Incorrect, Halbs lose against Paladins on 1v1 but are considered counters
No, Crossbowman is only a threat in higher numbers. And they kill FU Knights rather difficultly
Militia line are counters to Eagles and even Knights sometimes.
1 Like
I completely agree, that’s why a nerf to knights (eg -10 hp) would be so difficult to balance. There’s probably a dozen changes you’d have to make at the same time, to prevent unfair and unfun matchups. It isn’t likely to happen.
1 Like
‘upheaval’… Here are some of the changes I’d discus:
- give Hand Canons more generalist use: seems to have quite some support
- give Longswordsmen more generalist use: seems to have quite some support
- give Steppe Lancers more generalist use: seems to have quite some support
- give Cav Archers more generalist use: seems to have quite some support
- give Camels more generalist use (fairly hard to balance): would probably have quite some support if executed well
- make Jaguar Warriors useful without buffing Aztecs (fairly hard to balance): would probably have quite some support if executed well
As for the knights, I haven’t discussed any specific changes, because it would be almost impossible to balance. If a well executed balance change was implemented after which the knight was still a reference-strength melee fighter, but no longer the unit strength which basically can’t be exceeded, it would probably gain the support of the community, much like auto-farming has won support. But that hinges on it being well executed, which would be very hard.
2 Likes
source? Even in this thread its not very popular, nor in buff militia lines threads. Its supported to make them better at their role, but to make them a generalist unit? No chance, not without heavily changing the design of the game, and I doubt you’ll get much support for that.
Its supported to make them a unit that has a defined role, because right now they fit in a spot between knights and scouts and dont really excell in either.
They already have generalist use, they are just held back because of reasons, though people debate the reason. Some believe the frame delay, some believe the number of upgrades, etc. Either way, cav archers are already a generalist unit.
And that last part is what makes doing it difficult, especially since youd be radically changing the design of the unit. Odds are it would either be inferior to knights or would be busted.
Or not because you’d have to nerf Aztecs hard in other areas and would mean a design shift on how aztecs work.
1 Like
what I didn’t offended any here yet flagged one of my posts lol
Get used to it, I am, since a while. Atleast you didn’t get a 1 month ban for pointing out instances of abusive words hurled at you by someone else.
Xbows and Knights are overbearing on the meta currently, and that is the hard truth, (modest) nerfs required.
Hard truths cut both ways, and are therefore hard to admit.
i.e., it hurts me to point this flaw of the meta out, just as much as it does to you if you admit that it exists, because you have been relying on rushing/spamming these very same overbearing units.
1 Like
there is literally only 5 power/generalist units (knights, archers, cav archers, eagles, and BE), outside of unique units, and of those, 4 see common use (cav archers being the exception).
2 Likes
You convinced yourself this was the cause of your 1-month ban?
One of the causes still is available at your bio, brother.
And the source of that “hard truth” is who? You by any chance?
Whenever I see Viper, Hera, Daut, T90, SOTL or TriRem point this out (even one of them actually) then I’ll be convinced they dominate the meta in an unstoppable way
2 Likes
I would say when they call it a problem, then it should be acknowledged. it would be painfully easy to say the meta is xbow and knight dominant, because it is.
but does that make it a problem? in my opinion? no. every RTS ever has had its meta strategies and that’s never been an issue unless those strategies were so strong they had no counters or took far too much effort to counter, and that is not the case with either xbows or knights.
4 Likes
I think I should have pointed out that my POV from domination was an unstoppable one.
You’re right
Good answer. At the end of the day, though, you’re talking to a player whose DE rating right now is 1434 in team games, no rating in 1v1. Lots of these players come by thinking they’ve discovered the scene of the overall meta and bellyaching about it in post after post. I’d never spend an hour crafting a wonderful set of counterexamples. Just let it go…
3 Likes
oh yes, the good old Ad Hominem technique, useful for diversion, don’t think I don’t see it coming.
Try to argue with logic and convince us with logic how Knights in particular (i.e. not Cavalier/Paladin) and Crosssbows have not been overbearing on this meta.
And the stuff below too.
