Suggestion: Cumans should lose Paladins and have their steppe lancers buffed.

[mickeyjim2]

Ok sorry for the long post. The TL:DR version of this post is this: Cumans should lose Paladins - they don't suit the civ and there are enough Paladin civs as it it is. To compensate for this, the Cuman Mercenaries tech should be changed to this: "Steppe Lancer and Cavalry Archer gold cost reduced by 10" - read the full thing to see my reasoning.



I think Cumans should lose Paladins. A nomadic Central Asian civilisation built on raiding should not have access to the strongest heavy European cavalry in the game. Putting aside the historical stuff though, Cumans have a great early game but in the late game they become yet another generic knight spam civilisation in imperial age when I think they could be far more interesting and distinct from that.

The impression I get from the Cumans, both historically and based off of how they have been designed in AoE2, is that they should be the cavalry version of the Goths i.e. swarming with cheaper, weaker units while having very poor defences. The Kipchak is a good example of this since its the cheapest base cavalry archer type unit in the game. Cumans are also the only civ in the game besides Goths to not get stone walls, and they also only have access to watch towers, which I like. It suits them historically and encourages you to be aggressive and defend with units rather than walls and towers.

I think the Steppe Lancer should be the Cumans most obvious melee unit, in fact the Elite Steppe Lancer's appearance is clearly based off the Cumans' distinctive masks and armour. Of the 3 civs with access to the SL I think Cumans need them the most and yet strangely they have the most generic ones. Tatars now have their elevation bonus as well as extra pierce armour which compensates for one of their big weaknesses, and Mongols have their 30% HP boost. Tatars also have Keshiks which are a great cost effective alternative to the Cavalier, and Mongols have always been a strong civ since the Age of Kings days. Cuman Steppe Lancers, meanwhile, are... 5% faster, and that's it for direct bonuses. They're also trained faster which is great but a faster training time on its own won't make them viable in imperial age since they're still not overpowering units anymore.

To make Steppe Lancers more viable the Cuman Mercenaries tech (which honestly is a very weak tech in general and is useless in a 1v1) could be changed to this: Steppe Lancer and Cavalry Archer gold cost reduced by 10. I included regular cavalry archers as well since they also benefit from the faster-training, and making them cheaper also makes going for the regular cavalry archer line a bit more compelling if you A) don't want to make Kipchaks (which only cost 35 gold compared to the regular cav archer's 60) or B) want to mix in regular cav archers with your Kipchaks since they have more health and range. [Side note: Hunnic cav archers would still be cheaper both in terms of gold and especially wood]. Meanwhile the reduced gold cost will allow Cuman Steppe Lancers to be a little more cost effective vs other units. Cumans will still have access to Cavaliers if you want to go that route.

Also since Steppe Lancers will be weaker when attacking enemy buildings due to their lower health and pierce armour than knights, I think this change would have good synergy with Cuman siege rams in imperial age, since A) because they can tank hits from building fire, B) they are great at taking out buildings and C) Cumans have access to capped rams in castle age so its a natural transition for them.

Those are my main suggestions. A few other less important suggestions I have are these:

Cumans could also get Heavy Camels - they're the only civ in the game with access to Camels but not Heavy Camels and this would allow them to combat paladin and elephant civs a little better.

Depending on whether the Cumans are underpowered or overpowered if these changes were made, I think they should get Bracer for their Kipchaks and cav archers.

So what do you guys think?

Side note: just saw this https://imgflip.com/i/40qqx9

[grraf]

If they were to lose paladin they would at least need the heavy camel to remain somewhat relevant as a pocket... also lancers tend to suck hard in TG because u can't tank worth a damn vs archers and loose cost efectivness wise vs paladin and would still struggle vs cavalier....
Removing paladin removes them from the TG pool by default relegating them to meme strategies and very specific maps... theyr far from popular all ready in any real stakes matches and would end up circling the drain if they also loose the paladin...
Tho flavor wise this makes sense gameplay wise it's going to dumpster the cumans all together...

