paladin to be an option against civs with ranged units that Celts struggle against (you don't tend to see Celts going for cavalier/paladins at all, but you do see Briton cavaliers sometimes, and Celt cavaliers would be identical to them if you gave them +4 PA).Yes, the worst hussar in the game at the moment 11
Edit: sorry, that would be Korean hussar lol. 2nd worst hussar in the game at the moment.
A civ having horrible two of the three trash units isn't good IMO.
Giving +2 armour would just make Celt trash war go from being D tier to C tier, not too much of an issue IMO.
Plate Barding Armor for Celts would be a MASSIVE buff. Celts are only missing two upgrades on their hussars, with Plate Barding Armor being by far the most important one. If you give them that tech, they have 75 HP hussars like Burgundians, which are functionally equivalent to Chinese/Portuguese light cav, which are more than passable. In trash war the strongest composition is hussar+halb, which Celts could do sufficiently if you gave them Plate Barding Armor, and they would be likely B tier in trash war, not C tier. Giving the civ Plate Barding Armor would put their hussars ahead of Britons, Byzantines, Ethiopians, Franks, Goths, Japanese, and Vietnamese, and would put them on the same level as Bengalis, Burgundians, Chinese, Portuguese, and Sicilians when it comes to light cav/hussars. That would be a tremendous buff. Would also allow paladin to be an option against civs with ranged units that Celts struggle against (you don't tend to see Celts going for cavalier/paladins at all, but you do see Briton cavaliers sometimes, and Celt cavaliers would be identical to them if you gave them +4 PA).
How would final cav armour make Celt "too strong" ? Their trash composition is one of the worst in the game, at best giving +2 would make it average.I think Celts are overall fine and done NEED anything but what really annoys me is that they got no functional imperial Age Navy. No Fast fire and galleon w/o Bracer. just trade Galleon for fast Fire like Malians got a while back.
The other thing ism I agree that Cav Armor would be too strong but Archer Armor would make at least their skirms functional.
It is a ****ing joke how much the Woad Raider got power crept. not only did Supplies make Champs better but if you compare their Stats and Upgrade cost to e.g. the Obuch you cant stop laughing. And Poles dont exactly suffer from a bad eco either.
A Unique Tech that does something instead of Strongholds would be nice but is mostly irrelevant.
You know why Burgundian paladin is viable? Cause of cheap upgrades, cause you can build up the numbers in castle age, and the fact that you can directly click paladin. On top of better eco.have you seen Burgundian Paladins? I dont think giving that to Celts is OK.
There is no need to make Hoang Push stronger.(the opposite actually) Celts need to be viable outside of BF and Honag pushes.
I bet he'll pick the one with the lowest votes. For what? Who knows? Maybe to win an argument in his own head.You should make more "They are fine" options so your desired outcome can get the most votes.
because final cav armor is super important? Doesnt matter how trash their composition is, but +4 would let them play much more versatile from castle age, now going knights a lot in castle age is meh, as cavalier without +4 is trash, unless you have 60% gold discount as poles. Not sure about too strong and how strong it would be, but +4 total armor for cavs is huge and most important thing. They already have nice eco and halbs to deal with cavs, having +4 cav armor would make it much easier to deal with archer civsHow would final cav armour make Celt "too strong" ? Their trash composition is one of the worst in the game, at best giving +2 would make it average.
I am asking how it would make Celt "too strong", not whether the +2 armour is important or not.because final cav armor is super important? Doesnt matter how trash their composition is, but +4 would let them play much more versatile from castle age, now going knights a lot in castle age is meh, as cavalier without +4 is trash, unless you have 60% gold discount as poles. Not sure about too strong and how strong it would be, but +4 total armor for cavs is huge and most important thing. They already have nice eco and halbs to deal with cavs, having +4 cav armor would make it much easier to deal with archer civs
Because I'm thinking about big picture or you going to let them research +4 (total) cav armor only after they run out of gold? How you can keep talking about trash war only? How often you get into full trash war anyway? I mean it happens, but it would change a lot their cavalier/paladin and hussar play, so talking about only last stage makes zero sense.I am asking how it would make Celt "too strong", not whether the +2 armour is important or not.
I agree +2 final armour is amongst the most important upgrade for cav. I'm just arguing that giving it to Celts wouldn't make them broken or whatever.
It would take them from being **** tier in trash wars, to average at best, in trash wars. Wouldn't make it any easier to deal with archers, than any other civ with FU light cav (which would be slightly better than the hypothetical hussar we are talking about) does.
Celt eco isn't even that good. It is great in early-mid game, which allows strats like Hoang Rush.
It's effect kinda tapers out once it gets to late game, which is where this entire convo is even relevant.
You say they can deal with cav fine with their good halbs. Yes.
What about other skirms? Their skirms are probably the worst in the game (maybe 2nd to turks), and their hussar are garbage too, lacking both BL and final armour.
Indeed they have a flowing economy, very fluid in hybrid mapsI feel like celts can play good any map because of their wood bonus
Infantry units in general have been difficult to balance historically. I believe there must be a reason as to why MAA are clunkier to micro and have an animation delay larger than militia.I think Woad Raiders, especially in Castle Age, deserve a buff. They should be able to be used much more as the bulk of a Celt army comp, especially in Castle Age. Right now, most Infantry UU's in Castle Age have abominable stats that make it impossible to justify producing until Imp, which is tough to pull off.
You wouldn't see Celt paladin for the same reason you wouldn't see Byzantine paladin. Simply not viable in 99.9% of the games, because nobody would build up knight numbers from CA without bloodlines.Because I'm thinking about big picture or you going to let them research +4 (total) cav armor only after they run out of gold? How you can keep talking about trash war only? How often you get into full trash war anyway? I mean it happens, but it would change a lot their cavalier/paladin and hussar play, so talking about only last stage makes zero sense.
