Well food is more valuable than wood (except on water maps). And skirmishers are really close to the balance point, so it will only take a small change to make them balanced.
If they get a move speed increase, then they should get some other mobility penalty to refence the animal’s stubbornness.
That’s not a bad idea, but I think they should get it so that they actually get the full benefit of the range without giving the enemy more time to micro. Or they could get missed hits deal full damage to any hit target like the Arambai have.
I would not at all consider Hussite Wagons to be cavalry archers. They do not have the mobility that is essential to be a true cavalry archer. Also, they don’t benefit from any of the same upgrades (except ballistics and chemistry?).
Skirmishers are already pretty squishy in melee, so this change really wouldn’t do much.
I would rather they take an attack nerf from a thematic or historical perspective.
I too am a man that enjoys when history and thematic perspectives are included, as long as it doesn’t subtract from the gameplay overall. Nevertheless, Cavalry Archers were historically light armored Calvary that caused major damage to medieval armies, were effectively used as harassment units, and usually wielded recurve or other bows that packed a punch. I still think that nerfing damage to be worse than the archer line doesn’t make sense. Make them have less HP so that mangonels, skirms, and other tactics can be used to neutralize them.
You’re right, that’s my b. Read the wiki wrong! That’s fair enough. I think as mentioned above, making that projectile speed slightly faster could help. I feel like to keep CA viable they either have to me hardish hitting but harder to mass or easier to mass but not as hard hitting. I’d still advocate for the HP reduction by 5 for each version. So either way:
A. Reduce HP from 50 → 45 and 60->55
B. Either increase training time by 2 seconds OR IF you touch attack to be -1 then I think you need to reduce the cost slightly by like 5 wood and 5 gold.
This would make them easier to kill overall. And then lean into either small groups of stronger units or a larger group of weaker units. Thoughts? Or do all three of these need to be included? Still want them to be viable under the right circumstances
I disagree with both of these. First, reverting the gold cost to gate keep players from creating those units with the proposed nerfs destroys differentiation. I know I know, we’re talking about shifting the meta but doing all those changes where CA is not a viable or usable option is bad for the game because then simply a new meta will arise and CA would disappear. As it is the CA is already 33% more expensive than an Arb, any higher would limit any interest in the unit. If the cost is a concern then I think keeping the cost as is with the proposed nerfs is fair.
Are you saying this cause you’re afraid of the CA being overly nerfed and not viable?
I’ve already talked about 9 below but I agree with increased training time, not cost.
4 I disagree with. Make cavalry play viable and don’t touch that. I think target their range, specifically the archer and remove CA. Romans historically looked down on Archery so limiting that capability would make sense. Keep the skirms where they are at though
6 Portuguese don’t need bloodlines removed, knights are one of their strongest plays and you’d hurt that as a result
10 I think skirm damage isn’t an issue but I think Cavalry could use more bonuses against skirms to maintain that rock paper scissors effect. Spears weak to Skirms, Skirms weak to Light Cav, Light Cav weak to spears.
Tell me, why would a player choose to play as the Romans when there are the Celts? And Centurions are only useful in Team Games once you have 70 trade cogs
Doubled armor is really good though, and their economy bonus keeps it affordable. It may want extra investment, but it’s really strong (take only 1 damage from enemy vils and 2 damage from archers with fletching instead of 3)
Why would we want BBCs to be better against masses and worse against trebs? Plus, blast radius in game currently requires 100% accuracy - and BBCs do have a little blast radius (so this change shouldn’t even make them better against masses)
Why? Skirms are already pathetic against anything melee that isn’t the spear-line. And elite skirms only deal 1 damage against militia with gambesons.
Militia after gambesons only take 1 damage from elite skirms (and don’t need gambeons to reduce damage from feudal skirms to 1, just blacksmith armor upgrades). And skirms don’t outspeed MAAs, so hit-and-run tactics are of limited effectiveness (especially after squires). About the only ways skirms can be effective against MAAs right now is if the skirms have a significant tech advantage or if the skirms have a safe place to shelter (such as underneath a castle or behind a wall)
Basically, what happens is the damage to targets gets multiplied randomly based on the accuracy percent. So, for instance, an object with 50% accuracy has ~50% chance of dealing damage at all, and then the damage is multiplied by ~0.50 on average.
Imo they’re not. They don’t die easily under tcs, towers or a group of archers, do the same damage per projectile as archers vs spears and have no cheap counters in the early stages of the game. Either cavalry or siege units should be a lot more effective in killing them. Or they should die sooner under tcs, towers. Or be clearly more expensive, a net 10 increase in resources.
