Actually i saw a post on reddit that claims with image evidence that if you convert stables from another civ as Aztecs or Incas, a unit called "Xolotl Warrior" can be created from the stable that you converted, the status are the same as a Paladin, but doesn't have defensive upgrades from the blacksmith. If anybody wants to see the post: www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/dxjszj/mesoamerican_cavalry_unit_xolotl_warrior/
I feel Lithuanians should be below Franks because their relic bonus is highly situational, whereas Franks get their bonus free of cost all the time. Edit: Also Frank stables are crazy fast.
This is ture, which is why "it depends". WIth Lithuanians having 5 relics they are by far the best, even with 2-3 they still beat all. Without them then of course the Franks are #1
@@ZeroEmpires although i understand your side, i tend to aggree with ashish. the fact that relics can be denied makes the frank number 1. you should have said: franks paladins are number one for consistency, but with the right setup lithuanians take the spot
@@pronoob2439 which fits with the theme of the teutons. Their whole thing is slow but very powerful units which advance behind a storm of artilery and castle fire. Having slow palafins dosnt hurt much when you always force the enemy to attack into you.
@@vineetmishra2690 I kinda dislike these contrived tests, honestly. No civ is going to make only one unit, so what is more important imo is how well a unit fits into the overall strategy of that civ. And on these grounds the teutons Paladin is almost essential whereas the huns could very well ignore Paladins entirely
@@ZeroEmpires must say this is a bit of a blunder. The Lithuanian Paladins are more like "oh you're already ahead with bunch of relics and likely map control, here have an op paladin to cement the death of your enemy" - whereas the Franks are just overall strong and fast producing Paladins regardless of the situation, and they still fare better against arrow fire and siege due to the extra hp. I think the Lithuanians are only really strong if you're already in a good spot, but in that scenario any regular Paladin would be strong regardless.
Frank Chivalry Tech should be considered aswell. It's twice as strong as the Hun Team bonus and fairly affordable and comes in addition to the other bonuses Franks get.
It also requires a Castle (+488 Stone cost) which you may not have built in time to research the tech (+ 40s) before you can even take advantage of it though.
@@ZeroEmpires But to be honest, we are talking about "The best Paladin Civs", Paladins appear in the late game, so factoring in the castle cost doesnt make much sense in my opinion. People should have castles by the time they produce paladins :)
@@ZeroEmpires you're comparing a +488 stone cost against having 3 or more relics at least, + the time and resources spent on bloodlines. In a situation in mid-late imp where all this applicable, it's very common for people to have at least one castle up just for map control, and the frank castles are cheap so that's an extra bonus for that. The Lithuanians basically just have one major bonus that is highly situational and only really applicable in very late game, whereas the Franks have a bunch of versatile bonuses where some are effective immediately and others are easily reachable + the eco bonus, and everything is consistent regardless if you're ahead or behind your opponent. With Lithuanians you have to be at least a bit ahead of your opponent to secure the required relics for them to make a noticeable difference.
@@ZeroEmpires Considering the Resource savings and head start in economy by not having to research Farm upgrades and Bloodlines, I think you should be able to afford a Castle that's 25% cheaper at some point before hitting Imperial Age. Franks are, in my opinion, a lot more consistent, since their 20% HP, great eco and faster Stables will work no matter what. Lithunaians need Map control for Relics to have good Paladins. Since their only early Eco bonus is +150 Food that's harder to achieve than it is with franks
@@kassadus2499 100% this. Frankish pallys are reliable and even if liths get their +5 all you gotta do is break their monasteries, you don't even have to take the relics yourself you just have to kill the buildings.
He put Franks on 2nd spot because he deliberatly ommited their "Chivalry" tech giving 40% working speed to the stable (don't understand why he did this while taking the hun's bonus into account but whatever). This test is incomplete in many, many ways, so don't take his top 5 too literally.
Erectar Denara yeah for team games the frank pallys are probably still better, although your teammates could feed you relics, Lithuanians still don’t get any production or economy bonuses. I feel like they might edge out franks in 1v1, with excellent trash (minus 1 melee armor on halbs), Leitis which are cheaper on food but cost 5 more gold trading effectively into pallies, and full Calvary archer upgrades. I think Liths have all the tools to be top tier. Oh also they do start with a whopping +150 food! Helping fast drushes and up times. It’s not as big as say Slavs farming bonus or franks free farm upgrades for that matter but it’s nice.
Yeah, I could not believe AOE for giving other civs paladins since only persians and Franks have paladins in them base on history. Persians have more Paladins in History than Franks but Franks have skillful Paladins than Persians.
Last time I was this early, Voobly was still the only plattform to play aoe2! Edit: Also, I think you missed to include the frank unique tech chivalry, no? It might not make their paladins better than the lithuanian one but almost on par, I would say.
Having a higher attack is more useful to ranged units, that need to take more damage from the distance and do not need to have great HP. Therefore, I disagree with Lithuanian Paladins being better than Frank Paladins, simply because it is generally better for melee attack units to have more HP than to have more attack damage. Practically every melee unit is better off with more health than with more attack, especially in big battles.
Agree. In big battles, you will want your melee attack units to survive longer, so they can keep doing damage, even if this damage is slightly smaller than the units with more attack (which are more likely do be killed sooner). Generally, it is better for heavy infantry/cavalry to be "tankier" than to have such a huge attack damage.
I'd rather have a harder-to-kill unit going around in battle and being useful for longer than to have a unit that kills fast but dies faster. Higher attack damage will only be more useful if you’re raiding or to ranged units. Frank Paladins will still be better in the end.
It depends, and that's why I'd have prefer a more... Thorough kind of test : Comparing the unit 1 civ to another doesn't make much sense, paladins won't be fighting other paladins most of the time, especially if your opponent kows that you have a strong cavalry civilisation. Paladins are made to counter Infantry, light cav and archers...And usually end up having to face pikes, camels or other anti-cav units (and paladins have A LOT of counters spread across the game so it's kinda hard to use them as a main army unit) If we want to compare which civ has the best paladins, we have to compare their paladins against all the matchups they might end up against. In this regard, I'd pick the Franks at the top spot because their extra HP gives them 1 extra-hit of HP when facing their counters (camels and halberds for example) and also gives them more ranged-resistance, while the extra-attack from the Lithuanian bonus doesn't change the number of hits the paladin needs to take down a pikeman or hallberdier unless they got 4 relics or more. That's the main reason The other reason is that Lithuanian's bonus depends of the amount of relics you're able to grab, meaning you can end up with NO USE of the bonus if you don't manage to grab a single relic, and you need at least 2 to make a notable difference, while franks get their bonus from the start, and it cannot be canceled. And appart from their relic bonus Lithuanian don't possess any bonus related to their knight-line, so without any relic their paladins are completely generic, while Franks got their strong Food economy AND their unique technology "Chivalry" going for them too.
... why? Why do you think this way? You saw them beating frank paladins 1vs1, didn't you? So it makes a difference when fighting melee units, also the frankish hp makes them more useful for raiding. Did you forget to put a negation in your statement? So, assuming you meant "Higher HP will make franks better at raiding and against ranged units, while Lithuanians need to get attacks in to even benefit from any bonus at all", I will point out that there is more to evaluating such bonuses than just listing 3 situations and pointing out what wins what. As stated at the start of the video, Paladins really pack a punch. They are really population efficient, and anything that lets you plow through enemies better is appreciated. Right away, better against ranged units doesn't matter as much. Theoretically, the franks are better, but 1 crossbowman cannot win against either paladin. So cannot 40 vs 40. There is no archer where having 20% more hp makes a difference in terms of population effectiveness, except maybe 40 elephant archers in a nook so only 1-2 paladins can attack at a time. Irrelevant for arguing for the consitently better paladin. So both are absolutly stellar against most ranged units. We already saw that Lithuanians absolutly demolish franks with 5 relics and consistenly beat franks with +2. So the only unit that is population effective against them is the rarly seen elephant. Also, did you know that Lithuanians at +5 can beat halbs 1 hit earlier than franks can? they effectivly have + 38 hp when fighting a halb any where in their lifetime. So the only situation where franks are better is raiding. Or is it? When raiding villagers, franks take 3 hits to take them down. At +1 attack, lithuanians take 2. The only situation where franks are better is when the paladin cannot get attacks against their enemy and have to take a lot of damage. Lithuanians are better in the end.
