And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pick

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Spoiler:

Spoiler

Here you can see Hearttt beating TaToH, using Hun CA against eagles: https://youtu.be/nNc59Y9Cz0o

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Notice how he switched to full knights after seeing those eagles, and that TaToH resigned after seeing the knights?

No he didn't switch to "full knights," he added a few of then as a meatshield in front of the CA. And TaToH resigned when he lost all of his eagles after fighting (and losing to) the CA which only had a few kts in front.

 

[SouFire]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Magyars are a meh civ, very predictable, powerful under boom situations, i don't consider them as the remastered huns cus they lack of eco bonuses at early stages, the only similar stuff is the imperial army composition, anyway i really like the independent architecture re design from the wk mod on voobly, their buildings look beautiful.

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Spoiler:

Spoiler

Here you can see Hearttt beating TaToH, using Hun CA against eagles: https://youtu.be/nNc59Y9Cz0o

Feudal Age was more important regarding the outcome than army composition.

Spoiler

Tatoh

eco was quite behind all game and still was able to put up a fantastic fight against CA with Ballistics, Thumb Ring, Fletching/Bodkin Arrow, Husbandry, Bloodlines only missing one armor upgrade. Price of all this upgrades (and buildings) is just huge compared to the upgrades eagles had (EW, Scale/Chain Mail Armor and Squires). And we're talking about the best CA civ against probably the least strong meso civ (according to the KotD results). I fail to see how this strategy works with Magyars against an equal opponent. Remember: no eco bonus, no cheaper CA.

 

[edie]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

It’s clear that sometimes people have an opinion and won’t change it even if you show them other, they see what they want to see and listen what they want to listen. Sometimes debating is a waste :ugeek:

 

[kw1k000000]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

It’s clear that sometimes people have an opinion and won’t change it even if you show them other, they see what they want to see and listen what they want to listen. Sometimes debating is a waste :ugeek:

Very wise words

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Well it's not like I'm just going to change my opinion instantaneously just because 2 other people had a different opinion...

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Misafeco I disagree that the game was already basically won from feudal age and onwards; there could've easily been a comeback if rather than Cavalry Archers there were instead Crossbowmen or just Knights. Xbows can be chased down by eagles (whereas cav archers can run away effectively) and also can be completely destroyed by just a single Mangonel shot, and Knights lose to eagles in cost efficiency but can also be countered easily with some Monks. I don't know what would've been a better unit choice than cav archers, even if he wasn't Huns.

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Misafeco I disagree that the game was already basically won from feudal age and onwards; there could've easily been a comeback if rather than Cavalry Archers there were instead Crossbowmen or just Knights. Xbows can be chased down by eagles (whereas cav archers can run away effectively) and also can be completely destroyed by just a single Mangonel shot, and Knights lose to eagles in cost efficiency but can also be countered easily with some Monks. I don't know what would've been a better unit choice than cav archers, even if he wasn't Huns.

Except I never said that. I just wanted to point out that being in a better position made the CA strategy viable. With equal (or worse economy), it's not really working. If you're ahead you have plenty of options with Huns. Kts+Xbows, Longswords, even Scorpions can work. Huns are a very strong Arabia civ, so you can win some games with them. With Magyars on the other hand, you either to get an early advantage with M@A/scouts or you just wall yourself in and pray that your opponent won't break in with eagles to finish you off. In Imperial you might stand a chance if you can raid with HCA.

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Knights + Crossbowmen doesn't beat full Eagle Warriors I don't think (or eagles+xbows). That's why eagles are so strong, they beat usual army comps like kts+xbows. Knights + Cavalry Archers on the other hand seems to work better, at least as Huns.

I agree that Magyars suffer in castle age though. They don't really have any advantages, except the free Iron Casting. HCA with Recurve Bow are strong though.

 

[rmcoo]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Knights + Crossbowmen doesn't beat full Eagle Warriors I don't think (or eagles+xbows). That's why eagles are so strong, they beat usual army comps like kts+xbows. Knights + Cavalry Archers on the other hand seems to work better, at least as Huns.

I agree that Magyars suffer in castle age though. They don't really have any advantages, except the free Iron Casting. HCA with Recurve Bow are strong though.

This topic is a thing that just keeps on giving and giving. Most expensive castle age units, paired with most expensively upgraded castle age units are a good combination? You don't say dude...

