Clibanarii

[DreJaDe]

Honestly, I've read quite a few and it seems that there is no clearance if they are really the same as the cataphract of the roman, even though their use might just be the same.

But, I would focus on one single source in suggesting this unit.
Which is basically them being a super heavy cavalry that is used to counter both cavalry and infantry. They are said to have been made to fight the the cavs of the east and is said to have faced elephants from the front and win. One note about their charge is that, in some scenario, they are said to be able to peirce two human with armor.

Cost: 8
Health: 60
Attack: 11
M.Armor/P. Armor: 7/9
Speed:4
Mental resistance: 100

Bonus: Same as Norman cancer

Available in roman factory and normal stable.

[b2198]

Bonus: Same as Norman cancer

They slowly kill Normans by making their cells refuse to die and start multiplying uncontrollably? XD

Overall, I think this is waay too strong for a cavalry, even with the 8 turns cost considered...

[DreJaDe]

They slowly kill Normans by making their cells refuse to die and start multiplying uncontrollably? XD

Overall, I think this is waay too strong for a cavalry, even with the 8 turns cost considered...

Lol didn't notice that

The speed could maybe be reduced to three and only have charge ability that would add 2 speed to them with the cd of 3. (Though I would want the ability to not consume action) That I think is quite balance changing nerf to my unit suggestion.

There could also be just another category called (Super Heavy Cavalry) which could make them more vulnerable to anti armor units.

Maybe reduce the percentage bonus?
I'm not sure... but the stats I got for me is pretty okay for it's cost. The bonus other wise is the one im not really sure.

[Endru1241]

Weren't they just cataphracts optimised for anti cavalry?
In a book I have read there was a comparison between catapharct and clibanaroi.
The latter ones had less overall horse armor (leaving frontal one intact) and equiped long two handed spears.
Said source also stated, that cataphractii could be interchangeble with clibanarii in ancient sources, as they could have served as one or the other depending on situation.

So the distinction should rather be closer to lancer vs knight.
Lancer being easier to take down by other units in exchange of good damage vs mounted.
As such I'd place the stats at lower p.armor, removal of slow category (to increase damage from anti-mounted), similar attack, but with lancer bonuses.

[DreJaDe]

Weren't they just cataphracts optimised for anti cavalry?
In a book I have read there was a comparison between catapharct and clibanaroi.
The latter ones had less overall horse armor (leaving frontal one intact) and equiped long two handed spears.
Said source also stated, that cataphractii could be interchangeble with clibanarii in ancient sources, as they could have served as one or the other depending on situation.

So the distinction should rather be closer to lancer vs knight.
Lancer being easier to take down by other units in exchange of good damage vs mounted.
As such I'd place the stats at lower p.armor, removal of slow category (to increase damage from anti-mounted), similar attack, but with lancer bonuses.

This is mostly what I've got also.
Though some said that this can also be just some misunderstanding or some differing opinions and insights. So I tried to just focus on one distinction which is them being super heavily armored.

So it will have 5 speed?
But from what I know, this type of cav is easy to tire. Outmanuevering is also one of the greatest strategy against this.
I kinda like for that to stay for this unit.

For P armor. Maybe 7 or 5?
They were supposed to be impenetrable by arrows. Both the horse and rider but for the game. I guess 9 p armor are also way too much.

If it's on the lancer category. Would you reduce it's HP or will it stay?

[Endru1241]

Weren't they just cataphracts optimised for anti cavalry?
In a book I have read there was a comparison between catapharct and clibanaroi.
The latter ones had less overall horse armor (leaving frontal one intact) and equiped long two handed spears.
Said source also stated, that cataphractii could be interchangeble with clibanarii in ancient sources, as they could have served as one or the other depending on situation.

So the distinction should rather be closer to lancer vs knight.
Lancer being easier to take down by other units in exchange of good damage vs mounted.
As such I'd place the stats at lower p.armor, removal of slow category (to increase damage from anti-mounted), similar attack, but with lancer bonuses.

This is mostly what I've got also.
Though some said that this can also be just some misunderstanding or some differing opinions and insights. So I tried to just focus on one distinction which is them being super heavily armored.

So it will have 5 speed?
But from what I know, this type of cav is easy to tire. Outmanuevering is also one of the greatest strategy against this.
I kinda like for that to stay for this unit.