@@RoulicisThe This wasn't directed at you. Had you read even just the first sentence (disregarding the questions before it), you could have realized that.
Are you reallying saying the Frank tech isn't worth mentioning because you have to build a castle (at a reduced stone cost btw). BUT you give lithuanians first place because if they manage to capture all the relics on the map they get op paladins. Not to mention Cumans lose to Persians eventhough you agree that +2 attack to archers is useless. 10% speed increase is HUGE. Lol what a crap video. Note: I got this info from your responses to other peoples comments.
In big battles, you will want your melee attack units to survive longer, so they can keep doing damage, even if this damage is slightly smaller than the units with more attack (which are more likely do be killed sooner). Generally, it is better for heavy infantry/cavalry to be "tankier" than to have such a huge attack damage. So I say the Frank paladin still takes it.
True. I'd rather have a harder-to-kill unit going around in battle and being useful for longer than to have a unit that kills fast but dies faster. Higher attack damage will only be more useful if you’re raiding or to ranged units.
On the newer or latest updates, hun sgot kicked off on top 5 and franks got 3rd only. If paladin 5th - cumans 4th - persians 3rd - franks 2nd - Teutons 1st- Lithuanians If knight-line units 5th - persians 4th - Bulgarians 3rd - Franks 2nd - Teutons 1st - Lithuanians.
Franks are the best paladin civ and it is not close. Free farm upgrades Chivalry tech for 40% faster stables 12 HP boost +2 LOS You can reliably take advantage of all 4 of those in every single game you play. It doesn't matter if you have +2 on cavalry if your opponent has a better eco, has more army, and has map control which the Franks will have as an edge. The Franks player will often have more knights, and they will become Paladin far quicker. Timing is everything in AoE2. Mayans are a beast civ not because they have 1 single late game power unit, but because they can mass and have a cheap army. It doesn't matter that Lithuanians can get 14+9 because the Frank player can easily get to 14+4 Paladin faster and have a larger mass. If post-imp stats were all that mattered Khmer would be a top tier civ, but they're not. Eco, tech speed, and unit massing are all way more important and the Franks have that advantage in spades.
The germanic tribe franks were known for their throwing axemen though, the weapon is even called a francisca. Later the country france, which developed from the frankish tribe, were known for their knights. AOE covers both with the throwing axeman and paladins.
@@eirikmarthinsen3850 That's a good point. Perhaps AOE 2 DE could use the Frankish Paladin model for the base Paladin? It's such a nice model and would emphasize the strength of knights in French history.
@@KyleNelson89 Honestly? It makes sense. The regular Paladin sprite has the Fleur De Lis symbols on the back-side of the horse's mantle, but the rider's shield has the British Lion sigil. Meanwhile, the Frankish Paladin sprite is all about the Fleur De Lis sigil, both on shield and mantle (well, the old sprite used to, anyway), so it'd make sense for it to be the Frank's main cavalry unit.
It's a bit silly that a civ gets better paladins than the Franks, when heavy knights is typically what you think about when it comes to middle age France. Not so much with Lithuania. Plus, having the best paladins is pretty much the only thing that civ's got for her. It's a below average civ, that stayed afloat only because of its paladins. Then again, they always have their bonus, while Lithuania has got to collect relics, which isn't always possible or easy.
Lithuanians are disguistingly strong. So many bonuses and possibilities with little to nothing disadvantages. People seem to overlook psychological aspect in facing lithuanians regarding relics. 2 relics can be easily secured which already their cavalry to superior.
@Winnie ̈Xi Jinping ̈ pooh Do Cumans paladins get bloodlines though? Any paladin civ would get thrown out of top 5 if they don't have access to it : their movespeed buff will make them catch archers more easily...But without the extra HP from bloodlines they'd go down more easily to arrows, cancelling the bonus against archers
The fact is, this works against some powerful ranged units lile War Wagons, Elephant Archers, Janissories and strangely Mamelukes as well is very useful. It still useful against regular cavalry archers and variants, plumed archers and chu ko nu.
@@sisenor5249 Indeed, however lack of speed is one of the heavy cavalry units main weaknesses, weakness cancelled by this speed buff, so it's more important than it might seem. Besides a +2 atk vs archers won't make much difference against REALLY tanky archer units. What will +2 attack do against camel archers? Or War wagons? Or even Elephant archers? They got so much HP that a +2 atk bonus is insignificant, I'd prefer the bonus speed to reach them faster, Or the HP boost to tank more arrows
I would rank Franks in front of Lithuanian, because only the front line of Paladins can cause damage, the ones bunched up in the back cannot. But every Paladin can be shot at in the group. The HP buff makes these paladins very effective mobile front line shields that's buys time for your ranged units
How the things change over time, Persians now have the Savar instead of Paladins, that have less Hitpoints but +1 melee armor and +2 Pierce armor, attack at 1.8 secs instead of 1.9, the upgardes is 1000 food and 600 gold and comes at 150 seconds.
People really underestimate movespeed all the time. Let me tell you something about movespeed: It's AMAZING. Go play teutons and try their slower palas: They suck. So much.
I'd like to expand on the extra attack vs archers point. Extra attack vs archers might be useless in a straight archers vs. paladin fight, but in mixed battles with say paladin-archers vs. archers the bonus will be statistically worth around a 11% attack damage boost. Considering around 3 melee armor in imp on the arbalest thats an effective increase of 13% dmg. The franks hp boost gives them just +6.6% hp in comparison to bloodline palas (+12hp not +32 which is what it sounds like in the video). Ofc the hp boost is worth something in more or less all situations.
And even if it lasts to Imperial Age... They got War Elephants dammit, why the hell would they speck into the costly paladins upgrades when they have the medieval equivalent of a fucking tank? ^^
I don't like this test. Not that I don't like your opinion, if you prefer the lithuanians it's your right, but I really dislike the way you've displayed it on your test. First of all, you left the Frank's stable tech out, which grants them 40% faster creation time at the stable and you completely ommited the fact that Lithuanians don't have any bonus related to their knight-line appart from their relic bonus. Bonus which, you demonstrated yourself is insignificant unless you got at least 2 relics, which is never guaranteed in a AoE multiplayer game. Secondly, your test itself is pretty much pointless : most of the time, paladins won't be fighting other paladins. they'd either be facing the units they were intended to counter by recruiting them, like Infantry forces, cataphracts or to reach archer lines... Or they'll be facing units made to counter them, like pikes, camels, mamelouks, etc... And you completely disregarded this fact, comparing only paladins against each-other, making this whole test completely pointless. "Yeah, lithuanian paladins beat frank's 1v1 when they have 2 relics or more, wow"...You truly think the Frank player is going to try and counter your paladins with his own ?! Hallberds exist for a good reason you know? Why throw away 75 Gold when you can do the job with just 25 food and 35 wood ?! And in this regard Frank paladins are superior to lithuanians because they take 1 extra hit from an hallberd to go down (thanks to their extra-HP) And even more : even if we got a paladin battle between Lithuanians and Franks... Did you even take the "long-term" battle into consideration? Oh yeah, they can take down Frank paladins 1v1...Then the Frank player will build them back...Build them back 40 % FASTER than the Lithuanian player, who got no bonus backing up his cavalry appart from the attack bonus, and the Lithuanian will inevitably fall down in the long run, especially if you take the reliable food economy the Frank's got into account. Your opinion is valid in it's own way, but you were so lazy in trying to demonstrate it that you made your own test irrelevant. So if you want to do this kind of testing, you have to look at ALL the factors, not just one.