[HellHammer]

NO

Why people wants hard to remove Paladins of good civs like Cumans, Thanks to TLK we have two more paladin civs (Originally Bulgarians had paladins). Also some paladin civs have distinctives (Franks have the paladins with the highest HP and the fastest creation, Cumans have the fastest one, Lithuanians have the strongest of all if they get all 4 relics, Huns have fast training paladins, Persians have increased attack vs archers, Magyars with free attack upgrades, Spanish with goldless blacksmith techs, and then you have the weakest with Celts and Byzantines).

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by HellHammer:

NO

Why people wants hard to remove Paladins of good civs like Cumans, Thanks to TLK we have two more paladin civs (Originally Bulgarians had paladins). Also some paladin civs have distinctives (Franks have the paladins with the highest HP and the fastest creation, Cumans have the fastest one, Lithuanians have the strongest of all if they get all 4 relics, Huns have fast training paladins, Persians have increased attack vs archers, Magyars with free attack upgrades, Spanish with goldless blacksmith techs, and then you have the weakest with Celts and Byzantines).

Exactly why I want less Paladin civilisations. Even if Cumans lost Paladins there would still be 9 civs out of 35. That's a quarter of all civs that have access to them. As a comparison there are only 4 battle elephant civs and only 3 steppe lancer civs! So why the hell can't the Cumans have great steppe lancers when quite frankly it seems like the unit was made specifically for them?

Paladins can be fun and I like using them when they feel appropriate (like Franks, Teutons, Lithuanians and Magyars) but I feel like they take the spotlight away from most other cavalry units. I've seen people in both the Steam forums and in YouTube comments arguing that a civ cannot be considered a good cavalry civ if its missing the Paladin, which I think is pretty lame and undersells how much variety there actually is in the game both on terms of cavalry unique units and/or cavalry related civ bonuses. Honestly it feels like knights are the only unit anyone cares about in this game sometimes...

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by grraf:

If they were to lose paladin they would at least need the heavy camel to remain somewhat relevant as a pocket... also lancers tend to suck hard in TG because u can't tank worth a damn vs archers and loose cost efectivness wise vs paladin and would still struggle vs cavalier....
Removing paladin removes them from the TG pool by default relegating them to meme strategies and very specific maps... theyr far from popular all ready in any real stakes matches and would end up circling the drain if they also loose the paladin...
Tho flavor wise this makes sense gameplay wise it's going to dumpster the cumans all together...

Fair point, and you're right about them needing heavy camels to be able to respond to heavy cavalry.

I think Steppe Lancers are still suffering a bit from being overnerfed. It was definitely needed at the time but even after getting their attack improved again they're still only slightly stronger than hussars. I do think they're also too weak to archers since they have much lower health than knights AND have less melee and pierce armour so its doubly punishing. I think they either need to have their health buffed slightly OR give them a bit more armour (like 1 melee and 2 pierce for the elite, instead of 0 and 1). Again they meant to be weaker than knights, but not this weak. They cost 60% the gold of a knight but are only about a 1/3rd as strong.

[Thor II]

I'm less concerned about Paladins and more concerned about the speed of the cavalry. 5% more Speed in the Feudal and Imperial Age and 150 more food in the Castle Age is a ridiculous bonus, and even worse because they sell as if it were a 15% bonus. Like the Celts, it is 15% more in the Dark and Feudal Age, and 5% + 100 of food in the Castle Age and Imperial.

It's ridiculous when they give a bonus to civilization, and they take away a technology that makes no sense that civilization doesn't have and on which that civilization depends to fully enjoy its bonus.

Another problem is the Byzantines. Their bonus for the HP of the buildings is not 40%, it is 20%, it is not more than 20% at any time. And even though they earned the 20% saving resources, they lose not only the 20% more HP from technologies. Lose +2/+2 armor and +6 building armor.

The only ones who don't lose are the French, who save resources, their cavalry gets more HP than if they gained the technology and lost the bonus (I don't know exactly how much), and that they would actually be OP if they had both.

If there's any more bonuses like that, I forgot at the moment.

