AOE-II DE The Saracens new UT is bad!

[MAE_ME]

There is a huge difference between strong and needing nerfs. So what? He says Burgundians is strong. So are other civs.

Notice how you ignored the Lithuanians part.

Yeah Lithuanians too need nerfs, especially their 150f at the start and their broken UU, the civ have answer for everything and have strong options. Viper suggested that Burgndians UU need nerf for sure but he didn't suggest a nerf for their eco, however, he said their eco is insane and even their TB is strong that make relics make food too. In general Burgundians should get 2 netfs in next patches at least, one for their broken eco and the other one for their UU, actually their UU need 2 nerfs at least, one for their charge attack and the other one for their ridiculous training time which is laughably 14s, 15s and it should be way higher.

As I said before this topic about Saracens UT.

 

[Instinctz]

Yeah Lithuanians too need nerfs, especially their 150f at the start and their broken UU

Winrates across the board say otherwise.
Their broken uu that barely sees use needs nerfing? Why? It's got clear strengths and clear weaknesses and isn't overwhelming the meta. Heck I've seen more mamelukes recently then I have leitis. Do mamelukes need nerfs?

Facts and data don't care about your feelings.

When you have real evidence that suggests chabge is needed come talk to us.

 

[MAE_ME]

Winrates across the board say otherwise.
Their broken uu that barely sees use needs nerfing? Why? It's got clear strengths and clear weaknesses and isn't overwhelming the meta. Heck I've seen more mamelukes recently then I have leitis. Do mamelukes need nerfs?

I thought I have mentioned that this topic is about the new bad laughable Saracens UT but I will walk with you. Mamelukes are still bad, so bad. The unit is a counter unit and have tons of gold cost and need a castle, this unit actually need more buffs or may even need a redesign completely. Leitis with ignoring armor mechanic is not a balanced thing, at least Dravidians have same mechanic but at least as a UT not a free thing. In general I don't like both, making units ignore armor completely is bad idea either if it is a UT or not.

 

[hellhammer]

I thought I have mentioned that this topic is about the new bad laughable Saracens UT but I will walk with you. Mamelukes are still bad, so bad. The unit is a counter unit and have tons of gold cost and need a castle, this unit actually need more buffs or may even need a redesign completely. Leitis with ignoring armor mechanic is not a balanced thing, at least Dravidians have same mechanic but at least as a UT not a free thing. In general I don't like both, making units ignore armor completely is bad idea either if it is a UT or not.

Leitis has low PA and lesser HP than a Paladin, which makes them balanced, Lithuanians also lack any eco bonus for that point.

 

[MAE_ME]

Leitis has low PA and lesser HP than a Paladin, which makes them balanced, Lithuanians also lack any eco bonus for that point.

Lesser hp than Paladin and still able kill any Paladin in 1v1 fight. This broken UU even kill FU Elite Boyar in 1v1 fight and have cheap cost. Lithuans is that civ if they reached at a specific point you literally can do nothing vs them and they have strong answers for everything. Their trash units are S class if not even more, their cavs are stupid with the relic bonus especially in castle age, even their cav archers only lack Parthian tactic and very usable, the civ is stupid.

 

[Instinctz]

Lesser hp than Paladin and still able kill any Paladin in 1v1 fight. This broken UU even kill FU Elite Boyar in 1v1 fight and have cheap cost

And take half the shots a paladin does ro die from arbs.
Clear strengths and weaknesses.

If the leitis is so busted why does it not see much play? As busted as you make it sound the unit woule see non stop play.

Mamelukes are still bad, so bad

And I still see them more then I see leitis.

the civ is stupid

If rhe civ is so stupid explain the ladder winrates being average, tournament winrates being less then average and pros considering them b tier now?

 

[MAE_ME]

And take half the shots a paladin does ro die from arbs.
Clear strengths and weaknesses.

More than fine. Lithuans have sick skirms and more armor and more speed, can add them as shields super ez. Mamelukes still bad even if you see them more

 

[Instinctz]

More than fine. Lithuans have sick skirms and more armor and more speed, can add them as shields super ez. Mamelukes still bad even 8f you see them more

You make no sense.

According to you leitis is busted.
According to you mameluke is bad.

But mameluke sees more use now and thats somehow right?
If what you said was even REMOTELY true, leitis would be the most used unique unit in the game.

Facts say your argument is full of it.

 

[MAE_ME]

You make no sense.

According to you leitis is busted.
According to you mameluke is bad.

But mameluke sees more use now and thats somehow right?
If what you said was even REMOTELY true, leitis would be the most used unique unit in the game.

Facts say your argument is full of it.

Becasue Lithuans have many options, their knights with the stupid relic bonus do the job; their start with 150f make them great impact early game that make them control the map early; their trash, xbows and even CA and halbs and bombards play do well, the civ is so flexible, however, this won't change how their UU is broken with it's cheap cost and completely ignore armor, the unit already actually have 16 attack as basic attack withkout anything. Mamelukes still one of the worst UUs in the game if not the worst. The Saracens UU is a COUNTER UNIT, which is a big problem, they already have great camels with 170HP, their UU design is so bad and cost so much gold and need castles, even their training time is one of the highest TT of UUs in the game. It is just a failed design, the Saracens need help, really need changes for their UU and both of their UTs.

 

[Instinctz]

Becasue Lithuans have many options, their knights with the stupid relic bonus do the job; their start with 150f make them great impact early game that make them control the map early; their trash, xbows and even CA and halbs and bombards play do well, the civ is so flexible, however, this won't change how their UU is broken with it's cheap cost and completely ignore armor, the unit already actually have 16 attack as basic attack withkout anything. Mamelukes still one of the worst UUs in the game if not the worst. The Saracens UU is a COUNTER UNIT, which is a big problem, they already have great camels with 170HP, their UU design is so bad and cost so much gold and need castles, even their training time is one of the highest TT of UUs in the game. It is just a failed design, the Saracens need help, really need changes for their UU and both of their UTs.

Again you look only at the good abd ignore the bad.

First off, the leitis has a relatively long training time.
Second of all, while yes its good against high armor units, it's bad against archers period. Literally against archer civs it's a no use unit.

That "cheap cost" is actually very food heavy which means it's very expensive if you're trying to boom. So the best time to use them is in imp. But gasp, in imp archers and halbs are going to shred this unit.

But congrats. It beats paladins and boyars.
You know what does that job even cheaper then leitis? Halbs.

So the leitis isn't as op as you make it sound.

But again. Facts don't care about your false opinions.

That relic bonus? Easily denied. Even hera says it. Deny relics and lithuanians become an easy win.

Both hera and ornlu have lithuanians the equivalent of b tier right now. So maybe you need to reevaluate what you actually know and stop nerfing something JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT. Or instead of just nerfing PROPOSE A WAY TO MAKE CIV DESIGNS YOU DONT LIKE DIFFERENT, BUT STILL BALANCED.

 

[MAE_ME]

Again you look only at the good abd ignore the bad.

First off, the leitis has a relatively long training time.
Second of all, while yes its good against high armor units, it's bad against archers period. Literally against archer civs it's a no use unit.

That "cheap cost" is actually very food heavy which means it's very expensive if you're trying to boom. So the best time to use them is in imp. But gasp, in imp archers and halbs are going to shred this unit.

But congrats. It beats paladins and boyars.
You know what does that job even cheaper then leitis? Halbs.

So the leitis isn't as op as you make it sound.

But again. Facts don't care about your false opinions.

That relic bonus? Easily denied. Even hera says it. Deny relics and lithuanians become an easy win.

Both hera and ornlu have lithuanians the equivalent of b tier right now. So maybe you need to reevaluate what you actually know and stop nerfing something JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT. Or instead of just nerfing PROPOSE A WAY TO MAKE CIV DESIGNS YOU DONT LIKE DIFFERENT, BUT STILL BALANCED.

It is not about like it or not, it is about the things are not in a good shape. Saracens have a bad design in both UTs and UU. Lithuans (like all DE civs) have weird design and broken like most DE civs. The game need more changes and more balance fixes.

They can add a very ez solution if people don't like balance changes, which is A CIV BAN SYSTEM IN RANKED LADDER. However, I like to have better balance for all and have the chance with all civs. But DE came with all it's DLCs with way more broken and bad balance. If it comes to me and got a civ ban choices, I will ban most DE civs (Especially Cumans, Burgundians and Sicilians), add to them Franks, Huns and mesos, I don't want to play with them neither against them. Those civs need major nerfs and tweaks.

 

[Instinctz]

It is not about like it or not

Except it clearly is. You propose nerfs for balanced civs. Heck you propose nerfs for civs that need buffs.