Frank Paladins are better, The Bonus hp makes them take extra hits, particularly from ranged units, take an extra hit from a fully upgraded Halberdier to kill, And the biggest difference is how good +2 LOS on knights actually is. raiding with knights and paladins on their own everyone has done and its a really tiny LoS to start with- villagers slip away, halberdiers can pop up in threat range out of nowhere, with +2 LoS you can see those things at much farther away (in comparison) and that is easy to take for granted as a minor bonus.
Controversial viewpoint, but the Persians are the only Paladin civ that can also make Camels. Mix a few Camels into your Paladin army, and you might find Persians actually come out on top given equal numbers ;-)
Cumans should not get the paladins for historical and balance reasons... Also, it is sad to see the overpowered Lithuanian bonus take over the always iconic Franks: I think the Lithuanian bonus should be capped at 2 or 3, and be +1 attack/2 relics
Because they do have Lithuanians, you shouldnt forget that Polish Hussar is also Lithuanian Hussar. And Poland is represented (in a way) with the slavs.
Unemployed - however, the Hussars were still founded thanks to the Serbs who were seeking revenge on the Turks. Lithuania had nothing to do with this. Hussars are still the basis of the Polish non-Lithuanian army. It was Poland thanks to Hussars that ruled Europe for 200 years, not Lithuania. Poland has been left out and nothing justifies it.
@@bartsic85 so you wan to tell me that Lithuanians had no hussars? Do you even have basic history knowledge? Google "Battle of Kircholm" and tell me, how many polish hussars were in that battle? And after that, just go back to school to study.
Unemployed - 🤦♂️ It was not the basis of the Lithuanian army. Hussars were the basis of the Polish army. I have not written anywhere that Lithuania did not have Hussars. You must learn to read comprehension. In addition, Lithuania was more dependent on Poland than vice versa. Therefore, using Hussars in any game and assigning it to a country other than Poland is at least unfair.
@@bartsic85 you are so badly uninformed that i am really amazed... after hussars creation in Rzeczpospolita hussars were the basis of polish and lithuanian armies. There is no "ours, but not yours" situation in this matter. And you should explain "dependant" because it can mean lots of things.
How the Huns fast stables makes paladin any better at the end is just a plane paladin you need look bonus effect that affect their stats, the video topic is for strongest paladins not XIV that make then faster.
The Teutons have the best paladin, better than the Frank, and for a Lithuanian to beat him he needs 2 or 3 relics, of course, all this looking at a 1vs1
Dude you are talking about if they get 5 relics, how many times did you get 5 relics in a game? none? It rarely happens and also, now that we know about them one would challenge them for relics. so it's not like they have 5 relics automatically. Franks have the best palas, HP + chivarly. + no need for bloodlines. Basically more often than not you already lost knight fight with them and even if u survive and get 5 relics even then good luck to keep up with franks spam.
Not to hard in TGs and most tim enot in 1v1 either, or at keast to get 2-3 in 1v1. ZeroEmpires showed that 2 relics are enought to beat Franks and in TGs its now very likly to get 5+ relics. On DE ara and most landmaps in 2v2 have 6-7 relics, 3v3 are 8-9 relics and 4v4 are 10-12 relics. More than enough to get the 5 for your Lithuanian ally^^
@@tetrislunatic4290 last time i saw it was even less than 5, 4 relics . and i don't think devs would put more than 5 relics in maps just because of lithuanias bonus
@@romamgebrishvili7188 Its always 5 on ara and still on DE. PLayed alot in the beta and some games since release and TGs now have a lot more relics. And they are most of the time even split across the two sides of the map withe the teams. Its more of an thing to get each team equal chance to get relics in gerneral but yes i think its also cause of lithuanians to make it easyer in tgs to get relics for them.
@@tetrislunatic4290 no. I meant that because of lithuanians they won't make it more than 5, and if it is not so now, they will change it, because if u get 10+ attack on palas it's gonna be broken. So they either change it or nobody picks lithuanians, just like cumans need nerfing
They really should give Franks access to Bloodlines. Not having that kinda makes their bonus a little silly. Pretty much the same with Byzantines and not having Masonry/Architecture.
I agree it would give them a nice boost with all the counters they got nowadays... However imagine this : paladins possess 160 base HP, with bloodlines it raises to 180 HP The main question now is : does the 20% boost stack with bloodlines or not? If it doesn't : the HP will be raised to 212 If it does : the HP will then be raised to 216 Not much difference, but still important to notice. In comparison : Elite War wagons got 200 HP and Elite Battle Elephants 350 HP You'd get a paladin with 212-216 HP, 14 Attack, 2/2 armor With blacksmith upgrades : 18 Atk, 5/6 armor And this, for 60 Food and 75 Gold How the hell do you counter that ? I mean : War Wagons cost 110 wood and 60 Gold, and Battle Elephants 120 Food and 70 Gold...And these paladins would have more than 210 HP with it's already beefy stats for an inferior cost of these two units. A paladin with more than 210 HP would be far too OP for it's cost, so even as much as I'd like the franks to have a bit more chances in the current META, I can't agree with giving them Bloodlines being a good idea
@@RoulicisThe War Wagons have range, use choke points, battle elephants still get more bang per pop point, then there's always pointy boys. That 20 extra HP would make Frank Paladins scary again, now all they have is a slightly better bloodlines. It definitely wouldn't make them OP though Considering that Franks have always been a one trick pony, at least that trick should be significant.
@@khatack I'm not saying that it wouldn't give them a nice boost, far from it. I'm just pointing out the fact that a 210+ HP paladin would be too good for it's price. Compared to other power-house units, like the elephants, war wagons, etc... Having these stats while costing only 60 food and 75 Gold would be a tad too OP for the game's balance. I can be wrong on that part, but there is a reason why Franks weren't given Bloodlines, and my guess is that it's related to this cost-effectiveness Issue
@@khatack And again you are missing the point. Paladins won't necessarily be better in all terms than these power-house units (even though a paladin can easily beat a war wagon 1v1, for example). What I'm talking about is "cost-effectiveness", the relation between "what you pay for" and "what you get". Paladins are already strong units, but this strength comes at a significant cost compared to other units (especially on gold). However, even if the upgrade cost is one of the most pricy techs of the game, they provide good value for their individual price. The problems with giving the frank paladins the +20 HP from bloodlines is that you add tankiness to a unit who already got already the tankiest stat of all paladins of the game. Put it simply : you increase the efficiency of a unit who was already the most efficient out of all the civs who has access to it. Yes, there are power-house units (like the examples we used) who got as good or better stats than the paladin... But they also cost significantly more : twice the amount of food for the battle elephant, and nearly twice the same value, but in wood, for the war wagon. Putting the HP of tha Frank paladin to 210+ makes them better than the War wagon, and gives them 2/3 of the HP of a battle elephant...While still costing half of their respective prices. A paladin with this amount of HP will rekt a war wagon 1v1 pretty easily, and it will be even worse if we balance the costs (paladins are cheaper than WW), and even if 1 of these paladins won't beat 1 battle elephant...Again, they cost half it's price, and 2 of them may be able to. And I'm not even talking about the impact of their increased tankiness against more ordinary units. That's where the issue lies : if they give Franks bloodlines (even as much as I'd like them to) the Frank's paladin will have a too high value compared to the cost you're paying to get them, paladins that are also recruited much faster than for other factions (thanks to "Chivalry")
Deus Vult! Offensive: 29 Tuetonic Knights, 21 Hand Cannoneers, 10 monks: square formation, stand ground. 40 palladins, 20 teutonic knights, 5 bombard cannons, 3 trebs, 2 seige onagers, Scortched earth tactics. Defensive: 1 castle, 4 towers fully upgraded, garrison 60 Hand Cannoneers. 5 defensive bombard cannons majority of remaining villagers follow the offensive force. As a last resort the hand cannoneers will join the offensive. Deus Vult!
