I'm thick as a brick!dansil92 wrote:zoom wrote:Probably because it were overpowered.Show hidden quotesdansil92 wrote:Well, other skirms have 0.75 vs cav and no negatives vs artillery so why shouldnt abus be the same?Hazza54321 wrote:So you think abus should do more damage to hand cav and cannons?Goodspeed wrote:Put on your thinking face, I'm sure you'll figure it out.Hazza54321 wrote:That they should what?zoom wrote:Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that they should.Hazza54321 wrote:No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.1urgjs.jpg
Ottomans Discussion Thread
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
I'm thick as a brick!dansil92 wrote:zoom wrote:Probably because it were overpowered.Show hidden quotes
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
This is wrong. Reverting the change will make the unit disproportionately worse against skirms, compared to cav or art. The goal of the change was to make abus counter skirms, which they didn't with 18 range.zoom wrote:I see some arguing that the unit is too strong, in general; not that it shouldn't counter other ranged infantry. The result of reverting Abuse Range is a weaker unit—against artillery and cavalry even more so than ranged infantry.
If people aren't arguing that abus shouldn't counter skirms, then they are unaware of the effect their suggestion would have. I was there when we tested the EP version in which we noticed skirms traded too well against abus with 18 range, I know the effects and am trying to share the knowledge. Take it or leave it.
Yes, the "sense" is to make the unit counter ranged infantry.Isn't adding range to the unit making it less specialized? Where is the sense in nerfing RoF—then buffing range—then nerfing hitpoints, only because you want the unit to do at least as well against ranged infantry??
I would't change the unit at all right now. If Otto are too strong which I highly doubt, I would nerf them elsewhere. It's not like Otto's armies are (even close to) 90% abus. But if you insist on changing the unit, and I wouldn't blame you because people are notoriously unable to accept that some units are stronger than others, I'd probably go with HP. Maybe the minimum range.
Having inconsistent RoF on a unit would make it frustrating to micro. Feels like poor design. Also, the range change affects their performance against skirms much more than anything else, which makes it the perfect change for this particular goal.Why not have Veteran Abuse Guns restore RoF,
Because it would disproportionately affect how ranged cav do against it.or buff the ranged resistance of the unit???
Since that's my exact point how am I "making a case against myself"?You seem to be making a case against yourself, which is a shame since the sentiment that the unit should trade well against other ranged infantry is perfectly sound.
What facts, specifically, am I ignoring?Surely you aren't cherry picking the facts that are convenient, to you?
Another thing to keep in mind is that abus, once on the field, may seem very strong, but getting them on the field is another challenge. It's 300w for a building you would otherwise not build and they train very slowly. With 18 range, abus felt like a unit you built only because the other compositions you could go for were even worse. You didn't do it because you were excited about the unit. Being a unique unit, and Otto being a civ that should have a higher quality army than other civs, I think abus should be a unit you get excited about.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
im not sure if abus need any change. Also to people saying abus counter falcs. I wouldnt call it counter. Its just that in lower numbers falcs do very poorly vs them and more than 5 plus falcs in a sup game is very rare. But try sniping falcs when theres like 7 or 8 and oyu cant stagger moder effectively with your abus anymore.
Maybe you should decrease RR to 10. it would make skirms better vs them.
Maybe you should decrease RR to 10. it would make skirms better vs them.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.bwinner wrote:Yes I do. Btw I didn't just look at the stats, I have provided an explanation to why it's relevant in this case : otto should have a good winrate if it was strong since it's ez to play.Kawapasaka wrote:Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Well you don't get it at all. I said if you are an ez civ to play, so it a reason to NOT nerf spain despite them being on top of the winrate (although in their case it's probably more because they haven't been played enough for the stats to be significant, as it has been explained in the stats topic). And for otto it's even more of a reason to not nerf them cuz despite being ez to play they still don't even have a good winrate.Kawapasaka wrote:Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.bwinner wrote:Yes I do. Btw I didn't just look at the stats, I have provided an explanation to why it's relevant in this case : otto should have a good winrate if it was strong since it's ez to play.Kawapasaka wrote:Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.
Anyway my idea wasn't really to talk about that, because I think this stats don't contain enough informations to help us enough, but more to highlight that there is really no evidence ottomans need to be nerfed.