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Knights + Crossbowmen doesn't beat full Eagle Warriors I don't think (or eagles+xbows). That's why eagles are so strong, they beat usual army comps like kts+xbows. Knights + Cavalry Archers on the other hand seems to work better, at least as Huns.

I agree that Magyars suffer in castle age though. They don't really have any advantages, except the free Iron Casting. HCA with Recurve Bow are strong though.

I'm aware that eagles can beat any army composition you throw at them cost effectively (except Longswords but they are damn slow). They are stupidly OP which needs to be adressed in the next patches. But if you have an economy advantage, Kts+Xbow should works just as fine as CA because you have more resources to make army. I've watched some of the Huns vs. meso games today. We have the already discussed

Spoiler

Tatoh vs. Hearttt

. There is also

Spoiler

TheViper (Azt) vs. Jordan (Hun) G1

. Player 1 was with Huns and had an early eco advantage. He made Longswords and Xbows and won even with not so good fights because of the extra resources he had. The other one is

Spoiler

Slam (Hun) vs. TheMax (Azt) G5

where Player 1 tried Kts/Longsword/Scorpions to stop the eagles but Player 2 had just a better economy and better raidings. Neither of the Hun players made CA.

"I agree that Magyars suffer in castle age though"
In Feudal also if they can't do early damage when they have the free Forging advantage.

Spoiler

TheViper vs. Jordan G3

is a very good example how Magyars are struggling against meso civs even with a clear economy advantage. Player 2 had 10-20 more vils through all of Castle Age, had a better Imperial time, trained a good amount of HCA with 2HSwords and still lost.

Back to the original point I'm still conviced that EWs are a good counter for CAs. They counter pretty much everything else too in early Castle Age, but that's another discussion.

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

In the Magyars vs Incas game, Incas only won with their eagles because Recurve Bow was never researched whereas Couriers was. And the Champion switch was too slow.

I don't get how Knights + Cavalry Archers is not better than Knighrs + Crossbowmen against eagles... the cav archers take 19 shots to kill eagles whereas crossbows take 28 shots to kill them, the cav archers are much bulkier (even without bloodlines), and the cav archers are much faster (even without husbandry), the only disadvantage really is the need for Thumb Ring but you'd get that eventually for your Crossbowmen anyway (some people even get it immediately in castle age after making a lot of archers in feudal, if they're committing to attacking rather than immediately making TCs). Bloodlines would be researched for kts anyway (and even sometimes feudal scouts) and Husbandry isn't even necessary early.

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Then why pros barely use CA (except with Huns with the cheaper price) when they're sooooo much better than Crossbows?

1. You probably already have archers when hitting Castle Age and the Crossbowman tech is cheap.
2. Crossbows cost 70% of CAs.
3. Crossbows are created faster.
4. 2-3 means you can more easily mass them.
5. Crossbowman has better range. Very important, especially when also fighting Skirms which is inevitable.
6. Crossbowman has 85% accuracy vs. 50%. Also very important as you need to invest 550 resources and time to research Thumb Ring.
7. Crossbowman has bigger fire rate than CA after researching Thumb Ring.
8. With Crossbows you don't have to worry about Spearmen.
8. Eagles have +3 bonus attack against CA. EW without attacking upgrades deals 8 HP damage to CA (7 strikes) and only 5 to Crossbows (7 strikes) if those have all defensive upgrades. With full upgrades on EW and Bloodlines on CA it is 5 strikes (Crossbow) and 8 strikes (CA) but that's not early Castle Age.
9. You can hit and run but that requires insane micro with CA frame delay. Speed difference is only 0.2 since AK. Will you have time to manage everything else?
10. Some civs have very good Archer related bonuses (Britons, Ethiopians).

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

You probably already have archers when hitting Castle Age and the Crossbowman tech is cheap.

That doesn't mean that you have to keep making Crossbowmen in castle age, you can transition into Cavalry Archers and just use the Crossbowman tech to benefit your leftover Archers.

2. Crossbows cost 70% of CAs.
3. Crossbows are created faster.

These two cancel each other out. Even if CA were created at the same speed as xbows, you wouldn't be able to sustain production, because they're more expensive. They don't actually fully cancel each other out (cav archers are ~43% more expensive than xbows but xbows are only created ~26% faster than CA).

5. Crossbowman has better range. Very important, especially when also fighting Skirms which is inevitable.

When fighting Elite Skirmishers, CA are still better than xbows even despite the range disadvantage; they deal twice the damage (2 instead of 1), have more HP, and move faster.