[Syntax]

I agree they should lose paladin. It makes no sense for these civs to be introduced to the game, and have this awesome new unit introduced that doesn't even get used. Paladins are always worth using over Steppe Lancers.

Look at the Raja civs, they all have elephants and respective bonuses, which I think is a great way to implement a unique unit to a few civs. Meanwhile these 4 new DE civs get no Steppe specific bonuses, giving no inclination to use them.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by Thor II:

I'm less concerned about Paladins and more concerned about the speed of the cavalry. 5% more Speed in the Feudal and Imperial Age and 150 more food in the Castle Age is a ridiculous bonus, and even worse because they sell as if it were a 15% bonus. Like the Celts, it is 15% more in the Dark and Feudal Age, and 5% + 100 of food in the Castle Age and Imperial.

It's ridiculous when they give a bonus to civilization, and they take away a technology that makes no sense that civilization doesn't have and on which that civilization depends to fully enjoy its bonus.

Another problem is the Byzantines. Their bonus for the HP of the buildings is not 40%, it is 20%, it is not more than 20% at any time. And even though they earned the 20% saving resources, they lose not only the 20% more HP from technologies. Lose +2/+2 armor and +6 building armor.

The only ones who don't lose are the French, who save resources, their cavalry gets more HP than if they gained the technology and lost the bonus (I don't know exactly how much), and that they would actually be OP if they had both.

If there's any more bonuses like that, I forgot at the moment.

Yeah there are a lot of examples like that where a civ bonus is only marginally better than if they had just had the regular techs. The Lithuanian tower shields tech before the latest patch was a good example where they had a very expensive tech for 1 pierce armour but were missing a blacksmith tech so their halbs were actually worse in most fights.

I think the Cumans bonus could be increased by 5% in each age. So they effectively get feudal age husbandry and are 5% better than everyone else in castle age, and in imperial age where all civs are at they're most powerful its a 10% advantage. It's not like a speed boost actually helps in direct combat so what's the big deal?

[jonoliveira12]

There should only be 5 to 7 Paladin civs, I agree.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

There should only be 5 to 7 Paladin civs, I agree.

Just on that point, do you think Celts and Byzantines should lose their Paladins as well?

Byzantines don't need them since they have their Cataphracts and, while the Paladin is strictly speaking the stronger unit in terms of raw stats, the Cataphract has its resistance to anti-cavalry attacks and an attack bonus against infantry on top of being able to do trample damage, so Cataphracts just always seem like the better choice.

And I dont think I have ever once seen a game with Celtic Paladins. I actually think Celts would be better of if they lost Paladins and instead got the missing blacksmith armour and/or bloodlines for their cavaliers.

[Szebo210]

no no no no

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by Syntax:

I agree they should lose paladin. It makes no sense for these civs to be introduced to the game, and have this awesome new unit introduced that doesn't even get used. Paladins are always worth using over Steppe Lancers.

Look at the Raja civs, they all have elephants and respective bonuses, which I think is a great way to implement a unique unit to a few civs. Meanwhile these 4 new DE civs get no Steppe specific bonuses, giving no inclination to use them.

Exactly, the Battle Elephant is a great unit that gives a distinct personality to each of the Raja civs, and yet now that the fuss about Steppe Lancers has died down after their nerf they're basically never used. Imagine if no one who played as Burmese, Khmer, Vietnamese or Malay ever used Battle Elephants?

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

There should only be 5 to 7 Paladin civs, I agree.

Just on that point, do you think Celts and Byzantines should lose their Paladins as well?

Byzantines don't need them since they have their Cataphracts and, while the Paladin is strictly speaking the stronger unit in terms of raw stats, the Cataphract has its resistance to anti-cavalry attacks and an attack bonus against infantry on top of being able to do trample damage, so Cataphracts just always seem like the better choice.

And I dont think I have ever once seen a game with Celtic Paladins. I actually think Celts would be better of if they lost Paladins and instead got the missing blacksmith armour and/or bloodlines for their cavaliers.

