Talk:Paladin/@comment-190.237.183.252-20151112170619/@comment-2.247.248.206-20171122122302

" So +12 HP is fine for them. 200 HP Paladins would be way too strong."

May sound good (true) on paper; but actually? - it's 8 (!) HP we are arguing over, here.

Let's be straight about this: having the best knights in the game, should be their selling point; which would mean, that any othert paladin-fielding civ would have to be put at a disadvantage. But is that the case? - and would +8HP make it so much worse?

All the weaknesses of the Knight-line would still apply in that scenario, nothing would change there, as the massive attack-bonus of corresponding counter-units still are a much bigger factor than 8 (!) lousy additional HP.

Would it even make a difference? - with attacks that exceed 8 and more attack, they "may as well" "jump" that additional bit; going from (e.g.) 190 right to 200 - and more - in damage being dealt, without there being any difference to it.

Comparable Paladins are hardly even in the game; Byzantines lack the final attack upgrade, celts the final armor-upgrade, teutons lack husbandry and ... - well: that leaves us with a whopping 4 comparables. How do they fare? With an attack of 12 (14 - base armor; additional blacksmith technologies balance out in this regard), in each of those cases, the enemy paladin (either frankish or other top paladin) ends at 0HP; in one case it would take 16 blows (against frankish paladin), the other 15 (enemy); and if there were 8 more HP? - it's 17vs15. In mass-battles that is hardly even that big a difference, as a lot of chance is becoming a factor, of how fast units turn around and arive at another target, to protect their mates and gang up on oponents; and as numbers may be different, as they will in most cases (if the two opposing players aren't autistic twins who do everything the same, including numbers of units being produced and sent into the fight), this factor is diminuished even more. 17 high end paladins of one of the other 4 civs in question, will beat 15 frankish paladins in most cases, as outnumbering will have a snow-balling effect. with 16vs15 blows it's even more meaningless a difference!

and against their most feared opponent, the Halberdier?

It's 20 vs. 12 vs 0; that's the remaining health after soaking up 5 hits (36 damage each? - correct me if I am wrong). For 200HP vs. 192HP vs 180HP. Not a difference at all, between 200 and 192, as the next blow is deadly for both of them. It only gives a marginal cussion for possibly healing them in time with monks (need to make up for 17HP in one case, 25 in the other); but at the same time, any healing whatsoever immediately elevates "180" into the same realm as "192" and "200" w/o healing.

So ... all in all I beg to differ, that "25% additional health" (rather than 20%) would make the Paladin of theirs OP; in fact, I'd wager, it wouldn't even matter in most cases...

PS: how about the Kamayuk? - at 18 damage, it's 20-12-0 after 10 hits (for 200 vs. 192 vs. 180); the 200HP paladin could soak up another blow, in comparison to it's 192 counterpart. Which may not become a thing all that often, considering that the "+1" range may very often produce scenarios, where 3 kamayuks hack away at one paladin simultaneously, in which case they go from 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 hits being dealt, which flattens any advantage to be had. Same for 4 Kamayuks (4 to 8 to 12 hits)