AOE-II DE The Saracens new UT is bad!

[akku]

+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.

Nah, it's a nerf in the castle age and buff in the imperial age.

What makes eagles so powerful is how spammable they are in the early castle age, while allowing creation of villagers.
Increasing it's food cost by 50% is such a huge deal early on! And IMO would address the early castle age OP-ness of the eagle spam

Eagles are very much dealable in imperial age, so slightly buffing them for the imperial in fine IMO. Especially considering the central american civs don't have hussars as trash units (and cav in general)

Making it 35F and 50G would make these civs plummet. They will basically just turn into foot archer civs then 11

 

[MAE_ME]

Nah, it's a nerf in the castle age and buff in the imperial age.

What makes eagles so powerful is how spammable they are in the early castle age, while allowing creation of villagers.
Increasing it's food cost by 50% is such a huge deal early on! And IMO would address the early castle age OP-ness of the eagle spam

Eagles are very much dealable in imperial age, so slightly buffing them for the imperial in fine IMO. Especially considering the central american civs don't have hussars as trash units (and cav in general)

Making it 35F and 50G would make these civs plummet. They will basically just turn into foot archer civs then 11

How about no?

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!". It is just a laughable change.

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]

How about no?

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!". It is just a laughable change.

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.

Literally everyone 10 food increase for 10 gold reduction is a nerf

Equalizer, who clearly knows better rhen everyone - no your wrong

 

[MAE_ME]

Literally everyone 10 food increase for 10 gold reduction is a nerf

Equalizer, who clearly knows better rhen everyone - no your wrong

It is actually a buff. You make their heavy cost on gold cheaper and make the laughable food cost cheap before it was cheaper, this is just how it is. The 20F cost from the beginning is wrong and insanely cheap, when you rise it up to 30F for example, it is not expensive at all, it is just another cheap cost in the end. It is like moving from cheapest to cheaper to cheap which is in the end still cheap dirt.

 

[malamadre]

Again, you arent losing your saracen games because some weird tech might be underpowered. You are losing because you are bad.

 

[Instinctz]

It is actually a buff. You make their heavy cost on gold cheaper and make the laughable food cost cheap before it was cheaper, this is just how it is. The 20F cost from the beginning is wrong and insanely cheap, when you rise it up to 30F for example, it is not expensive at all, it is just another cheap cost in the end. It is like moving from cheapest to cheaper to cheap which is in the end still cheap dirt.

Literally you are the only one who views that as a buff. Food for thought. Maybe you should think about why that is.

 

[MAE_ME]

Again, you arent losing your saracen games because some weird tech might be underpowered. You are losing because you are bad.

LOL. Who cares about if I lose them or win them?! This won't change at all how this UT is bad, it is just so bad. Saracens is that weird civ who have a weird UU and weird UTs from the beginning, it is just wrong thing doesn't even fit their identity. Yeah camels give them identity, but make a UU a counter unit which is a camel and at the same time giving them a UT for camels too is another wrong move from many aspects. Camels in general are just counters, which means they will never be a good core or play a major role and they are laughable counters who die to anything except cavs and barely do well vs cavs. What it should be?

Saracens UT for camels should be actually a normal civ bonus more than being a UT, both of Saracens UTs are just wrong. You can just give their camels +10% hp in castle and +10% hp in imp rather than make it a stupid UT for a counter unit. Just compare their UTs to what other civs have; Hindus camels attack 25% faster and at the same time have imp camel; Gurjaras have +50% more damage as a free bonus too, Berbers cheap dirt stable units and regenrate camels, so Saracens are literally the worst and on top of that laughable and failed design UU and no eco bonus except a market that it is only good for all-in push and clown strats.

Saracens in their early conquest (especially Rashidun Caliphate and Umayyad Dynasty) were very famous with their light cav and the Arabian horse breed that played a major role in their battles that they won and chnaged the whole world and established a great large empire that covered lands from south France in the west to China in the east, but what the devs did here?!

Nothing, they make it a clown civ have no identity except for a laughable camels which they didn't play that major role in real history unlike their famous light cavs which was a deadly weapon that make them wiped out Persians and Byzantines armies at the same time and great mobility for Saracens armies and later their horse archers and established later this great empire.

 

[MAE_ME]

Literally you are the only one who views that as a buff. Food for thought. Maybe you should think about why that is.