What i have always said is:
-
Knight (NOT Cavalier/Paladin),
Halberdier anti-elephant bonus ,
Crossbow upgrade,
Archer stacking ,
Leitis gold price buff,
and Pike-line buffed anti-camel bonus
IS BROKEN NERF THIS -
TK , Samurai , Jags & Shotel price,
HC squishiness & exhorbitant price
Steppe Lancer squishiness & exhorbitant price
CA & Gbeto frame delay,
Genitour pointlessness,
Elephant Archer ineffectiveness,
Ballista Elephant huge price,
Non-heavy Camel attack/bonus,
Cannon Galleon projectile speed,
War Elephant food price & upgrade price,
Siege Tower ineffectiveness,
Genoese Crossbowman,
Orjan Gun damage,
Madrasah uselessness,
Orthodoxy uselessness,
Royal Heirs uselessness,
Chatras ineffectiveness,
Artillery stone price,
Zealotry gold price,
Atheism uselessness,
Faith price,
Nomads pointlessness (Forest Nothing players won’t read till here to object anyway xP),
Elite Cataphract pierce armor,
and Longswordsmen , as a whole,
IS TERRIBLE BUFF THIS
@blastonguart if you are such a great player, then why not try using this sacred high-level knowledge you claim to possess (for once) and show us how you actually argue against the stuff listed above.
If you don’t want to argue with sound logic, then you are welcome to talk about people’s ratings, rather than debate the actual issues, and try to find a solution.
You see, unlike you, @MatCauthon3 does right by actually trying to argue for/against the issue.
Yeah, and he did a great job. Sorry, no personal attack meant. I’m just saying that inductively, not deductively, I reason that I shouldn’t take on faith statements about the meta based on only a little exposure. Of course that’s not a logical proof that such statements are false, but it’s a measure of how likely the time is to be well spent… Particularly when much evidence and data are rallied and 70 posts in, a person is as sure as ever of their original statement. It happens too often to bother each time.
But to belabour the point: It’s specifically the claim that most people play most civs as if they were archer civs that’s discordant with more experience. As you go through the hundreds of rating points, you find many different metas. You’re facing one kind of threat at 1400 all the time and a totally different kind at 1600. The strategy that gets you from a 1500 player to a 1700 player suddenly starts sucking and you lose game after game. The 2000 players do things ignored by the 1800 players; you can sometimes destroy the latter via a longswordsmen + ram rush (militia line is cheap to mass gold-wise, and rams protect from archers while reducing production). I’m sure I’ll encounter more different trends if and when I climb higher, hence I don’t claim to know what the majority of players do. Alternatively, we could base our claims on the flavours of the month in pro streams, in which case this thread is relevant one month, and the next month someone will say that no one uses archers because how can you get to Feudal when the game is over by the time the drush arrives. 
Muting thread now
2 Likes
Even after putting thought to your interjection I am still sure that Knights specifically (not Cav/Pal) and Crossbows specifically are too strong, and hence have been overbearing on the meta, grossly reducing civ vibrance, unpredictability and the variety of unis and strategies.
Well, you are not doing it either…
2 Likes
I have already stated my logic for each and every point in my list by making separate threads about each of them, you know this very well.
Heck this thread itself begins with a pages long thesis on why I think Crossbows are ruining the game by being so spammable and powerful at the same time. And yet you act as if you haven’t been on all those threads.
And unlike some people here, I do not use people’s profiles to judge their logic and arguments.
without any facts to back it up, and when presented with evidence that counters your claims you said this
no evidence was ever given by you to back up your claims. at all. that doesn’t make it factual.
2 Likes
I said the Observations are factual (i.e. the fact that Castle Age = Crossbow Age for half the civs atleast, that whole list).
These observations are not “my claims”, but rather they are the real state of the frequency of usage of Crossbows (and Knights) by pro players as well as basically anyone above 1200 ELO
Logic without any source isn’t logic
except you provide no evidence to back this up, which means people have to take you at your word. and considering you make claims like…
it makes it really hard to take you seriously.
and what is your source for this? because you claim for example that goths, Malians, Khmer, and Lithuanians all go archers predominantly in the feudal age, but i see them use other options far more often.