6. Crossbowman has 85% accuracy vs. 50%. Also very important as you need to invest 550 resources and time to research Thumb Ring.

I already addressed this, when people are committing to castle age attacks they often get Thumb Ring immediately for xbows anyway. And cav archers can definitely end games with full castle age push.

7. Crossbowman has bigger fire rate than CA after researching Thumb Ring.

Didn't actually know this. It is only about 6% though.

8. With Crossbows you don't have to worry about Spearmen.

When is this relevant? People don't counter cav archers with spears...

With full upgrades on EW and Bloodlines on CA it is 5 strikes (Crossbow) and 8 strikes (CA) but that's not early Castle Age.

Yes it is, most of the time you'll definitely have Bloodlines in early castle if you went with scouts in feudal (even if you didn't get BL for the scouts themselves, you can get it when advancing and it will benefit the scouts).

9. You can hit and run but that requires insane micro with CA frame delay. Speed difference is only 0.2 since AK. Will you have time to manage everything else?

It doesn't require "insane micro," plenty of people can micro CA effectively. And you also need to invest time into microing xbows too.

10. Some civs have very good Archer related bonuses (Britons, Ethiopians).

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously civs with archer bonuses like that wouldn't go for CA, further reinforced by the fact that they don't have all of the CA upgrades. Only civs with full CA upgrades (or Huns/Mongols since they technically don't have FU HCA, missing Ring Archer Armor, but they have bonuses) could realistically go CA. If you're saying Ethiopian and Briton xbows counter cav archers, that's not really relevant since we're talking about using CA against eagles.

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

You can only micro your CA effectively if you have a critical mass of them. Otherwise Eagles just overrun you or you can micro for the rest of your life. You probably don't have the economy to make Knights also until you have more vils and resources. Let's say you have 20 archers left after Feudal Age. You can make 20 CA with upgrades or another 10 archers and a 10 Knights with both defensive upgrades.

The problem is that in the first case you can't defend your crossbows for too long so you either sacrifice them (which happened in

Spoiler

Tatoh vs. Hearttt

or keep them at home so they become useless. In the second case you have a good amount of Crossbows (they can 2 shot upgraded eagles) and also Knights for meat shield and Skirm/Mangonel counter.

I think both strategy can work with Huns as they have 10% cheaper CA. With Magyars it's foolish not to choose the 2nd option as you already have +2 attack on your Knights.

I don't think I can explain better why Kts+Crossbow combination can be justified.

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

You can only micro your CA effectively if you have a critical mass of them. Otherwise Eagles just overrun you or you can micro for the rest of your life.

Same thing with Crossbowmen though... and crossbows can't run away either.

You probably don't have the economy to make Knights also until you have more vils and resources.

You'll have the eco for at least one or two kts, which is all you need as a meatshield vs eagles to keep the cav archers in the back where they do the heavy lifting. Don't even need upgrades on the kts (well, bloodlines at least).

Let's say you have 20 archers left after Feudal Age. You can make 20 CA with upgrades or another 10 archers and a 10 Knights with both defensive upgrades.

I guess you're right that it would be better to make 10 more xbows, so that you have a critical mass (28 crossbows can oneshot eagles) which you can use as your main force for early castle age (along with adding some kts to kill the first Mangonel that comes out or kill the "inevitable" Elite Skirmishers), but after early castle age the xbows will be pretty easily countered by just a couple of Mangonels, so then you can transition into cav archers afterwards right? The cost of Thumb Ring won't be a problem in mid/late castle age since you have a bigger economy and can afford it, you'll probably already have bloodlines, and you can stall with your mass of xbows until you have a critical mass of CA

 

[misafeco]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

So we can finally agree that Crossbows+Kts can be a decent counter to early Eagle spam. Great. CA strategy can be just as good (or better with Huns). You can also add CA later to the mix after your meso opponent made Skirms/Pikes/Mangonels to counter your early Castle Army as they work pretty well against those. Longswords and Scorpions are other good supplemental units to your main army.
EWs are very hard to counter either way. Reducing their attack bonus against Knights (or add attack bonus to Knights against them) and/or maybe buffing Longswords again would solve most of the problems in my opinion. Until then everyone will just spam them constantly in Castle Age which makes the games quite boring to watch. I'd love to see more Plumed Archers, Kamayuks, Slingers or even Jaguar Warriors.