I do. Celts and Bizantines have the worst Paladins in the game.
In my opinion, the only Paladin civs should be Huns, Franks, Teutons, Spanish and Persians.

Franks, Spanish and Teutons because they were actually part of the HRE, and Huns and Persians because it fits their Heavy Cavalry theme.

Lithuanians already have their Leitis, Byzantines could be compensated with a big cost reduction on the Cataphract upgrades, Celts do not even use Paladins, or the whole Stables to begin with.

Cumans, however, do need their Paladin right now. The SL is not that big of a deal now, and they have no Heavy Camel. I would still like them to be buffed in order to lose Paladin, though.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Just on that point, do you think Celts and Byzantines should lose their Paladins as well?

Byzantines don't need them since they have their Cataphracts and, while the Paladin is strictly speaking the stronger unit in terms of raw stats, the Cataphract has its resistance to anti-cavalry attacks and an attack bonus against infantry on top of being able to do trample damage, so Cataphracts just always seem like the better choice.

And I dont think I have ever once seen a game with Celtic Paladins. I actually think Celts would be better of if they lost Paladins and instead got the missing blacksmith armour and/or bloodlines for their cavaliers.

I do. Celts and Bizantines have the worst Paladins in the game.
In my opinion, the only Paladin civs should be Huns, Franks, Teutons, Spanish and Persians.

Franks, Spanish and Teutons because they were actually part of the HRE, and Huns and Persians because it fits their Heavy Cavalry theme.

Lithuanians already have their Leitis, Byzantines could be compensated with a big cost reduction on the Cataphract upgrades, Celts do not even use Paladins, or the whole Stables to begin with.

Cumans, however, do need their Paladin right now. The SL is not that big of a deal now, and they have no Heavy Camel. I would still like them to be buffed in order to lose Paladin, though.

I actually like Lithuanians having Paladins as an option but I'm also glad the Leitis has been getting buffed so its seen as good alternative in general and not just a gimmick unit only to be used against TKs or something.

Magyars are an interesting case as they not only represent their namesake in the Magyars but they are basically also the Hungarian civilisation and are used as such in a lot of the campaigns. With that context in mind 'Hungarian' Paladins make much more sense.

It makes sense for Persians to have Paladins in the sense that they should have great heavy cavalry, though the Paladin itself obviously isn't appropriate in name or appearance. This is just one of those cases where I'd use a conversion mod or pray that one day we'll get an "AoE2 Ultimate Edition" where all the generic units get region appropriate names and appearances so Aztecs don't walk around with European Arbalests.

Coming back the the Cumans though, I really like my suggestions but you and others are right in saying that Cumans would be weaker if these changes were made, and I think the solution is to buff SLs in general. They're just far too gold inefficient to be viable in most fights. I mentioned in a different reply how SLs are 2/3rds the gold cost of a knight but are about 1/3rd as strong. The strength gap between SLs and Hussars also isn't enough to justify the gold cost. You're far better off using Hussars and saving the gold for other units.

[Whakahoatanga]

Bulgarians already lost Paladins, leave the Cumans alone please. There are already so few Paladin civs in this game anyway and they're all unique in different ways.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/gc4t67/reminder_every_single_paladin_siege_onager_and/

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by Szaladon:

Bulgarians already lost Paladins, leave the Cumans alone please. There are already so few Paladin civs in this game anyway and they're all unique in different ways.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/gc4t67/reminder_every_single_paladin_siege_onager_and/

A quarter of all civs have Paladins which is more than enough; in fact there are evidently quite a few people who believe that's still too many. A 1 in 4 chance of seeing Paladins in a game doesn't make them a rare unit - realistically its an even higher chance than that since Persians and a few other Paladin civs are some of the most commonly picked civs online. Paladins are not rare and people need to stop acting like they're an endangered species...

Frankly between the Cumans and the Bulgarians I actually think the Cumans needed to lose Paladins more than Bulgarians but I'm still happy the Bulgarians don't have it any more.

Also I don't get what the point of the siege onager and bombard tower comparisons is supposed to be?