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Otto has only been played a couple hundred more times than Spain, still seems quite low compared to the Brit, Ger, Russia, France with 1k+. Where you draw the line for a significant enough sample size sounds completely arbitrary - 400 games no, 600 yes? And once again, like many others have mentioned, unless you adjust for the skill differences of all the games sampled, this data is simply not meaningful as there is no reason to believe that there's an even distribution of civ popularity amongst the PR range.bwinner wrote:Well you don't get it at all. I said if you are an ez civ to play, so it a reason to NOT nerf spain despite them being on top of the winrate (although in their case it's probably more because they haven't been played enough for the stats to be significant, as it has been explained in the stats topic). And for otto it's even more of a reason to not nerf them cuz despite being ez to play they still don't even have a good winrate.Kawapasaka wrote:Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.Show hidden quotes
Anyway my idea wasn't really to talk about that, because I think this stats don't contain enough informations to help us enough, but more to highlight that there is really no evidence ottomans need to be nerfed.
Sure, the data gives no indication that Otto is OP, but it's not strong enough to provide solid evidence for the contrary either.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Is spain easy?
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Well, learning the basic FF is quite easy. Actually winning games with the civ is a completely different story.Hazza54321 wrote:Is spain easy?
Of course there's plenty of more advanced stuff as well with Spain, but that's true for most civs I'd say, even Otto.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Yes. Easy, but weak.Hazza54321 wrote:Is spain easy?
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
#trainableSpahi
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
They definitely have the dps considering the ROF. But the card could be turned into a worthwhile upgrade.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.Kawapasaka wrote:I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
#trainableSpahi
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.aqwer wrote:goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.Kawapasaka wrote:I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Jans are a good lategame unit anyway
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
- CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
- CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
- CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
- Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
- You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
- Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
- Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
- Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.Kawapasaka wrote:It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.aqwer wrote:goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.Show hidden quotes
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
#trainableSpahi
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Jan are not that good bcz low dps against Cav , with CIR it is difficult to hold large Cav mass with RI behind.Hazza54321 wrote:Jans are a good lategame unit anyway
#trainableSpahi
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Okay 2 range might be superior in a situation specifically where goons are fighting CA, but that's not all range cav is gonna be doing all game.aqwer wrote:Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.Kawapasaka wrote:It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.Show hidden quotes
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
Otherwise, you're complaining about Abus-CA losing to the counter-composition? Cav-Skirm is supposed to beat Goon-Skirm. That's how the counter system works.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
I suggest to add a range on melee attack on Irregulars card. IDK how much range would be fair. How much range do oprichniks have?duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.
- CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
- CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
- CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
- Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
- You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
- Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
- Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
- Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Kawapasaka wrote:Okay 2 range might be superior in a situation specifically where goons are fighting CA, but that's not all range cav is gonna be doing all game.aqwer wrote:Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.Show hidden quotes
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
Otherwise, you're complaining about Abus-CA losing to the counter-composition? Cav-Skirm is supposed to beat Goon-Skirm. That's how the counter system works.
+2 range is also better for RC against Cav bcz they start shooting earlier
#trainableSpahi
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.
- CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
- CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
- CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
- Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
- You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
- Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
- Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
- Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
#trainableSpahi
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
This sounds definitely nice and would be a nice boost for Ottoman late-game, which tends to lack behind due to economy and mobility reasons.aqwer wrote:duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.
- CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
- CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
- CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
- Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
- You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
- Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
- Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
- Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
But in my opinion they do not necessarily need a stat boost to perform better in countering cavalry. They already do this job quite decently. Such a buff would rather improve their viability in goon battles, which is not their purpose.
I would love to see Irregulars giving the unit more uniqueness by enhancing its ability to raid (higher range is profitable here). This would not just fit the cards intended design, but it would also fit to Ottoman history very well. The area of modern day Hungary has been the subject of frequent raids by Ottoman cavalry squadrons between the 15th and 18th century. It became nearly completely depopulated due to that.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
Well said. In that regard, I think it can be changed to give +2 range and x1.0 against vils. Bcz atm this card is severely underpowered. After that change I think ppl will use it more and will add uniqueness and diversity to ottoman play.duckzilla wrote:This sounds definitely nice and would be a nice boost for Ottoman late-game, which tends to lack behind due to economy and mobility reasons.aqwer wrote:duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.
- CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
- CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
- CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
- Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
- You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
- Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
- Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
- Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l
However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.
In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
But in my opinion they do not necessarily need a stat boost to perform better in countering cavalry. They already do this job quite decently. Such a buff would rather improve their viability in goon battles, which is not their purpose.
I would love to see Irregulars giving the unit more uniqueness by enhancing its ability to raid (higher range is profitable here). This would not just fit the cards intended design, but it would also fit to Ottoman history very well. The area of modern day Hungary has been the subject of frequent raids by Ottoman cavalry squadrons between the 15th and 18th century. It became nearly completely depopulated due to that.
P.S. I vaguely remember that Garja himself suggested the exact same change.
#trainableSpahi
Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread
I’m pretty sure irregulars was my go-to card with ottoman for a good few weeks. Essentially triples their damage vs vills.
That being said, I’d gladly welcome a buff
That being said, I’d gladly welcome a buff
oranges.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests