I understand that this idea won't be well received by many. The Mongols are quite often (and deservedly so) put upon a pedestal as one of the most versatile civs, while some people are still hung up on their initial impressions of the Magyars and don't realize how much more viable patch 5.5 has made. What I am trying to ask here is how viable are the Magyars as a replacement for Mongols on Arabia for a few particular strats and play-styles. The strats I usually go for with the Mongols is either a scrush or a man at arms rush both boosted by the hunting bonus or an archer rush for the sake of unpredictably. If the game reaches the late imperial the Mongols also have buffed light cavalry, great siege and Mangudhai late game. The Magyars on the other hand, have their scout cavalry discount which along with the blacksmith upgrades boosting their scruch, the blacksmith upgrades are also useful for the man at arms rush, while their archers boast greater line of sight which is still more than what Mongol archers get. In the late game, they also have the Palas, buff-est light cavalry and cav archers with less damage output but greater range and armor. They also have a better siege killer and trash. I usually main as the Mongols, but the Magyars seem to be better for most of my strats. I guess I am just looking for some feedback on my choice to choose Magyars over Mongols. Thank you
[link] [comments]
from newest submissions : aoe2 http://ift.tt/2ofcHdf
No comments :
Post a Comment