And I'd say Burgundians in spite the lack of bloodlines it's just insane how fast you can have them out. The cavalier upgrade is already available in castle age and on top of that stable upgrades cost 50% less so paladins are not even a late game unit for Burgundians
I'm sorry, I wouldn't put the Hun paladins in the top 5. They have some of the best *cavalry* in the game, as a whole, but their paladins don't have any special bonus themselves, aside from being fully-upgraded, and probably existing before your opponents. On a per-unit basis, they're 100% vanilla.
i feel like the huns Paladins are too generic to be top 5... I would replace them by the Magyars in fifth place for the free attack upgrades or even the Spanish for getting more gold from trade
Free attack upgrades won't have much of an incidence in Imperial Age : your opponent will have the ressources to get them just after advancing, compensating the research gap pretty easily. It would be much more useful earlier in the game with knights though
I think it depends with these civ's. Celtic Paladins are better in close combat and would win a direct confrontation against a byzantine paladin. However a byzantine paladin can withstand more arrows so it really depends. And regarding your last question i'd say for these both civs paladins are just something nice to have and are not their primary strength so if you are in the situation where making paladins makes sense and you actually have the resources then you could do it but it'll seldom come to that. A fitting example would be if you have the celts and you're fighting against a byzantine enemy since your paladins are practically the only thing you can do against cataphracts but mass halbs could do it as well. In the end it all comes down to the player
How often does Persian's +2 against archer bonus become relevant in a game? And Persians don't even get heresy, and monks are used quite often against the knight line in 1v1 games. In conclusion, it all depends
As critique I would add the notion that the Persian bonus do not add any advantage in one-on-one situations, but it does when mutiple knights/paladins attack the same archer. So in group dynamics, a more realistic scenario, it does matter.
I'd still take franks at the top, a player fighting against a lithuanian knows that he must deny him the relics, plus the franks has chivalry, which boost their production velocity
Just had a game where I made it to 30 fully upgraded paladins with 2 dmg due to relics. My army just ran over his mass helbs&skirms army. I was scared to lose to many paladins, but decided to just see what happens and man was it a slaughter. He left the game before I could add two more relics I just recently found in the corners of my side of the map. It was a great feeling to win like that :D
Persians also get the unique bonus of creating archer line units free of gold allowing a player to spam both paladins and crossbows without needing obscene amounts of trade, this makes maintaining a military much easier for Persian players
I would rate Cuman Paladins 3rd or even 2nd. The movement speed allows them to pick all engagements, chase retreating enemies while being able to retreat with ease themselves.
strongly disagree. The 12 hp bonus of frank paladins doesn't give them any real advantage. 10% movement speed in a game where micro managing plays a huge part, is more important than you think.
Silly zeroempires. Everyone knows aztecs have the best paladins.
because of their fate on Huitzilopochtli!!
Actually i saw a post on reddit that claims with image evidence that if you convert stables from another civ as Aztecs or Incas, a unit called "Xolotl Warrior" can be created from the stable that you converted, the status are the same as a Paladin, but doesn't have defensive upgrades from the blacksmith.
If anybody wants to see the post: www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/dxjszj/mesoamerican_cavalry_unit_xolotl_warrior/
Kono dio da
Actually, since they have the best monks, they can convert any of these civs paladins to have a very powerful paladin army
Aztec have the best tarcans in the game.....but only if they are vs Spanish
I feel Lithuanians should be below Franks because their relic bonus is highly situational, whereas Franks get their bonus free of cost all the time.
Edit: Also Frank stables are crazy fast.
This is ture, which is why "it depends". WIth Lithuanians having 5 relics they are by far the best, even with 2-3 they still beat all. Without them then of course the Franks are #1
@@ZeroEmpires although i understand your side, i tend to aggree with ashish. the fact that relics can be denied makes the frank number 1. you should have said: franks paladins are number one for consistency, but with the right setup lithuanians take the spot
Having 2 relics isn't hard though, and that still is enough to beat the Franks.
Considering all the new nations came out OP on purpose, I doubt that they will stay number one.
Then Lits will use Leitis
CUMans has the best paladin, they named them Steppe Lancer.
I really like the Teutons paladin though, their resistance to conversion let it deal with one of their weaknesses
But they are slower
@@pronoob2439 which fits with the theme of the teutons. Their whole thing is slow but very powerful units which advance behind a storm of artilery and castle fire. Having slow palafins dosnt hurt much when you always force the enemy to attack into you.
@@volodymyrboitchouk this was a paladin matchup. Teutons have one good bonus and one good drawback. So it could be at 6th
@@vineetmishra2690 I kinda dislike these contrived tests, honestly. No civ is going to make only one unit, so what is more important imo is how well a unit fits into the overall strategy of that civ. And on these grounds the teutons Paladin is almost essential whereas the huns could very well ignore Paladins entirely
@@volodymyrboitchouk idk about huns ignoring paladins, theyre basically their best unit in imp and u will have to make them in team games
You forgot the Frank unique tech for faster stables.
Their Paladins are still sent back to the Dark Age by Lithuanian 14+9 attack though, it just "depends" on how many relics the Lithuanians have.
@@ZeroEmpires there is no way you'd get 5 relics in a competitive game
@@ZeroEmpires must say this is a bit of a blunder. The Lithuanian Paladins are more like "oh you're already ahead with bunch of relics and likely map control, here have an op paladin to cement the death of your enemy" - whereas the Franks are just overall strong and fast producing Paladins regardless of the situation, and they still fare better against arrow fire and siege due to the extra hp. I think the Lithuanians are only really strong if you're already in a good spot, but in that scenario any regular Paladin would be strong regardless.
A list on "best paladin" means best possible paladin. Aka the Lithuanian paladin
Getting 2 relics in a team game is almost always possible. There's almost always 2 or even 3 spawned near your team
Frank Chivalry Tech should be considered aswell. It's twice as strong as the Hun Team bonus and fairly affordable and comes in addition to the other bonuses Franks get.
It also requires a Castle (+488 Stone cost) which you may not have built in time to research the tech (+ 40s) before you can even take advantage of it though.
@@ZeroEmpires But to be honest, we are talking about "The best Paladin Civs", Paladins appear in the late game, so factoring in the castle cost doesnt make much sense in my opinion. People should have castles by the time they produce paladins :)
@@ZeroEmpires you're comparing a +488 stone cost against having 3 or more relics at least, + the time and resources spent on bloodlines. In a situation in mid-late imp where all this applicable, it's very common for people to have at least one castle up just for map control, and the frank castles are cheap so that's an extra bonus for that. The Lithuanians basically just have one major bonus that is highly situational and only really applicable in very late game, whereas the Franks have a bunch of versatile bonuses where some are effective immediately and others are easily reachable + the eco bonus, and everything is consistent regardless if you're ahead or behind your opponent. With Lithuanians you have to be at least a bit ahead of your opponent to secure the required relics for them to make a noticeable difference.
@@ZeroEmpires Considering the Resource savings and head start in economy by not having to research Farm upgrades and Bloodlines, I think you should be able to afford a Castle that's 25% cheaper at some point before hitting Imperial Age.
