Age of Strategy Forums

Hi
A medival age german knight (means area where
Germany is today).
Cost:3
Power:10
Hp:14
Move:3
Resistance:50%
Bonus against:Buildings.

Units with bonus against him.
Mounted units 50-100%

And a image (not finished i will change sword move
To bittom right and change a fee details (like helmet))

Patroid

Looks good!

In my opinion much better.

Hi
Ups a pixel has been left under the sword.

Patroid

really cool!

the image is really nice too.

Very cool, brah!! Maybe his attack power should be a little higher, though, don't you think? Maybe 12? The Teutonic knights were badasses!!!

coool! the fist image i like the best.

Hi
But its historically wrong.
They had have longswords.

Maybe a mix.

Patroid

I really kike the last one.

Yep, thats my favorite!

I agree...very cool!!

patroid wrote:Hi
But its historically wrong.
They had have longswords.

Maybe a mix.

Patroid

is it a longsword? if so than i like it the most! (instead of the "ear"-ed versions )

Very cool.

A broadsword or Bastard sword is pretty hard to wield from a saddle...

I don't think he's mounted - his speed is 3 too.

Oh, yeah...Good point...brain-fart... *TTTHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPPTTTT* pardon me...

the bastard sword is hard to handle in one hand so it is not the greatest om a mount

He is super underpowered now that he is implemented...

Exactly why people should not vote with infowars. Now even the alemeister himself realizes how unready this unit truly was.

Its the reason people vote.
To get things done.
You wouldn't understand

Did not support laborer, nuff said.

Hardeep wrote:He is super underpowered now that he is implemented...

I noticed that while I was making the .json. But since they were the ones on the forum (and it was midnight) I decided just to roll with it.

What changes do you think? Make a post in the balancing section please.

Well, now that the infowars has given me the opportunity to voice my opinion, I shall do so. I have noticed a trend in making units more powerful because "unit a kills unit b too easy, so lets make unit b stronger." As you can see, this ancient topic is proof that units once upon a time were weaker. This issue has also forced us to lower turn costs of old units, and limited almost all units to a 2-4 turn cost. I think we should not make this unit stronger, but perhaps make one or two of its competing infantry weaker.

I have now voiced my opinion. Over and out

Okay........
Anyone else?
Maybe someone sensible?

This far righter cannot comprehend new, bold ideas it seems.

I think we can balance this unit to the existing (balanced) units. I just don't know how people want it.

Then maybe just change its specialities. We really already have many anti-building inf. Why not make the tuetonic knight have specials against other inf? Like a maceman for inf, instead of buildings?

Because currently almost anything we alter on its basic stats are going to make it too similar to the maceman I think, unless we give it like... 2 move (heavy plate armour) and lots of attack and armors, which may also be an option. I am just very against outright buffing this unit to be a unit too similar and more effective than the maceman, as this encourages the issue I warned about earlier.

I still dont understand why this unit was made(and voted too) as it has nothing special and is just a historic unit which will sit in a corner never to be used till it is upgraded, similar too slinger, etc.
I would rather invest in swordsman rather than this....
And yes i dont have any idea to make it better because it will always become very much useless in long battles very soon. Even short battles can be won without it.
I think giving it a fighting + converting ability might make it useful, and this is historically true as they killed anyone who refused to accept christianity

There you go, fighting and coverting
Spell range one, same conversion chance, affected by persuasion, and a health and attack boost
Also a thing to consider, phoenix, not all units get used for multiplayer games, true, but in campaigns they add depth with their appearance. Spicing things up and looking badass. I could give royalty a bunch of man at arms as guards (looks bad) or templars (usually not fitting), or I could give some Teutonic Knights and call them the kings elite, and it would sell easily.

Hardeep wrote:There you go, fighting and coverting
Spell range one, same conversion chance, affected by persuasion, and a health and attack boost
Also a thing to consider, phoenix, not all units get used for multiplayer games, true, but in campaigns they add depth with their appearance. Spicing things up and looking badass. I could give royalty a bunch of man at arms as guards (looks bad) or templars (usually not fitting), or I could give some Teutonic Knights and call them the kings elite, and it would sell easily.

Very well , but i consider any unit useless which does not have a special meaning/sense/ability to make, and i detest them. The thing you said about their usefulness in campaigns is true, but then u should not forget the fact that there is a provision that such special region based unts(eg egyptians) are not buildable and votable, they are directly implemented and used for the very special purpose they are made for only, nothing else. But for this unit, we have voted for it and hence it ought to be useful, not just an eye candy in some campaign maps
(Just my thoughts)