Are tatars an underrated strong cavalry civ?
- This topic has 15 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Usually people dont mention them on top cavalry civs, but they have full upgraded Husar, Heavy Camel, Step-Lancer, Keshik, Cavalier, Anti-cav flaming camels, bloodlines, husbandry, silk armor, and you can also add cav archer there for a strong and fast mounted units who can also protect the 19 range trebs.
Pros routinely rank them as A tier.
They have the 3 main requirements for a good Civ.
1) Dark Age eco bonus (extra food on sheep)
2) Above average Xbow (Free Thumb Ring + Hill Bonus)
3) Halbs
In my mind they’re always talked about as a Cav civ, it’s just their Cav archers get all the attention.
Heck even their UU is Cav.
They are definitely not thought of for their foot archers or infantry though they are fine.
They’re a pretty well rounded civ in terms of tech tree.
I would say they’re rated pretty fairly as a good cavalry civ in 1v1.
However, I think free thumb ring is such a good bonus for XBow powerspike (or cav archer switch) that it almost feels like a crime not to use it.
When people say cavalry civ, usually they refer to good pocket civ in team games.
While Tatars have a wide range of options, they lack the final power unit as a cavalry civ for late imperial team game.
Keshik is cost efficient and is great in early imperial, but fell off later on.
For comparison, Portuguese also have FU cavelier with gold discount.
They can certainly play cavalry as pocket, and it is actually decent until late imp, but you don’t call them cavalry civ.
1v1 is another story.
I’d say they are definitely a strong cavalry civ in that game mode.
In late Imp very strong civ.
But thats mostly a lower ELO thing.
Tatars is such a easy civ to play.
Dark Age bonus is solid, feudal is smooth because the extra food and castle age is very good because opening xbows are insanely good and stables are a good options.
In late game having instant CA transition helps a lot too.
yes
I love tatars in team games, massed step lancers are really good when combined with archers of any kind.
Movement of enemy units fighting step lancers are a bit glitchy giving archers more time to kill.
Also they’re the best cavalry for fighting against spearmen and if there’s any elevation some of them will nuke whatever they’re fighting.
They can also do cav archers but they aren’t as good as mongols.
Their cav are good but thumb ring xbow is better, it is also easier to camp hills with range than melee.
But in a castle age of xbow v xbow I like a imp lancer switch with that extra pierce armor and range
Definitely bruh.
Keshiks are best
Depends, If compared with frank or berber which can get buff as they aged, tatar didn’t do that well,
If tatar can into late game, they actually do well with silk armor Hussar spam.Still the most problem is that they didn’t had specific free bonus for cav, not like frank or teuton or berber can get free bonus for cav.
They have all the classic things, but nothing more.
The real good cavalry civs have some kind of bonus that either makes their initial knight push in castle stronger or have top-notch endgame Palas.
The thing with cav is: Knights are a bonkers unit in Castle Age.
Palas are a bonkers endgame-unit in TGs and sometimes in 1v1.
Hussars are a bonkers endgame unit in 1v1, but for raiding, not as an army unit.
Having FU cavalier really does not make you a good cav civ, because you rarely can win the game on the back of generic cavaliers.
Same for generic camels.
Good units, but usually not the unit that defines the match and carries you to the win.
Keishiks are really good, though.
But I think by now most people know that.
It’s a UU, so usually they are not included in the cavalry civ category.
I mean most people wouldn’t say Berbers are a good cav archer civ because they have camel archers – but still agree camel archers are a really good unit.
Tatars is my most played civ because I really find them fun to play, but I fell in love with them before the xbow nerf about a year ago – before their xbow play was super opressive!
Now I dont think they are underrated – they are properly rated.
They dont have the strongest CA, not the cheapest CA – but still really good CA with extra armor – they got decent cav and camels, their light cav and SLs profit from silk armor too – but all in all there are always civs who do things better – exept trebs, those are argueably the best in the game.
On arabia they get regular A tier ratings – which I feel is really where they should be.
They can play archers and scouts with the sheep bonus, they are one of the best megarandom civs, navy is lackluster but alright, theyre a cav civ.
I like Tatars a lot, they are a good civ, difficult to play, but their cav isnt as great as you make out.
When every cav civ has a bonus, any civ that doesn’t becomes average or less.
Persians and Chinese are other examples.
Think of actually strong cav civs, from stirrups konniks, Boyars, Teuton and Frankish paladins, to amazing camels from gurj or Hindus.
Berbers with their huge discounts.
SL doesn’t remotely make up for those bonuses.
We aren’t Mongols with OP bonuses on our SL.
While having flexibility is good, it doesn’t make you great.
It’s an old fallacy around here to say a wide tech tree makes a great civ, while stats have always proven it’s the eco powerhouses with specific military bonuses that dominate the ladder all the way up.
Tatars don’t have a great eco bonus, the Extra food on sheep is effectively a slow grow wood bonus, and then only becomes relevant again when they boom if they don’t boom the only thing that’s left is TR and PT.
Nothing else.
Conversely you have amazing ecos like franks, teutons or gurjaras with huge military bonuses.
Nevermind mesos.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
