You agree with this yourself, @MatCauthon3, your own claim is that the knight & xbow are the ‘power units’ of the castle age, and that that is fine. Seems a bit weird to demand evidence for something that you yourself find self-evident…
(just a few posts up)
no, i agree that they are the power units, however what i disagree with many of his claims, like claiming that Berbers go predominantly Crossbows in the Castle age. I see more stable play from them. Same with Cumans, he claims they go crossbows as well, but frankly i see more knights and kipchaks. etc.
he also makes claims that archers can beat skirms 1v1, do you believe that claim?
he provides zero sources to back up his claims, and when even provided with a literal wall, with video evidence, refuting his claims, his response, again, without evidence, is “my claims are factual”.
or do you seriously believe Malians main strategy in castle age is crossbows? or that Franks are going archers in feudal (I see scouts most the time)? or that Lithuanians are going Archers most the time in feudal? (again i see scouts). Slavs, same thing. Malay and Khmer i see going for their elephants over archers.
I see maybe 13-14 civs going Crossbow in Castle as their main strategy. and most of those are either Archer Civs, Gunpowder Civs, or Native Civs, or Civs with strong Archer bonuses, who all make sense to go Archers
what i am demanding evidence of, is backing up his claim, if he is going to claim, for example, that Khmer go crossbowman as their main strategy in Castle Age, let him provide proof of it.
I also want to see him back up his claim of archers beating Skirms 1v1.
I see everyone who doesn’t have a good knights bonus go archers (though they can also decide to go for knights anyway), but I agree there are some claims in the OP that aren’t right (like khmer going xbows more often than knights).
and that was my point.
he made a lot of claims, and when he got called on his claims, he resorted to this
and has yet to provide ANY evidence to back up his claim, and has repeatedly stated that
So yes, I would love to see his evidence to back up his claim.
Should install a minimum range for archers. If a longsword or a knight can get in close, it should be nighty night for the archer.
Archers are 100% fine man, they are made to develop your micro skills and lol don’t necro this 11
PSA: Add minimum range and archers are just unplayable
Ok people really go out of their way to necro the dumbest trash 11
That’s too much of a nerf. I think there should be a limit to how often units can receive commands though. Being able to outmicro ballistics is stupid. I highly doubt that it was ever intended as a possibility. Although that would potentially also make archers even more useful than they already are. 
But the premise of the original post is not completely bad. Most of the civs that aren’t archer oriented on paper still go for archer play most of the times, but i dont know if that’s necessarily a problem or not.
Minimum range of 1 would make them unplayable?
Yes, because the biggest strenght of the archers line is their micro potential. If you engage correctly by closing on them with, let’s say, knights, they already die like flies, but atleast you can try to squeeze some value out of them.
By giving them 1 min range, you nerf their ability to hit and run from close enemies, while also making them even shittier against rams. By doing this you are buffing the cavalry line which needs no buff and already destroys the archer line if you get a reasonable engage, while also being the stronger long term unit.
Also, this thread was made by Parthnan, a user notorious for dumb balance proposal and for being extremely toxic. No necro please
Well, I think giving archer line minimum range would be interesting to solve the “stacking” thing.
It would also be much more reflective of historical reality, that engaged archers where pretty much dead.
Of course in exchange of buffing archers somwhere else to set of the nerf.
But As there are so many archer only players out there, I don’t think this can ever happen without a revolt, even if archers would be slightliy stronger overall after the change.
Well, the thing about almost every single civilization using archer line is quite true… when playing against the AI.
The most glaring problem with the archer line is that it is flat out cheaper to upgrade into arbalests than investing in elite unique units (longbowmen, rattan archers, plumed archers, etc). Because you are looking at at least two castles for production, plus thousands of resources for the ugrade, compared to what? 350 food and good for the arbalest upgrade + some wood for a bunch of archery ranges.
I know you need to research ballistics and maybe chemistry, but aside from that the champion line, knight line ETC all cost significantly more. I’m just saying the upgrade to xbow and especially arbs should be increased.
I get the feeling that this guy draws his conclusion after matching 30 arbalests with 3 skirmishers.
However, he also makes the point that many players go for a full arbalest army and forget about everything else, and that it tends to get boring. I agree with thtat.
To solve it you just need to change their hitboxes
This game has never been historically accurate
Archers attack an run are stupid game the game feel trash no strategy they dont reload just keep attacking and moving. No archer or crossbows can reload while moving and be accurate 100%.
I’m soo bad in micro that even a single onager can wreck my army of Magudai