Franks are, in my opinion, a lot more consistent, since their 20% HP, great eco and faster Stables will work no matter what. Lithunaians need Map control for Relics to have good Paladins. Since their only early Eco bonus is +150 Food that's harder to achieve than it is with franks
@@kassadus2499 100% this. Frankish pallys are reliable and even if liths get their +5 all you gotta do is break their monasteries, you don't even have to take the relics yourself you just have to kill the buildings.
person: persian paladins are the best
me: OK boomer
nice one xd
This Boomer meme is reaching the levels of "Anyone listening to this in current year!?" -_-
Not gonna lie I actually took my glasses off when I saw Franks on 2nd spot
Obviously they are making new factions op hence they can sell new copies
He put Franks on 2nd spot because he deliberatly ommited their "Chivalry" tech giving 40% working speed to the stable (don't understand why he did this while taking the hun's bonus into account but whatever).
This test is incomplete in many, many ways, so don't take his top 5 too literally.
Erectar Denara yeah for team games the frank pallys are probably still better, although your teammates could feed you relics, Lithuanians still don’t get any production or economy bonuses.
I feel like they might edge out franks in 1v1, with excellent trash (minus 1 melee armor on halbs), Leitis which are cheaper on food but cost 5 more gold trading effectively into pallies, and full Calvary archer upgrades. I think Liths have all the tools to be top tier.
Oh also they do start with a whopping +150 food! Helping fast drushes and up times. It’s not as big as say Slavs farming bonus or franks free farm upgrades for that matter but it’s nice.
Yeah, I could not believe AOE for giving other civs paladins since only persians and Franks have paladins in them base on history. Persians have more Paladins in History than Franks but Franks have skillful Paladins than Persians.
"This speed boost make the Persians excelent boomers"
Ok boomer
Do you research Loom in your games? Cos if so, then have I got some words for you...
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Ok Loomer
Last time I was this early, Voobly was still the only plattform to play aoe2!
Edit: Also, I think you missed to include the frank unique tech chivalry, no? It might not make their paladins better than the lithuanian one but almost on par, I would say.
The last time I was this early, Paladins were the best stable unit
0:27 It's spelled TATARS and they don't have paladins
Whoops, that's my bad; It's supposed to be the Bulgarians :D
You forgot chivalry and with that in mind franks can maybe outnumber the powerful paladins from the Lithuanians player
Small mistake at 0:24, Tatars don't get paladin but Bulgarians do.
Having a higher attack is more useful to ranged units, that need to take more damage from the distance and do not need to have great HP.
Therefore, I disagree with Lithuanian Paladins being better than Frank Paladins, simply because it is generally better for melee attack units to have more HP than to have more attack damage. Practically every melee unit is better off with more health than with more attack, especially in big battles.
Agree. In big battles, you will want your melee attack units to survive longer, so they can keep doing damage, even if this damage is slightly smaller than the units with more attack (which are more likely do be killed sooner).
Generally, it is better for heavy infantry/cavalry to be "tankier" than to have such a huge attack damage.
I'd rather have a harder-to-kill unit going around in battle and being useful for longer than to have a unit that kills fast but dies faster. Higher attack damage will only be more useful if you’re raiding or to ranged units.
Frank Paladins will still be better in the end.
It depends, and that's why I'd have prefer a more... Thorough kind of test :
Comparing the unit 1 civ to another doesn't make much sense, paladins won't be fighting other paladins most of the time, especially if your opponent kows that you have a strong cavalry civilisation. Paladins are made to counter Infantry, light cav and archers...And usually end up having to face pikes, camels or other anti-cav units (and paladins have A LOT of counters spread across the game so it's kinda hard to use them as a main army unit)
If we want to compare which civ has the best paladins, we have to compare their paladins against all the matchups they might end up against. In this regard, I'd pick the Franks at the top spot because their extra HP gives them 1 extra-hit of HP when facing their counters (camels and halberds for example) and also gives them more ranged-resistance, while the extra-attack from the Lithuanian bonus doesn't change the number of hits the paladin needs to take down a pikeman or hallberdier unless they got 4 relics or more. That's the main reason
The other reason is that Lithuanian's bonus depends of the amount of relics you're able to grab, meaning you can end up with NO USE of the bonus if you don't manage to grab a single relic, and you need at least 2 to make a notable difference, while franks get their bonus from the start, and it cannot be canceled.
And appart from their relic bonus Lithuanian don't possess any bonus related to their knight-line, so without any relic their paladins are completely generic, while Franks got their strong Food economy AND their unique technology "Chivalry" going for them too.
... why? Why do you think this way? You saw them beating frank paladins 1vs1, didn't you? So it makes a difference when fighting melee units, also the frankish hp makes them more useful for raiding.
Did you forget to put a negation in your statement?
So, assuming you meant "Higher HP will make franks better at raiding and against ranged units, while Lithuanians need to get attacks in to even benefit from any bonus at all", I will point out that there is more to evaluating such bonuses than just listing 3 situations and pointing out what wins what.
As stated at the start of the video, Paladins really pack a punch. They are really population efficient, and anything that lets you plow through enemies better is appreciated. Right away, better against ranged units doesn't matter as much. Theoretically, the franks are better, but 1 crossbowman cannot win against either paladin. So cannot 40 vs 40. There is no archer where having 20% more hp makes a difference in terms of population effectiveness, except maybe 40 elephant archers in a nook so only 1-2 paladins can attack at a time. Irrelevant for arguing for the consitently better paladin.
So both are absolutly stellar against most ranged units. We already saw that Lithuanians absolutly demolish franks with 5 relics and consistenly beat franks with +2. So the only unit that is population effective against them is the rarly seen elephant. Also, did you know that Lithuanians at +5 can beat halbs 1 hit earlier than franks can? they effectivly have + 38 hp when fighting a halb any where in their lifetime.
So the only situation where franks are better is raiding. Or is it? When raiding villagers, franks take 3 hits to take them down. At +1 attack, lithuanians take 2.
The only situation where franks are better is when the paladin cannot get attacks against their enemy and have to take a lot of damage. Lithuanians are better in the end.
You have your opinion, I have mine, and none of ours change the fact this test is incomplete, would that be deliberate or not.
@@RoulicisThe This wasn't directed at you. Had you read even just the first sentence (disregarding the questions before it), you could have realized that.
@@Tudsamfa There were only 2 people in this conversation so your message was for the 2 of us. I gave you my answer, that's all
Really nice edited video, good quality. Keep it up the good work
Hey guys, Spirit of th... oh wait, wrong channel
Yeah, but you should probably go there if you want proper unit tests. At least it doesn't give us half-baked tests for his evaluations ^^
Are you reallying saying the Frank tech isn't worth mentioning because you have to build a castle (at a reduced stone cost btw). BUT you give lithuanians first place because if they manage to capture all the relics on the map they get op paladins.
Not to mention Cumans lose to Persians eventhough you agree that +2 attack to archers is useless. 10% speed increase is HUGE. Lol what a crap video.
Note: I got this info from your responses to other peoples comments.
In big battles, you will want your melee attack units to survive longer, so they can keep doing damage, even if this damage is slightly smaller than the units with more attack (which are more likely do be killed sooner). Generally, it is better for heavy infantry/cavalry to be "tankier" than to have such a huge attack damage.
So I say the Frank paladin still takes it.
True. I'd rather have a harder-to-kill unit going around in battle and being useful for longer than to have a unit that kills fast but dies faster. Higher attack damage will only be more useful if you’re raiding or to ranged units.
Loving your videos on the DE. AOEII is my favorite game of all time. Wish they upgraded the Star Wars skin Galactic Battlegrounds as well.
ey nice to see you back dude
On the newer or latest updates, hun sgot kicked off on top 5 and franks got 3rd only.