You didn't give an answer. I literally explained how this is wrong and how they need a direct nerf for food without any compensation considering how their food cost is already wrong cost from the beginning but you just don't want to believe that all and keep ignoring the facts how this unit have a broken cost and by numbers it will be fine even if you make it up to 30 or even 35 it will still cheap.

 

[akku]

How about no?

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!". It is just a laughable change.

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.

That's clearly not how it works.

You cannot just "transfer villagers from gold to food"

The thing is, gold collection is a lot faster than collecting food from farm. And this is even more, when you research 1st gold mining upgrade.
Farms need more wood investment, need more space and is harder to defend because they occupy more space.

This is why food is much more important than gold early on, amongst other reasons (like needing to create villagers for one)

 

[MAE_ME]

That's clearly not how it works.

You cannot just "transfer villagers from gold to food"

The thing is, gold collection is a lot faster than collecting food from farm. And this is even more, when you research 1st gold mining upgrade.
Farms need more wood investment, need more space and is harder to defend because they occupy more space.

This is why food is much more important than gold early on, amongst other reasons (like needing to create villagers for one)

OMEGALUL. You are talking like we want to make their food cost like a battle elephant food cost. OMG it is just a 30F and even 35F more than fine. How you people look at things?! How do you even think?! People still spam knights, scouts, archers, skirms, siege, is 30F, 50G or even 35F, 50G will make the unit completely unplayble?!

So weird, just admit that you have stoneminds and fear of any change and don't like to change anything.

 

[akku]

OMEGALUL. You are talking like we want to make their food cost like a battle elephant food cost. OMG it is just a 30F and even 35F more than fine. How you people look at things?! How do you even think?! People still spam knights, scouts, archers, skirms, siege, is 30F, 50G or even 35F, 50G will make the unit completely unplayble?!

So weird, just admit that you have stoneminds and fear of any change and don't like to change anything.

LOL, you act like eagles are as strong as knights or battle elephants.
You are now switching to this when your analogy of "20 apple/orange" and argument of "just switch villagers from gold to food" completely fell apart.

The reason eagles are so strong is because of the spam
You make 10 eagles, 30 food instead of 20 means you need 100 more food.
This snowballs a lot, and makes the spam harder.

Yeah, 35F and 50G would make this unit **** in early castle age for sure.

We have stoneminds? Quite ironic coming from you lmfao

 

[Instinctz]

I literally explained how this is wrong and how they need a direct nerf for food without any compensation

Because your answer is wrong.

Are eagles dominating the meta? No. They are not.
Are they problematic outside of early castle age play? No they are not.
So how do you nerf them in early castle age without making them bad overall?
Your answer is to nerf their food cost, but that just makes them worse in all situations. Even when they arent causing problems.

That is why others say to redistribute their cost.

By increasing their food cost but lowering their gold cost, you cant just redistribute villagers because
1) food gathering is slower then gold.
2) farms cost wood, more farms means you need more villagers on wood.

This means that increasing their food cost but lowering their gold cost still uses more villagers.

The fact that this needs to be explained to you is exactly why you shouldn't be making balance threads

You lack any understanding of the game.

 

[Instinctz]

So weird, just admit that you have stoneminds and fear of any change and don't like to change anything.

Meanwhile I've literally got a history of proposing changes, so clearly this claim is bull.

Let's look at it from another angle.

People do agree with you that eagles need nerfs.
People do agree with you that Britons need nerfs.
People do agree with you that gurjaras and hindustanis need nerfs.

So ask yourself why is it that people do agree that these are issues, why they disagree with you on how to go about these nerfs most the time?

 

[NextLever]

How you people look at things?! How do you even think?!

That's what we're all wondering when we read these posts.

Fun fact: if you repeat it enough times, 80 eventually becomes half of 135.

 

[MAE_ME]

That's what we're all wondering when we read these posts.

Fun fact: if you repeat it enough times, 80 eventually becomes half of 135.

LOL, I didn't even say they are half, I said close to, 80 to 135 59% which is more a little than half. And I said this to clarify the picture only and to show that this unit will remain cheap even if we implement this suggestion, but you want to see what you want only.

Just admit it you too like 99% of this community fear of any change and think everything is fine and need no change without wasting time.

