Comments

Hoppikon buff is huge, considering that is an age 4 unit. Armory attack techs are probably at least at silver status and so the buff also buffs the effect of armory.

 

Is Cataphract going to get similar love to Hippos?

 

I mostly bring them up because they seem rarely used (ignoring games that don't make it to age 4, even). Persian comps in age 4 seem to devolve into just Asa + MAs, so maybe it's a bigger issue than cataphract balancing.

 

BEFORE this Hip buff, with both at champ, ignoring armory techs, Cata have:

Worse:

• 50% more pop than Hip
• ~40% more cost than Hip

Same:

• Same DPS (except vs inf/siege, which is 150% more) as Hip
• Same Speed, LOS, Train time, etc.
  • Rigorous training gives a slight train time advantage over Agog Discipline, but at a 30% cost, which puts them at an 82% higher cost than Hip.

Better:

• ~15% more effective HP (except vs inf dmg, where it's 91% more)
  • .33 pierce armor is pretty close to .30 Hip pierce

So Cata feels like a terrible investment, unless you're facing lots of inf, compared to Hip. They're expensive, both res & pop. Good survivability, but it seems like you can either go Asa and get speed & more damage/pop (Asa are meant to be versatile, after all), or if you're facing inf, go Immortal, which gives you WAY more damage per pop (range helps with utilizing as much of that damage as possible all the time) by sacrificing speed. And against most inf-heavy comps, you don't need speed.

Maybe if you're facing siege-heavy armies, they work as a good hit squad that can survive until they get to the siege, and destroy it fast? They're just too situational, and get overshadowed by Asa.

 

But Cataphract is a better option vs Anti-Infantry like Longswordsman or Immortals. I would use this unit in many games.
PF2K do you compare 0.10 Infantry Armor and x0.5 Siege Bonus Damage to +6 attack? I think compared to this the Cataphract buff was not that big.

 

game is now balanced

Also CrimsonCantab's writeup on why players still don't pick cataphracts is really good. Asabara outshine the Cataphracts on a cost or pop efficiency basis every where immortals don't, so unless it's ultra late game, with a lead, the player is (nearly) always going to go for asabara or immortals instead. Idk the best way of fixing it without making Asabara too weak, or Cataphracts too strong vs the other civs

 

I think cataphracts are kinda expensive for their stats - consider that they share the same base attack with asabara that cost less than half what a cataphract costs. Maybe they are too polarized against infantry and siege? Usually expensive units are somewhat strong all-around

 

tldr Being an overweight Persian Lancer stops them being Persian Hippikons?

 

Cataphract also have lot more HP, not considering the costs, but so he will stay longer on the field. His upgrade has more attack strength and the bonus and infantry armor makes it hard to be countered by spearman. I don't think you can compare it 1:1 to the Asabara. It is a different unit with a different role. Considering the cost they could have a bit more attack strength.