If paladin
5th - cumans
4th - persians
3rd - franks
2nd - Teutons
1st- Lithuanians
If knight-line units
5th - persians
4th - Bulgarians
3rd - Franks
2nd - Teutons
1st - Lithuanians.
Franks are the best paladin civ and it is not close.
Free farm upgrades
Chivalry tech for 40% faster stables
12 HP boost
+2 LOS
You can reliably take advantage of all 4 of those in every single game you play. It doesn't matter if you have +2 on cavalry if your opponent has a better eco, has more army, and has map control which the Franks will have as an edge. The Franks player will often have more knights, and they will become Paladin far quicker. Timing is everything in AoE2. Mayans are a beast civ not because they have 1 single late game power unit, but because they can mass and have a cheap army. It doesn't matter that Lithuanians can get 14+9 because the Frank player can easily get to 14+4 Paladin faster and have a larger mass.
If post-imp stats were all that mattered Khmer would be a top tier civ, but they're not. Eco, tech speed, and unit massing are all way more important and the Franks have that advantage in spades.
I always felt the unique unit for the Frank's should be the Frankish Paladin and not the Throwing Axeman
Franks get cheaper castles and Throwing Axeman complements this by countering rams by dealing melee damage from ranged.
The germanic tribe franks were known for their throwing axemen though, the weapon is even called a francisca. Later the country france, which developed from the frankish tribe, were known for their knights. AOE covers both with the throwing axeman and paladins.
@@eirikmarthinsen3850 That's a good point. Perhaps AOE 2 DE could use the Frankish Paladin model for the base Paladin? It's such a nice model and would emphasize the strength of knights in French history.
@@KyleNelson89 Honestly? It makes sense. The regular Paladin sprite has the Fleur De Lis symbols on the back-side of the horse's mantle, but the rider's shield has the British Lion sigil.
Meanwhile, the Frankish Paladin sprite is all about the Fleur De Lis sigil, both on shield and mantle (well, the old sprite used to, anyway), so it'd make sense for it to be the Frank's main cavalry unit.
It's a bit silly that a civ gets better paladins than the Franks, when heavy knights is typically what you think about when it comes to middle age France. Not so much with Lithuania.
Plus, having the best paladins is pretty much the only thing that civ's got for her. It's a below average civ, that stayed afloat only because of its paladins. Then again, they always have their bonus, while Lithuania has got to collect relics, which isn't always possible or easy.
Lithuanians are disguistingly strong. So many bonuses and possibilities with little to nothing disadvantages.
People seem to overlook psychological aspect in facing lithuanians regarding relics. 2 relics can be easily secured which already their cavalry to superior.
No mention of the Frank Chivarly tech. Smh
Franks no longer have the beat paladins in the game
*Cries in Frank*
Because the Bloodline tech
@Winnie ̈Xi Jinping ̈ pooh Do Cumans paladins get bloodlines though? Any paladin civ would get thrown out of top 5 if they don't have access to it : their movespeed buff will make them catch archers more easily...But without the extra HP from bloodlines they'd go down more easily to arrows, cancelling the bonus against archers
damn... I'd want to import WC3 Human Paladins into this ! I bet you only need 1 Paladin to get the job done
Cumans are with no doubt number 1 or 2, the speed boost is just that good. Who cares about having +2 attack vs archers man, you already anihilate them
The fact is, this works against some powerful ranged units lile War Wagons, Elephant Archers, Janissories and strangely Mamelukes as well is very useful. It still useful against regular cavalry archers and variants, plumed archers and chu ko nu.
@@sauravtripathi4128 reaching those ranged targets earlier because your horses run faster is arguably better than +2 damage in most situations imo
Speed is only more useful to light cavalry. Heavy cavalry have other purposes in battle, they don't need that much speed.
@@sisenor5249 Indeed, however lack of speed is one of the heavy cavalry units main weaknesses, weakness cancelled by this speed buff, so it's more important than it might seem.
Besides a +2 atk vs archers won't make much difference against REALLY tanky archer units. What will +2 attack do against camel archers? Or War wagons? Or even Elephant archers? They got so much HP that a +2 atk bonus is insignificant, I'd prefer the bonus speed to reach them faster, Or the HP boost to tank more arrows
SO THE MOST POWERFUL PALADINS ARE THE LITHUANIANS WITH RELIC OR WITHOUT RELICS??? SOMEONE RESPOND ME PLEASE.
What about the magyars, they have the full blacksmith tree for cavalry as well as bloodlines
But Teutons deserve honourable mention here, because their paladins and their team paladins have slower conversion... which is in fact quite usefull.
Watching these videos when I don't even play AOE anymore... I enjoy it that much :P
I need top 10 Cavaliers right fucking now plz
3:33 ok boomer
I would rank Franks in front of Lithuanian, because only the front line of Paladins can cause damage, the ones bunched up in the back cannot. But every Paladin can be shot at in the group. The HP buff makes these paladins very effective mobile front line shields that's buys time for your ranged units
watching these age of empires youtube channels growing up like the game franchise is so emotional...
yeah sad the microsoft dont give a fuck and made absolute broken game
How the things change over time, Persians now have the Savar instead of Paladins, that have less Hitpoints but +1 melee armor and +2 Pierce armor, attack at 1.8 secs instead of 1.9, the upgardes is 1000 food and 600 gold and comes at 150 seconds.
People really underestimate movespeed all the time.
Let me tell you something about movespeed: It's AMAZING.
Go play teutons and try their slower palas: They suck. So much.
movement speed is everything.
@@mauer1 I mean yes but also no. If spearmen and vills can beat you unupgraded by punching you to death, it doesn't really matter how fast you are.
@@rovsea-3761 they shall try and catch me.
don't forget the time savings huns get for not building houses
Frank paladins are better, don't lie please
I'd like to expand on the extra attack vs archers point. Extra attack vs archers might be useless in a straight archers vs. paladin fight, but in mixed battles with say paladin-archers vs. archers the bonus will be statistically worth around a 11% attack damage boost. Considering around 3 melee armor in imp on the arbalest thats an effective increase of 13% dmg. The franks hp boost gives them just +6.6% hp in comparison to bloodline palas (+12hp not +32 which is what it sounds like in the video). Ofc the hp boost is worth something in more or less all situations.
Although not a paladin nation, I would argue that the Malians act like one and deserve to be considered, just because of their unique tech and bonuses
Why would the Persian want to get paladins in the first place? He can just be the "Persian douche" and win before it gets to imperial age :P
And even if it lasts to Imperial Age... They got War Elephants dammit, why the hell would they speck into the costly paladins upgrades when they have the medieval equivalent of a fucking tank? ^^
Erectar Denara because elephants are slow, and easily converted by monks.
@@asgeirsoe Yep : same weakness as paladins ^^
Erectar Denara paladins arr quicker than elephants, though, so at least they can run away from monk range! Elephants would struggle more.
imagine being the perfect B O O M E R
Persians:*cries*
.
Persian: I am in Imperial Age!
Me: Okay Boomer.
ok boomer
Tatars, not Tartars lol.
It's a people related to Mongols, not the sauce you use with your fried fish :P
Tatars are people of Turk(ic) origin, not Mongol(ic).
And Tatar also spell as Tartar.
@@burakbayram7991 learn something new every day :)
I don't like this test. Not that I don't like your opinion, if you prefer the lithuanians it's your right, but I really dislike the way you've displayed it on your test.
First of all, you left the Frank's stable tech out, which grants them 40% faster creation time at the stable and you completely ommited the fact that Lithuanians don't have any bonus related to their knight-line appart from their relic bonus. Bonus which, you demonstrated yourself is insignificant unless you got at least 2 relics, which is never guaranteed in a AoE multiplayer game.
Secondly, your test itself is pretty much pointless : most of the time, paladins won't be fighting other paladins. they'd either be facing the units they were intended to counter by recruiting them, like Infantry forces, cataphracts or to reach archer lines... Or they'll be facing units made to counter them, like pikes, camels, mamelouks, etc...
And you completely disregarded this fact, comparing only paladins against each-other, making this whole test completely pointless.
"Yeah, lithuanian paladins beat frank's 1v1 when they have 2 relics or more, wow"...You truly think the Frank player is going to try and counter your paladins with his own ?! Hallberds exist for a good reason you know? Why throw away 75 Gold when you can do the job with just 25 food and 35 wood ?! And in this regard Frank paladins are superior to lithuanians because they take 1 extra hit from an hallberd to go down (thanks to their extra-HP)
And even more : even if we got a paladin battle between Lithuanians and Franks... Did you even take the "long-term" battle into consideration? Oh yeah, they can take down Frank paladins 1v1...Then the Frank player will build them back...Build them back 40 % FASTER than the Lithuanian player, who got no bonus backing up his cavalry appart from the attack bonus, and the Lithuanian will inevitably fall down in the long run, especially if you take the reliable food economy the Frank's got into account.
Your opinion is valid in it's own way, but you were so lazy in trying to demonstrate it that you made your own test irrelevant. So if you want to do this kind of testing, you have to look at ALL the factors, not just one.
You missed Chivalry... That stacked with the Hun bonus makes their paladin output better
Isn't this kind of stuff Spirits topic? :p
PS: could you make build order mods for DE2? thanks :)
I didn't realise anyone owned the topic of "informative aoe2 video".
Frank Paladins are better, The Bonus hp makes them take extra hits, particularly from ranged units, take an extra hit from a fully upgraded Halberdier to kill, And the biggest difference is how good +2 LOS on knights actually is. raiding with knights and paladins on their own everyone has done and its a really tiny LoS to start with- villagers slip away, halberdiers can pop up in threat range out of nowhere, with +2 LoS you can see those things at much farther away (in comparison) and that is easy to take for granted as a minor bonus.
Controversial viewpoint, but the Persians are the only Paladin civ that can also make Camels. Mix a few Camels into your Paladin army, and you might find Persians actually come out on top given equal numbers ;-)
Cumans should not get the paladins for historical and balance reasons...
Also, it is sad to see the overpowered Lithuanian bonus take over the always iconic Franks: I think the Lithuanian bonus should be capped at 2 or 3, and be +1 attack/2 relics
This video didn't aged well. Now Lithuanians only get +3 attack. Man +5 attack was so OP... for fuck sake what they were thinking?
Lithuanians: best paladins in the game.
Slavs: no paladins at all.
It doesn't worked that way back in the times of PLC -,-
I will never understand why AoE doesn't have a Polish army with invincible Hussars...
Because they do have Lithuanians, you shouldnt forget that Polish Hussar is also Lithuanian Hussar. And Poland is represented (in a way) with the slavs.
Unemployed - however, the Hussars were still founded thanks to the Serbs who were seeking revenge on the Turks. Lithuania had nothing to do with this. Hussars are still the basis of the Polish non-Lithuanian army. It was Poland thanks to Hussars that ruled Europe for 200 years, not Lithuania. Poland has been left out and nothing justifies it.
@@bartsic85 so you wan to tell me that Lithuanians had no hussars? Do you even have basic history knowledge? Google "Battle of Kircholm" and tell me, how many polish hussars were in that battle? And after that, just go back to school to study.
Unemployed - 🤦♂️ It was not the basis of the Lithuanian army. Hussars were the basis of the Polish army. I have not written anywhere that Lithuania did not have Hussars. You must learn to read comprehension.
In addition, Lithuania was more dependent on Poland than vice versa. Therefore, using Hussars in any game and assigning it to a country other than Poland is at least unfair.
@@bartsic85 you are so badly uninformed that i am really amazed... after hussars creation in Rzeczpospolita hussars were the basis of polish and lithuanian armies. There is no "ours, but not yours" situation in this matter. And you should explain "dependant" because it can mean lots of things.
there are so many civilizations to choose in AOE2: DE, I don't know which is which anymore 😄
How the Huns fast stables makes paladin any better at the end is just a plane paladin you need look bonus effect that affect their stats, the video topic is for strongest paladins not XIV that make then faster.
The Teutons have the best paladin, better than the Frank, and for a Lithuanian to beat him he needs 2 or 3 relics, of course, all this looking at a 1vs1
Easy answer: Tartars and Cumans. Because they can produce step lancers instead.
Persians are excellent boomers. Wow. I think my parents are excellent boomers too. What makes Iranian boomers better than any other boomer generation?
Dude you are talking about if they get 5 relics, how many times did you get 5 relics in a game? none? It rarely happens and also, now that we know about them one would challenge them for relics. so it's not like they have 5 relics automatically. Franks have the best palas, HP + chivarly. + no need for bloodlines. Basically more often than not you already lost knight fight with them and even if u survive and get 5 relics even then good luck to keep up with franks spam.
Not to hard in TGs and most tim enot in 1v1 either, or at keast to get 2-3 in 1v1. ZeroEmpires showed that 2 relics are enought to beat Franks and in TGs its now very likly to get 5+ relics. On DE ara and most landmaps in 2v2 have 6-7 relics, 3v3 are 8-9 relics and 4v4 are 10-12 relics. More than enough to get the 5 for your Lithuanian ally^^
@@tetrislunatic4290 last time i saw it was even less than 5, 4 relics . and i don't think devs would put more than 5 relics in maps just because of lithuanias bonus
@@romamgebrishvili7188 Its always 5 on ara and still on DE. PLayed alot in the beta and some games since release and TGs now have a lot more relics. And they are most of the time even split across the two sides of the map withe the teams. Its more of an thing to get each team equal chance to get relics in gerneral but yes i think its also cause of lithuanians to make it easyer in tgs to get relics for them.
@@tetrislunatic4290 no. I meant that because of lithuanians they won't make it more than 5, and if it is not so now, they will change it, because if u get 10+ attack on palas it's gonna be broken. So they either change it or nobody picks lithuanians, just like cumans need nerfing
@@romamgebrishvili7188 The limit is +5 attack even if you have 100 relics, so no they most likely wont change the relic number too much^^
They really should give Franks access to Bloodlines. Not having that kinda makes their bonus a little silly. Pretty much the same with Byzantines and not having Masonry/Architecture.
I agree it would give them a nice boost with all the counters they got nowadays... However imagine this :
paladins possess 160 base HP, with bloodlines it raises to 180 HP
The main question now is : does the 20% boost stack with bloodlines or not?
If it doesn't : the HP will be raised to 212
If it does : the HP will then be raised to 216
Not much difference, but still important to notice.
In comparison : Elite War wagons got 200 HP and Elite Battle Elephants 350 HP
You'd get a paladin with 212-216 HP, 14 Attack, 2/2 armor
With blacksmith upgrades : 18 Atk, 5/6 armor
And this, for 60 Food and 75 Gold
How the hell do you counter that ? I mean : War Wagons cost 110 wood and 60 Gold, and Battle Elephants 120 Food and 70 Gold...And these paladins would have more than 210 HP with it's already beefy stats for an inferior cost of these two units.
A paladin with more than 210 HP would be far too OP for it's cost, so even as much as I'd like the franks to have a bit more chances in the current META, I can't agree with giving them Bloodlines being a good idea
@@RoulicisThe War Wagons have range, use choke points, battle elephants still get more bang per pop point, then there's always pointy boys. That 20 extra HP would make Frank Paladins scary again, now all they have is a slightly better bloodlines. It definitely wouldn't make them OP though Considering that Franks have always been a one trick pony, at least that trick should be significant.