 

[Instinctz]

80 to 135 59% which is more a little than half

Except when people use the phrase "close to half" in modern conversation it means "were nearing 50%, but not quite there, or basically 47 to 53%". Not "this is over 50% by nearly 20%.". BUT AGAIN KEEP PUSHING YOUR FALSE NARRATIVE.

Again equalizer I literally have a history of proposing changes, and yet you keep pushing this bullcrwp about everyone who disagrees with you is resistintant to change.

No. The problem is your ideas are just terrible.

If eagles are so dang awesome how come the meta isn't eagle dominant for meso civs?

 

[MAE_ME]

Except when people use the phrase "close to half" in modern conversation it means "were nearing 50%, but not quite there, or basically 47 to 53%". Not "this is over 50% by nearly 20%.". BUT AGAIN KEEP PUSHING YOUR FALSE NARRATIVE.

Again equalizer I literally have a history of proposing changes, and yet you keep pushing this bullcrwp about everyone who disagrees with you is resistintant to change.

No. The problem is your ideas are just terrible.

If eagles are so dang awesome how come the meta isn't eagle dominant for meso civs?

Do you know what makes me laugh? That this community always think the game is fine, either here in aoezone, reddit and even forums and here especially they think themselvs all pros and always say:
"tHe gAme now iS bErFectLy bAlanced tHan eVEr bEfore aNd nEed nO cHanGes"

But LOL. Here we are, we got a road map and we have balance changes comeing in summer, fall and more later on, so I really want to see those people faces after these balance changes comes out who keep saying the balance is fine and need no changes. Thanks God that devs don't listen to those stoneminds who always think everything is fine.

 

[MAE_ME]

and makes the spam harder

11 But this is what we want from the beginning, we want to make their spam harder since their laughable cheap dirt cost is wrong and make them harder to deal with.

Yeah, 35F and 50G would make this unit **** in early castle age for sure.

You are totally wrong, even 30F, 50G or 35F, 50G is still a cheap cost in general and still spamable. People spam tons of Eskirms, knights and light cavs in castle age which they cost more than Eagles even if they became 35F, 50G already 11. You just don't want to believe nor to admit how this unit cost is wrong from 20 years and keep your stonemind as it is.

 

[D4Mi4N]

bruh for a second i deadass thought i was on the microsoft forums or aoe2reddit lmao

 

[akku]

11 But this is what we want from the beginning, we want to make their spam harder since their laughable cheap dirt cost is wrong and make them harder to deal with.

That's my exact ****ing point lmao. Increase food so that the early castle spam is nerfed. We all agree there.

But that would make the unit overall nerfed too. So, give it something extra by reducing the gold cost. Because current eagles are NOT broken in late game, so giving them an overall nerf without something isn't something we want to do.
Also, none of these eagle civs have access to any form of cavalry, especially light cavs which are the best trash units. So, a nerf to gold cost could help in this regard as well.


You want to just nerf them because of their early castle age, while not giving anything in return....

You are totally wrong, even 30F, 50G or 35F, 50G is still a cheap cost in general and still spamable. People spam tons of Eskirms, knights and light cavs in castle age which they cost more than Eagles even if they became 35F, 50G already 11. You just don't want to believe nor to admit how this unit cost is wrong from 20 years and keep your stonemind as it is.

What's with this weird equivalence argument lmao. Completely flawed.

Light cavs are spammed NOWHERE near as much as eagles in early castle age, cause they require 80 food. You can't seriously be making the argument that they are spammed anywhere close to the level eagles are, in early castle age......

The fact that you think knight spam is even REMOTELY comparable to eagle spam is utterly laughable. I won't even address it.

Dude, skirmisher's cost is 25F, 35W.
Of course they will be spammed, cause they cost even lesser than eagles lmao, 10 less total resource.
Skirmisher only cost 5 more food than eagles, while requiring only 35 wood. Your argument of "just transfer villagers to food" actually works here to compensate for the 5 more food than eagles, because this would be equivalent to +5 food and -15 gold for current eagles. Much different from the +10 food and -10 gold that many of us here are proposing.
You aren't really making the point you think you are making by mentioning skirmisher spam.

Funny that the argument of stonemind is coming from you. when you are the one who refuses to listen to any counter arguments, while many here agree about that eagle spam in early castle age needs to be nerfed.
Your analysis is flawed, and people demonstrate why and how it is. You still repeat the same nonsense

 

[D4Mi4N]

equalizer vs ricojay best of 5. someone book it!