 

[Ophelia]

It is not about like it or not, it is about the things are not in a good shape. Saracens have a bad design in both UTs and UU. Lithuans (like all DE civs) have weird design and broken like most DE civs. The game need more changes and more balance fixes.

They can add a very ez solution if people don't like balance changes, which is A CIV BAN SYSTEM IN RANKED LADDER. However, I like to have better balance for all and have the chance with all civs. But DE came with all it's DLCs with way more broken and bad balance. If it comes to me and got a civ ban choices, I will ban most DE civs (Especially Cumans, Burgundians and Sicilians), add to them Franks, Huns and mesos, I don't want to play with them neither against them. Those civs need major nerfs and tweaks.

With those bans, you will probably end up playing against mostly archer civs, and then come here to cry for a nerf in them as well.

I started to find your posts highly annoying because although they might seem like constructive criticism at the beginning, after reading the multiple lengthy repetitive posts by you, they just started to sound blah blah blah...

People take you seriously and try to bring out sensible and knowledgeable explanations but you just keep on resisting and complaining.

I don't like to be negative against people, so please stop this nonsense for the love of all the nerf gods!

 

[akku]

It's way better than the previous one. It's also situationally incredibly powerful.

Saracen SO will now one shot cavalry archer and mangudai. The Saracen trebuchet also becomes scary to defend against.

You need to chill man. Mostly, balance vise things are fine. Just slight nerf to eagles (+10 food, -10 gold) and archers (increase crossbow upgrade cost) is enough IMO. Maybe buff infantry by a bit (buff speed from squires) and I'm happy.

 

[MAE_ME]

People take you seriously and try to bring out sensible and knowledgeable explanations but you just keep on resisting and complaining.

But people not talking seriously, people just disagree with any change. I put in my topic why this new UT is bad but they just won't listen; I even compared it to some civs free bonuses for siege to show to people how this UT is bad. I am not saying the UT as idea is bad, but making it a UT is not worthy more than being a normal bonus comapring to what other civs have. Celts shot 25% faster, Khmer scorps +1 range, Slavs 15% discount, Spanish fire 25% faster bombards and Burgundians 25% more damage bombards. Comparing to all those it is not really worthy to be a UT.

Saracens in general need some help, and this laughable new UT won't make them better. Both of their UTs are bad and their UU is failed design and failed concept.

 

[MAE_ME]

It's way better than the previous one. It's also situationally incredibly powerful.

Saracen SO will now one shot cavalry archer and mangudai. The Saracen trebuchet also becomes scary to defend against.

You need to chill man. Mostly, balance vise things are fine. Just slight nerf to eagles (+10 food, -10 gold) and archers (increase crossbow upgrade cost) is enough IMO. Maybe buff infantry by a bit (buff speed from squires) and I'm happy.

+10F, -10G for Eagles is actually a buff more than a nerf. Eagles need directly nerf food cost without any compensation since the unit already is so cheap, it should be 30F, 50G or even 35F, 50G at least.

 

[plfan]

Those civs need nerfs ASAP especially Brokengundians, Sicilians, Cumans, Hindus, Gurjaras, Franks and the Eagle line in general.

Just make all civs exactly the same. Than we will have perfect ballance

 

[MAE_ME]

Just make all civs exactly the same. Than we will have perfect ballance

Balance suggestions for 10 civs out of 45 won't make all civs the same or remove civs identity. It is so clear how these civs have a large gap between them and other civs with their powerful bonuses and design and how do they break the system especially Mesos Eagle line, Burgundians and Sicilians and even Cumans 2nd TC with last cheap buildings buff.

 

[Instinctz]

+10F, -10G for Eagles is actually a buff more than a nerf

Its stuff like this that shows why people laugh at you.

You claim you want a balanced game but then turn around and claim that making the unit more food heavy and less gold heavy is a buff.

What makes eagles so deadly is how spammable they are in early castle age. Increasing the food cost makes that harder. The gold cost is inconsequential to what makes them problematic.

 

[MAE_ME]

Its stuff like this that shows why people laugh at you.

You claim you want a balanced game but then turn around and claim that making the unit more food heavy and less gold heavy is a buff.

What makes eagles so deadly is how spammable they are in early castle age. Increasing the food cost makes that harder. The gold cost is inconsequential to what makes them problematic.