@@khatack I'm not saying that it wouldn't give them a nice boost, far from it. I'm just pointing out the fact that a 210+ HP paladin would be too good for it's price. Compared to other power-house units, like the elephants, war wagons, etc... Having these stats while costing only 60 food and 75 Gold would be a tad too OP for the game's balance.
I can be wrong on that part, but there is a reason why Franks weren't given Bloodlines, and my guess is that it's related to this cost-effectiveness Issue
@@RoulicisThe Again, war wagons have range, battle elephants still provide more bang per pop point, they wouldn't be better and they wouldn't be OP.
@@khatack And again you are missing the point. Paladins won't necessarily be better in all terms than these power-house units (even though a paladin can easily beat a war wagon 1v1, for example).
What I'm talking about is "cost-effectiveness", the relation between "what you pay for" and "what you get".
Paladins are already strong units, but this strength comes at a significant cost compared to other units (especially on gold). However, even if the upgrade cost is one of the most pricy techs of the game, they provide good value for their individual price.
The problems with giving the frank paladins the +20 HP from bloodlines is that you add tankiness to a unit who already got already the tankiest stat of all paladins of the game. Put it simply : you increase the efficiency of a unit who was already the most efficient out of all the civs who has access to it.
Yes, there are power-house units (like the examples we used) who got as good or better stats than the paladin... But they also cost significantly more : twice the amount of food for the battle elephant, and nearly twice the same value, but in wood, for the war wagon. Putting the HP of tha Frank paladin to 210+ makes them better than the War wagon, and gives them 2/3 of the HP of a battle elephant...While still costing half of their respective prices.
A paladin with this amount of HP will rekt a war wagon 1v1 pretty easily, and it will be even worse if we balance the costs (paladins are cheaper than WW), and even if 1 of these paladins won't beat 1 battle elephant...Again, they cost half it's price, and 2 of them may be able to.
And I'm not even talking about the impact of their increased tankiness against more ordinary units.
That's where the issue lies : if they give Franks bloodlines (even as much as I'd like them to) the Frank's paladin will have a too high value compared to the cost you're paying to get them, paladins that are also recruited much faster than for other factions (thanks to "Chivalry")
Then, are lituanians padalins better than cheaper berebers cavalry or +5 atack non-paladin malis?
Deus Vult! Offensive: 29 Tuetonic Knights, 21 Hand Cannoneers, 10 monks: square formation, stand ground. 40 palladins, 20 teutonic knights, 5 bombard cannons, 3 trebs, 2 seige onagers, Scortched earth tactics.
Defensive: 1 castle, 4 towers fully upgraded, garrison 60 Hand Cannoneers. 5 defensive bombard cannons majority of remaining villagers follow the offensive force. As a last resort the hand cannoneers will join the offensive. Deus Vult!
unfortunatly, lith paladins only get a 14+6 attack maximum now.
0:26 it says Tatars have paladins, but they don't.
And because of balance patches this needs an update
I guess teutons would be up there now as well
And I'd say Burgundians in spite the lack of bloodlines it's just insane how fast you can have them out. The cavalier upgrade is already available in castle age and on top of that stable upgrades cost 50% less so paladins are not even a late game unit for Burgundians
Bulgarians get paladin upgrade too
It's a mistake with the list, replace Tatars with Bulgarians and you're good to go
Never knew why Huns, Bulgarians and Celts have Paladins. Historically, those people are not known for heavily armoured knights and plate armour...
Tatars don't have it its a typo. It should be Bulgarians.
I think Huns also worked as mercenaries for Romans so a tech exchange isn't entirely impossible
I'm sorry, I wouldn't put the Hun paladins in the top 5. They have some of the best *cavalry* in the game, as a whole, but their paladins don't have any special bonus themselves, aside from being fully-upgraded, and probably existing before your opponents. On a per-unit basis, they're 100% vanilla.
i feel like the huns Paladins are too generic to be top 5... I would replace them by the Magyars in fifth place for the free attack upgrades or even the Spanish for getting more gold from trade
Free attack upgrades won't have much of an incidence in Imperial Age : your opponent will have the ressources to get them just after advancing, compensating the research gap pretty easily. It would be much more useful earlier in the game with knights though
Turks... masters of horses Greetings to all Turkic people!
It Depends! - ZeroEmpires quoting T90?
You didn't even mention the Teuton paladin... more armor en more resistant to conversion.
Everyone wants to see this 6:02
6:10 you have an absolute monster right there i can't wait to see "da vaipa" with those team bonus in action.
What about teutons? They have +2 armor in imperial age
Bulgarians also have paladins
But fully upgraded bulgarian elite konnik can 1v1 fully upgraded frankish paladin without getting dismounted
Bulgarians can have Paladins. That’s 12
Replace Tatars with Bulgarians, back to 11 :D
Chivalry in franks increases production speed
Who do you think has the worst Paladins, Celts, Byzantines, ect.? And should we ignore the upgrade with this civilizations?
I think it depends with these civ's. Celtic Paladins are better in close combat and would win a direct confrontation against a byzantine paladin. However a byzantine paladin can withstand more arrows so it really depends. And regarding your last question i'd say for these both civs paladins are just something nice to have and are not their primary strength so if you are in the situation where making paladins makes sense and you actually have the resources then you could do it but it'll seldom come to that. A fitting example would be if you have the celts and you're fighting against a byzantine enemy since your paladins are practically the only thing you can do against cataphracts but mass halbs could do it as well. In the end it all comes down to the player
Missed opportunity for a pun there...
3:30 ..."which makes the Persians more than just Ok Boomers"...
Are you the spirit of the law guy?
nah he is not
With the new buff to Teuton Barracks and Stable units, I'd actually dare to add them to this list above Franks
@harly queen just a little slow more than others but all paladins performs more or less against archers
How often does Persian's +2 against archer bonus become relevant in a game? And Persians don't even get heresy, and monks are used quite often against the knight line in 1v1 games. In conclusion, it all depends
As critique I would add the notion that the Persian bonus do not add any advantage in one-on-one situations, but it does when mutiple knights/paladins attack the same archer. So in group dynamics, a more realistic scenario, it does matter.
I'd still take franks at the top, a player fighting against a lithuanian knows that he must deny him the relics, plus the franks has chivalry, which boost their production velocity
Just had a game where I made it to 30 fully upgraded paladins with 2 dmg due to relics. My army just ran over his mass helbs&skirms army. I was scared to lose to many paladins, but decided to just see what happens and man was it a slaughter. He left the game before I could add two more relics I just recently found in the corners of my side of the map. It was a great feeling to win like that :D
Teutons are hands down the best rn after the patch
Persians also get the unique bonus of creating archer line units free of gold allowing a player to spam both paladins and crossbows without needing obscene amounts of trade, this makes maintaining a military much easier for Persian players
I would rate Cuman Paladins 3rd or even 2nd. The movement speed allows them to pick all engagements, chase retreating enemies while being able to retreat with ease themselves.
You have a mistake no tatars but bulgarians
strongly disagree.
The 12 hp bonus of frank paladins doesn't give them any real advantage.
10% movement speed in a game where micro managing plays a huge part, is more important than you think.
Can we get an update on this now? I feel like the Teutons have the best Paladin. Franks are second best and Lithuanians have the third best.
3:55 before people ask why they only see a 12 Hp advantage for frank paladins over other paladins: it's because franks lack bloodlines.
Sorry, but you're rong : bulgars have paladins but the tatars hasn't got them
That's correct and I made a mistake on that part
You will see #5 Cumans climbing up positions in the future, speed is the meta in nearly everything