CELTS DON'T NEED ANY BUFFSYeah, if they get +2 final armour, their hussar would essentially be on par with Burgundian ones, and slightly weaker than Chinese/Portuguese light cav. What is wrong with that?
Yo, I think you missed the patch where almost every single infantry unique unit was buffed? Woad raiders went from 8 base attack to 10 base attackI think Woad Raiders, especially in Castle Age, deserve a buff. They should be able to be used much more as the bulk of a Celt army comp, especially in Castle Age. Right now, most Infantry UU's in Castle Age have abominable stats that make it impossible to justify producing until Imp, which is tough to pull off.
Byzantines usually doesn't need to do cavalier/paladin because they have better options due having many cheaper units. Also in later stage of the game people usually do try to go into cataphracts instead paladins. However I see Britons building cavalier quite often even though they have amazing range units. So I disagree, people would play knights quite often in castle age to imp if celts would have +4. Especially, that currently they already have quite akward time early imp, so with +4 cavalier that would be much easier to go through.You wouldn't see Celt paladin for the same reason you wouldn't see Byzantine paladin. Simply not viable in 99.9% of the games, because nobody would build up knight numbers from CA without bloodlines.
100% agree with this. If Celts got Plate Barding Armor I'd usually default towards knights with them, even without BloodlinesByzantines usually doesn't need to do cavalier/paladin because they have better options due having many cheaper units. Also in later stage of the game people usually do try to go into cataphracts instead paladins. However I see Britons building cavalier quite often even though they have amazing range units. So I disagree, people would play knights quite often in castle age to imp if celts would have +4. Especially, that currently they already have quite akward time early imp, so with +4 cavalier that would be much easier to go through.
I still don't think that's enough. All the infantry UU's should get an HP, speed, or attack buff, or more than one of those things. They just aren't good enough in most matchups which I think takes away from the variety of the game.CELTS DON'T NEED ANY BUFFS
Yo, I think you missed the patch where almost every single infantry unique unit was buffed? Woad raiders went from 8 base attack to 10 base attack
Celts have got powercrept, so yea they do.CELTS DON'T NEED ANY BUFFS
Like I said (and seemingly you yourself suggest), you would see them as often as you see Briton Cavalier. Which is like 1 in a 100 games. Seriously, how often do you see Briton Cavalier? I can't even remember the recent tournament game where someone went Briton Cavalier. Last I remember was Daut (I think) going cavaliers in an arena map to counter skirms, and it was months ago.Byzantines usually doesn't need to do cavalier/paladin because they have better options due having many cheaper units. Also in later stage of the game people usually do try to go into cataphracts instead paladins. However I see Britons building cavalier quite often even though they have amazing range units. So I disagree, people would play knights quite often in castle age to imp if celts would have +4. Especially, that currently they already have quite akward time early imp, so with +4 cavalier that would be much easier to go through.
Well, I suppose your case would be the exception than the norm. Why would anyone go default cavalier without BL, than the composition Celts shine at, which is halb + siege ?100% agree with this. If Celts got Plate Barding Armor I'd usually default towards knights with them, even without Bloodlines
It wouldn't be a cavalry oriented civ though, but just getting plate barding. They would still lack bloodlines, and has no bonus for cavalry.Making Celts another cavalry-oriented civ just doesn't fit their history. Why not replace Strongholds with some unique tech that fits their infantry or siege identities and plays into "raiding" on the Celtic borderlands? Maybe receive gold for destroying buildings and killing villagers? Doesn't really deal with their fundamental weaknesses, but I'm not sure we really need to.
No they don't. If there's anything almost nobody at the top level would agree on it would be "Celts need a buff". Some new civs are stronger than them, true, but that means they need nerfs (cough cough Poles cough cough Gurjaras), not that Celts need buffs. Vs most of the roster Celts are very balanced.Celts have got powercrept, so yea they do.
Because knight-line has mobility and is a wayyyy easier transition than halb + siege or woad + siege. If I can open castle age with knight + siege (that's what Celts excel at, even despite lacking Bloodlines) then why not just continue going knights with my amazing Celt eco? Can easily transition to pikes vs other stronger knight civs, and vs xbows the Celt siege carries.Well, I suppose your case would be the exception than the norm. Why would anyone go default cavalier without BL, than the composition Celts shine at, which is halb + siege ?
Britons make cavs more often than 1 in 100 games.Celts have got powercrept, so yea they do.
Like I said (and seemingly you yourself suggest), you would see them as often as you see Briton Cavalier. Which is like 1 in a 100 games. Seriously, how often do you see Briton Cavalier? I can't even remember the recent tournament game where someone went Briton Cavalier. Last I remember was Daut (I think) going cavaliers in an arena map to counter skirms, and it was months ago.
Smoother transition, this reminds me of a post on the steam forum suggesting to give Goths the final cav armor to "slightly buff them".IMHO that is so rare that not a vaild argument. If you are losing to an enemy going straight Cavaliers without bloodline, then that means something went wrong from your side.
At best, they would be a support force for taking down siege or skirms, like how Britons themselves use cavaliers. Never a major force, or the primary unit. Which I think is fine.
The actual noticeable impact that it will have, will be Celts going Hussars, not Cavaliers.
Celts will have a weak but viable Hussar, to tech into. In late game trash wars, or even mid Imperial age.
Well, I suppose your case would be the exception than the norm. Why would anyone go default cavalier without BL, than the composition Celts shine at, which is halb + siege ?
It wouldn't be a cavalry oriented civ though, but just getting plate barding. They would still lack bloodlines, and has no bonus for cavalry.
At best, this would be giving them the option of going (a weak) Hussar in late game