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

My favorite way to nerf eagles would be to just make longswords a more viable option. It's killing two birds with one stone; you make longswords actually situationally viable, and also making it easier to counter eagles. IMO the Long Swordsman upgrade should cost less, and it should also provide a speed boost independent of Squires (just like how the Eagle Warrior upgrade increases base speed independent of Squires). This could provide a balance issue for other civs, like Goths or Malians, but I doubt it (Goth longswords still rekt by archers, and Malian longswords still cost 60 food apiece).

 

[Hunyadi]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Should be interesting to see the last few games and how Magyars perform. Imagine this was pre-buff Magyars though? Yikes. I mean they have performed ok but I wouldn't say stellar and I think Viper now favours Huns over Magyars.

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Huns and Magyars are evenly matched overall IMO, maybe a slight edge to Huns in the early game but I don't see why. I'd love to hear TheViper's reasoning.

Magyars win in the scout war in most cases. Free Forging means that the Magyar scouts beat the opposing Hun scouts in battle, and it also means they kill Spearmen faster. And it helps their own spears kill the opposing spears too. The saved food on 15% cheaper scouts ends up adding up to a lot more res than the Huns' house bonus in a scout war, although the Huns house bonus lasts throughout the whole game so is a much more all-round economy bonus.

Magyars also have an above average Man-at-Arms rush because of the free Forging too, and their vills kill wolves in one strike when they are forwarding to go m@a+towers, which is a small bonus. Huns still have the better economy for this though. I'm not sure which civ has the better m@a+tower rush.

Huns are better in castle age though, no doubt. Magyars don't have any economy bonus in castle age (their only feudal age one was cheaper scouts) whereas Huns do, and both of them have Knight bonuses (created 20% faster for Huns, and free Iron Casting for Magyars). Huns have a cav archer bonus in castle age whereas Magyars do not.

Magyars are better in mid/late imperial age though. They have better Heavy Cavalry Archers, but they also have tons of technologies that Huns do not have access to, such as Arbalest, Ring Archer Armor, Champion, Onager, Heavy Scorpion, Siege Engineers etc. At least Huns have access to Siege Ram.

 

[John the Late]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

2. Crossbows cost 70% of CAs.
3. Crossbows are created faster.

These two cancel each other out. Even if CA were created at the same speed as xbows, you wouldn't be able to sustain production, because they're more expensive. They don't actually fully cancel each other out (cav archers are ~43% more expensive than xbows but xbows are only created ~26% faster than CA).

This is incorrect. Shorter train times are always strictly superior to longer ones.

Upon queueing a unit, you instantly lose resources and do not get anything in return. Only after X seconds, you then get a unit. But during that train time, you have neither resources nor a unit.

It also allows for faster massing with less training buildings (which are of limited supply in early-mid castle), or to get units out faster in general (see how the Hun team bonus helps scout rushes or knights a lot!).

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

Shorter train times are always strictly superior to longer ones. Upon queueing a unit, you instantly lose resources and do not get anything in return. Only after X seconds, you then get a unit. But during that train time, you have neither resources nor a unit.

Good point, you're right!

It also allows for faster massing with less training buildings (which are of limited supply in early-mid castle), or to get units out faster in general

Well duh, but in comparison to xbows that specific point isn't really a hindrance because 3 ranges will be able to make the same resources amount of cav archers as xbows

 

[Jack_Panez]

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

CA in castle age are ****, thumb ring is super expensive and even with thumb ring cav archers still lose cost efficiently vs xbows because their bullshit 10 frame delay makes them take ages to shoot a volley and some of them die before even firing a shot. CA also take more bonus damage from skirms, and take bonus from anti cav. Being better vs mangonels doesnt help when your CA are being killed by mass xbows, eagles, or even kts

 

Re: And people said that Magyars were still not a tourney pi

I disagree, just because CA may lose to equal costing armies of Crossbowmen doesn't make them worse. There's so much more utility for CA. They can pick their engagements, they don't die to a single Mangonel shot, they deal double the damage to Elite Skirmishers (2 instead of 1), they're better at raiding, and they also transition well into imperial age, because fully upgraded Heavy Cavalry Archers have 6 pierce armor which means they actually are efficient against Arbalests, especially if you're Magyars or Turks (but even regular FU HCA like Saracen ones are tanky enough to beat arbs).

The Cavalry Archer line is also better than unique units like Mangudai and Conquistadors before late imp, because they don't require a Castle to create, and have smaller upgrade costs. So they can be massed a lot easier. They also cost less per unit.