But it is so clear how +10, -10 won't change nothing and actually it will make it easier. If you apply this then this means you need less vills on gold and those less vills can be on wood or food which is already a cheap cost even if they became 30F becasue it still cheap and by taking your suggestion by making it +10F, -10G this will even make their eco better LOL. This toxic unit cost should be direcrly 30F or even 35F and gold remain the same.

 

[Instinctz]

But it is so clear how +10, -10 won't change nothing and actually it will make it easier

This is your lack of knowledge showing. Food is far more important than gold as you need food to make workers and research. It's also slower then gold.

This toxic unit cost should be direcrly 30F or even 35F and gold remain the same

Nah, you just don't know as much as you think you do. You are living proof that elo doesn't mean much because blindly following a build order can get you 1600+ without any actual understanding of the game. Look at all the people across many different forums that disagreed with you.

Even pros and commentators disagree with you.

You need to sit back and reevaluate what you know

 

[MAE_ME]

This is your lack of knowledge showing. Food is far more important than gold as you need food to make workers and research. It's also slower then gold.



Nah, you just don't know as much as you think you do. You are living proof that elo doesn't mean much because blindly following a build order can get you 1600+ without any actual understanding of the game. Look at all the people across many different forums that disagreed with you.

Even pros and commentators disagree with you.

You need to sit back and reevaluate what you know

No you are wrong. A unit already cost 20F, 50G is not fine from the beginning; this is not something balanced, this is a wrong cost from 20 years. If you suggest 30F, 40G this will not slove the problem at all and this 10G that when your discounted means you give them less vills on gold and more vills on other resources and will make their eco way more better already with this cheap dirt unit. If the unit cost became 30F, 50G it is more than fine, the total cost is just 80 resources which is almost half cost of 1 knight that have 135 resources. The unit cost from the beginning is wrong and even 30F, 50G is not enough, it should be 35F, 50G if not even more.

 

[Instinctz]

A unit already cost 20F, 50G is not fine from the beginning; this is not something balanced, this is a wrong cost from 20 years

Archers are cheaper then that and far more useful. Yet I don't see you crying about anything other then the cost of xbow upgrade.

No you are wrong

Yes equalizer is right. Literally everyone else is wrong and doesn't know what they are talking about.

you suggest 30F, 40G this will not slove the problem at all and this 10G that when your discounted means you give them less vills on gold and more vills on other resources and will make their eco way more better already with this cheap dirt unit

Maybe you should look at the rate thosd resources are gathered and understand why eagle spam is problematic.

If the unit cost became 30F, 50G it is more than fine, the total cost is just 80 resources which is almost half cost of 1 knight that have 135 resources

No it wouldn't. Said unit would be totally garbage without a buff to their stats.
And almost half? Try again. It's more then half. Again when you're dishonest it doesn't add to your stance. It detracts from it.

The unit cost from the beginning is wrong and even 30F, 50G is not enough, it should be 35F, 50G if not even more

Yeah and watch the unit never be used again.

You tell people you want honest discussion and post bull like this.

 

[MAE_ME]

Archers are cheaper then that and far more useful. Yet I don't see you crying about anything other then the cost of xbow upgrade.

LOL. Archers have tons of counter and they have trash counters unlike the broken eagle who have no trash counter so this is one thing. 2nd thing Eagles role are waaay better, their spam early castle is more deadly and can raid under TCs and kill vills here and their and monks too don't work vs then and even siege do nothing. Eagles with their broken cost and role can outnumber anything and kill everything, they even do very well vs knights in equal resources and the militia line is a laughable slow counter. There is no comparison between archers and Eagles.

No it wouldn't. Said unit would be totally garbage without a buff to their stats.
And almost half? Try again. It's more then half. Again when you're dishonest it doesn't add to your stance. It detracts from it.

Yes it would. When you suggest that the unit need a compensation after increasing their food cost, then you are like saying the unit is fine and any (-) need (+) but this is not the case. Your solution is so bad, it is like someone telling you that we have a cart that we loaded four tons of apples on and it can't handle, then you suggest :" yeah reomve 2 tons of apples and put 2 tons of orange!".

LOL this won't change anything and it is so dumb, the unit need a direct food cost nerf without changing the gold at all. The unit from the beginning is broken.

 

[Instinctz]

2nd thing Eagles role are waaay better

If this was true meso civs would be using predominantly eagles in early cadtle age. But we see something massively different in actuality.

Again facts > your lies.