 

[MAE_ME]

That's my exact ****ing point lmao. Increase food so that the early castle spam is nerfed. We all agree there.

But that would make the unit overall nerfed too. So, give it something extra by reducing the gold cost. Because current eagles are NOT broken in late game, so giving them an overall nerf without something isn't something we want to do.
Also, none of these eagle civs have access to any form of cavalry, especially light cavs which are the best trash units. So, a nerf to gold cost could help in this regard as well.


You want to just nerf them because of their early castle age, while not giving anything in return....



What's with this weird equivalence argument lmao. Completely flawed.

Light cavs are spammed NOWHERE near as much as eagles in early castle age, cause they require 80 food. You can't seriously be making the argument that they are spammed anywhere close to the level eagles are, in early castle age......

The fact that you think knight spam is even REMOTELY comparable to eagle spam is utterly laughable. I won't even address it.

Dude, skirmisher's cost is 25F, 35W.
Of course they will be spammed, cause they cost even lesser than eagles lmao, 10 less total resource.
Skirmisher only cost 5 more food than eagles, while requiring only 35 wood. Your argument of "just transfer villagers to food" actually works here to compensate for the 5 more food than eagles, because this would be equivalent to +5 food and -15 gold for current eagles. Much different from the +10 food and -10 gold that many of us here are proposing.
You aren't really making the point you think you are making by mentioning skirmisher spam.

Funny that the argument of stonemind is coming from you. when you are the one who refuses to listen to any counter arguments, while many here agree about that eagle spam in early castle age needs to be nerfed.
Your analysis is flawed, and people demonstrate why and how it is. You still repeat the same nonsense

This is the problem, that you think the Eagle gold cost should be decreased if we increase the food cost but this wrong. Eagles don't need any compensation if we increased their laugbale food cost because it is already so cheap, the cost is wrong from the beginning. If you suggest +10F, -10G this is completely stupid and make no sense, this became a buff more than a nerf. Eagles are fine at every stage in the game, increasing their food cost by 10 or even 15 and keep the gold as it is won't change their role at all, it will make them more balanced instead of their current broken state with their cheap cost. Actually 35F, 50G or 30F, 50G still cheap too in general. It seems you don't want to understand at at all.

 

[dodageka]

But LOL. Here we are, we got a road map and we have balance changes comeing in summer, fall and more later on, so I really want to see those people faces after these balance changes comes out who keep saying the balance is fine and need no changes. Thanks God that devs don't listen to those stoneminds who always think everything is fine.

A lot of people (probably most even) agree with you that balance changes are good, both to improve balance but also keep the meta fresh, it’s just that literally everybody thinks that your specific ideas are bad, both with respect to the issues you want to address and especially with your proposed solutions.

 

[dodageka]

Just compare their UTs to what other civs have; Hindus camels attack 25% faster and at the same time have imp camel; Gurjaras have +50% more damage as a free bonus too, Berbers cheap dirt stable units and regenrate camels, so Saracens are literally the worst and on top of that laughable and failed design UU and no eco bonus except a market that it is only good for all-in push and clown strats.

Fun fact: none of these civs has fully upgraded Arbalesters or Cav archers like Saracens have. Saracens are primarily an archer civ in the game, and with the current balance and meta they have some decent strengths there. They are overall just a mediocre civ, not too bad, not particularly good, somewhere right in the middle

 

[MAE_ME]

Fun fact: none of these civs has fully upgraded Arbalesters or Cav archers like Saracens have. Saracens are primarily an archer civ in the game, and with the current balance and meta they have some decent strengths there. They are overall just a mediocre civ, not too bad, not particularly good, somewhere right in the middle

Yeah you said it, they are just normal and lack a great identity. Saracens were very famous for their light cavs in history and their great mobility of their armies, but the devs made them boring. Even their camels not that much and their UTs are better to be a normal bonuses more than being a UTs and their UU a failed design. It is really ironic how the devs gave them another boring UT that changes nothing. Which is of course why I wrote this topic to tell people how the new UT is so bad and even worse than some civs free bonuses for siege. Saracens both UTs need to be completely removed and give them something much better fit their identity and the laughable UU may need a redesign and their camel UT need to be a free bonus like 10%hp in castle and 10% hp in imp. The devs too removed their CA bonus, at least give them bonus for their CA like making their CA training 25% faster or 20%. The civ is just ironic regardless their great tech tree.