For P armor. Maybe 7 or 5?
They were supposed to be impenetrable by arrows. Both the horse and rider but for the game. I guess 9 p armor are also way too much.

If it's on the lancer category. Would you reduce it's HP or will it stay?

[Slow] is actually just a bonus making damage from anti-mounted weaker.
Well - I planned to also tie this category to different formations, than heavy and medium (incapability to perform real fast charge).
But right now it could have it removed for more damage from anti-cav and speed would stay as 4.
P.armor of 5 is still pretty much impenetrable by arrows by ancient standards, but would allow some damage from anti-heavy shooters, so it could be just right with some hp decrease.
Or make it 5/4 and leave hp intact.
Attack could be 10, with 5 ability power, so total damage vs mounted units equal to 20, 27 vs slow heavy, 26 vs medium, 31 vs heavy, 37 vs elephants.

[b2198]

Weren't they just cataphracts optimised for anti cavalry?
In a book I have read there was a comparison between catapharct and clibanaroi.
The latter ones had less overall horse armor (leaving frontal one intact) and equiped long two handed spears.
Said source also stated, that cataphractii could be interchangeble with clibanarii in ancient sources, as they could have served as one or the other depending on situation.

So the distinction should rather be closer to lancer vs knight.
Lancer being easier to take down by other units in exchange of good damage vs mounted.
As such I'd place the stats at lower p.armor, removal of slow category (to increase damage from anti-mounted), similar attack, but with lancer bonuses.

I'd say maybe then lower its cost and stats overall to be closer to those of cataphracts then, no?
Something like:
cost 6
hp 43
attack 10
armor 6/5
speed 4
not really sure about ability power and bonuses though

[Slow] is actually just a bonus making damage from anti-mounted weaker.
Well - I planned to also tie this category to different formations, than heavy and medium (incapability to perform real fast charge).
But right now it could have it removed for more damage from anti-cav and speed would stay as 4.
P.armor of 5 is still pretty much impenetrable by arrows by ancient standards, but would allow some damage from anti-heavy shooters, so it could be just right with some hp decrease.
Or make it 5/4 and leave hp intact.
Attack could be 10, with 5 ability power, so total damage vs mounted units equal to 20, 27 vs slow heavy, 26 vs medium, 31 vs heavy, 37 vs elephants.

Maybe it could have the [slow] category with the hp decrease, for consistency, since they are in fact slower than most cavalry?

[DreJaDe]

So the distinction should rather be closer to lancer vs knight.
Lancer being easier to take down by other units in exchange of good damage vs mounted.
As such I'd place the stats at lower p.armor, removal of slow category (to increase damage from anti-mounted), similar attack, but with lancer bonuses.

I'd say maybe then lower its cost and stats overall to be closer to those of cataphracts then, no?
Something like:
cost 6
hp 43
attack 10
armor 6/5
speed 4
not really sure about ability power and bonuses though

I will have to disagree. This was supposed to be smt supposed to be better than the normal caraphracht. With this stats, yes it would be better but it wasn't supposed to be as available as catapracht.

Romans can just another one with the role of that but, less armored but speedy but this one was supposed to be more pricey and tanky than an ordinary one. Reason why they are 8 turns.

It's like a tiger 2 to panzer 4 or panther of ww2.

Maybe it could have the [slow] category with the hp decrease, for consistency, since they are in fact slower than most cavalry?

Slow category plus hp decrease is a no go because it would just weaker then weaker again. It should be either of the two. Not both.

[DreJaDe]

[Slow] is actually just a bonus making damage from anti-mounted weaker.
Well - I planned to also tie this category to different formations, than heavy and medium (incapability to perform real fast charge).
But right now it could have it removed for more damage from anti-cav and speed would stay as 4.
P.armor of 5 is still pretty much impenetrable by arrows by ancient standards, but would allow some damage from anti-heavy shooters, so it could be just right with some hp decrease.
Or make it 5/4 and leave hp intact.
Attack could be 10, with 5 ability power, so total damage vs mounted units equal to 20, 27 vs slow heavy, 26 vs medium, 31 vs heavy, 37 vs elephants.

From what I know, this clibanarii wasn't ancient but more from medieval. Catahracht are the ones used since the ancient era (BC).

I think the stats is okay. Though can it have a small anti-infantry bonus?

