Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
i wuld never notice this
Plus, I think the look of the clubber looks a lot better than the squire. :P
The Squire was once very powerful, but after some balance updates he is now quite mediocre. He beats Clubbers and Headbutters nicely, but Farmers, Sarrissas(But only when in groups, as with most units) and Samurai all beat him pretty badly even with a large number advantage. But some strategy usually solves that problem. His main disadvantage is his inaccuracy, making him often miss the first clash. He's balanced, moreover just weak against certain units. For those who didn't understand my original comment, I am only stating the illogical thing about clubs doing more damage then swords.
Yes i know he didn't mean't clubber is better than squire, squire is still better than the clubber thought but however when i use him in easy campaigns, they fail me. also i'm not very smart since idk anything about unit damages or HP, i'm just saying. someone finally realizes there's something wrong with the squire, and yes squire is still useful but i just don't like him, i think i like shield bearer more and headbutter.
Wait what he means clubber is better than squire? sorry i didn't read his whole quote.