[b2198]

I will have to disagree. This was supposed to be smt supposed to be better than the normal caraphracht. With this stats, yes it would be better but it wasn't supposed to be as available as catapracht.

Romans can just another one with the role of that but, less armored but speedy but this one was supposed to be more pricey and tanky than an ordinary one. Reason why they are 8 turns.

It's like a tiger 2 to panzer 4 or panther of ww2.

From what I know, this clibanarii wasn't ancient but more from medieval. Catahracht are the ones used since the ancient era (BC).

I think the stats is okay. Though can it have a small anti-infantry bonus?

Then maybe make it not ancient at all, available at stables and back to those 8 (or possibly 7) cost stats?

Maybe it could have the [slow] category with the hp decrease, for consistency, since they are in fact slower than most cavalry?

Slow category plus hp decrease is a no go because it would just weaker then weaker again. It should be either of the two. Not both.

Uh... [slow] category makes it take less damage from anti-mounted units (they deal less damage against [heavy cavalry][slow] than what they deal against [heavy cavalry] alone), so it actually makes them more resistant.

[Endru1241]

If it wouldn't be ancient, then we need to decrease attack and armors to accommodate being affected by blacksmith.

Besides I am pretty sure there were some citations about clibanaros in Persian army of 4th century - it's still classical period.

But mainly I don't like trying to make role of good against everything.

[DreJaDe]

Wait
Is their status like being from the ancient and medieval the one who makes them eligible to blacksmiths? Then what about the celts and the Phalangite?

Yeah. I was a bit taken there. What I meant is that, Clibanarii were more modern in use in the Roman Empire. Smt used in the fairly close to medieval and reached till close to it's end of the empire.

I understand.

[godOfKings]

i dont like the image cuz it seems too similar to cataphract right now, may b a bigger spear or a different spear wielding stance would b better

[Endru1241]

Wait
Is their status like being from the ancient and medieval the one who makes them eligible to blacksmiths? Then what about the celts and the Phalangite?

Yeah. I was a bit taken there. What I meant is that, Clibanarii were more modern in use in the Roman Empire. Smt used in the fairly close to medieval and reached till close to it's end of the empire.

I understand.

Wait phalangite is affected by blacksmith?
It was not supposed to.

As for celts - they continued to medieval times as they were never fully conquered nor replaced in more peaceful ways by other cultures.

[b2198]

Wait phalangite is affected by blacksmith?
It was not supposed to.

That reminds me: cataphracts are also affected by blacksmith. Is that intented?

[Endru1241]

Wait phalangite is affected by blacksmith?
It was not supposed to.

That reminds me: cataphracts are also affected by blacksmith. Is that intented?

Hell no.
Another mistake.

There is much less of a reason for them to be affected, than every roman unit there is.
And I was wondering why someone called them a beast, even though they should have identical defensive parameters as last upgrade of shield knight boosted by blacksmith, while lower attack and high resistance.
I intended to make cataphract <=> shield knight relation identical to that of spartan hoplite <=> foot knight.

It would be OK to let them be affected by this research (or similar), but ALL of them.
Not just selected few.

I must check more carefully when making changes, that affect too many things at once (like last change of effect/techs affecting things).

[DreJaDe]

i dont like the image cuz it seems too similar to cataphract right now, may b a bigger spear or a different spear wielding stance would b better

I could make it gold.

Like how some of the image I saw.

[DreJaDe]

Now that I remember this unit.

There's now a problem if this ever get accepted. Since Byzantines are going to be different than the Romans. I kinds don't want it there now.

Since my idea of this unit after all we're the ones used by the Byzantines in the early to mid medieval age.

[b2198]

Wait phalangite is affected by blacksmith?
It was not supposed to.

That reminds me: cataphracts are also affected by blacksmith. Is that intented?

Hell no.
Another mistake.

There is much less of a reason for them to be affected, than every roman unit there is.

I must check more carefully when making changes, that affect too many things at once (like last change of effect/techs affecting things).

Wait, I just noticed, centurions are also affected by blacksmith too.

Though I feel like they would be too weak without that...

[DreJaDe]

Idk if this could still be mistaken as the normal catapracht

[L4cus]

Why not just make 3 type of cataphracts?: western, eastern and steppe

Western: like shield knight
Eastern: like knight
Steppe: like lancer