true, but if his opponent, who is massing 30 archers in feudal is reaching castle age at the same time as the OP, i have to wonder what the OP is doing.
also, i can mass skirmishers which train faster and are cheaper overall and counter his archers hard.
1 Like
He isn’t really setting the conditions for a “good discussion” to happen in the first place…
1 Like
the op doesn’t want discussion, he literally claimed that somehow his opponent made it to castle age at the same time he did, while also massing up 30+ archers in feudal age, and he himself had nothing to counter it with.
1 Like
Of course but that’s my point, this is clearly an exaggeration but a more likely scenario is that you go up at the same time with 20 skirms to his 30 X-bows and you have to invest in costlier ESkirm upgrade with very little damage potential in Castle. A much better situation for the Archer player in my view.
We all get frustrated with the game at times I think, let’s try to understand…
except the archer player is literally going to throw away 1350+ gold against food and wood units while you yourself can invest that gold into something else. compared to the cost of 30+ xbows, the upgrade cost of elite skirm is chump change.
and if it’s exaggeration the OP needs to stop defending his actions like he was playing perfectly when he clearly isn’t.
1 Like
Yes but that doesn’t matter until late Imp when gold gets low. Food is essentially the precious resource up to Imp being so slow.
1 Like
except all the wasted time the opponent spent in feudal age to mass up all those archers when he could have been booming in castle age, which is a huge setback. massing up 30 archers in feudal age with 2 ranges takes 525 seconds. which is just shy of 9 minutes.
so his opponent had 9 minutes of training archers in feudal, 750 extra wood, and 1350 extra gold, that the OP did what exactly?
is he floating those resources? does he have more workers? did he invest it? we don’t know.
Since the patch that fixed most of the pathing issues for cavalry I think Archer line is pretty OK now.
Britons and Mayans winrates are both fine now which wouldn’t be the case if Archer were “totally OP”.
(Mayans winrate is still a bit high but I think it’s because the absurd El Dorado op tech, not the archers…)
Still… the only thing I would change about Archers is the Thumb Ring tech to 95% accuracy instead of 100%.
Strong, yes, enough to prevent knights from dominating in say, Voobly? No. The more it goes, the more I believe that if they turned DE into Voobly gameplay-wise all of a sudden cry threads complaining about how knights rekt everything would pop up everywhere around here. Heck, we were even “gifted” with a request to buff spears cuz going scout is supposedely too good (and no I won’t link it I don’t want this hot piece of crap to get necro’d)
2 Likes
Frankly it seems that guy play diferent game than me. 
Archers good? For sure. Only viable opening nah.
4 Likes
I was going to give you some friendly advice and also the reasons why I don’t think archers are OP but after your incredibly dumb post i’m not gonna bother. Nothing is OP at 900 ELO. Step up your game instead of attacking everyone who disagree with you in a forum.
11 Likes
A LOT of games involve both sides spamming xbows at each other, that is for sure. Pro games as well. Mass xbows and 1 mangonel seem to be EXTREMELY common. That indicates that the OP is correct. When you see mass amounts of people doing one thing, that usually indicates a balance problem. Same could be said about the massive overusage of Mongols and Franks, seems like a balance problem is there as well. (Mongols: Massive early up bonus in hunts, op unit with skirms that only sort of counter it, if they can catch them somehow and they beat everything else including the trebs needed to take down the castles Franks: Cheap castles to multiple castle drop your enemy and uber strong cav with anti pike counter available easily in your cheap castles).
2 Likes
The op is correct that he is somehow getting to castle age at the same time as an opponent who spent enough time in feudal age to build 30 crossbows?
the op is correct that 30 crossbows eat through stone walls in milliseconds?
the op is correct that despite his opponent having invested in 30 archers he hasn’t had time to invest in any army to counter them?
not really, there are two power units in the game right now other then unique units for most civs
crossbows and knights.
melee pathing is getting better but still isn’t perfect, and archers can be made starting in feudal. doesn’t mean they are OP, you can easily shred them with simple skirmishers.
the only thing that needs to be done to archers is making them not stack as much imho.
Mongols barely see more usage then Mayans or Britons, and despite their high play rate, they only win 47.75% of there games overall, and 48.18% at the highest level.
Franks don’t see nearly as much tourney play as civs like Mayans or Aztecs do.
except you know, the fact that it requires a castle, and has a huge cost and long training time, which means it requires a heavy investment to really get them rolling.
are archers strong? yes, but they will get weaker as pathing improves, none of that excuses the gross exaggeration of the OP though, or the fact that he blatantly ignores good advice
fact is there is only three real power units in this game though for general use fighting of armies outside of Unique Units. Archers, Knights, and Cav Archers. everything else has a role as either a counter unit (pikes, skirms, hand cannons, and camels), are regional units that very few civs have (battle elephants, eagles, and steppe lancers) or are anti trash units (militia line). then of course you have unique units, which require a castle to be built, which is a heavy investment into stone, and thus isn’t an ideal go to option in early castle age. Scouts/Light CavalryHussar are raiding units or meat shields.
Cav Archers suffer from a low accuracy until thumb ring is researched, as well as requiring a lot of upgrades in general (cavalry + archer upgrades both).
Knights suffer from the fact that pathing still needs to be improved and that they can’t be made before castle age.
Archers can start being made in feudal age, don’t cut into your food economy so you can keep booming, and have good power spikes right at the start of castle and imp.
continue to improve pathing, and slightly nerf the archer collision and they won’t be as much of a “problem”
Pros going for archers is actually a different story.
They chose them not because they would be OP, rather than their utility:
First Power Spike: Early Feudal
Raiding potential
Can shoot over walls
micro-revarding
can decide a game right away when catching enemy off-guard
map control
I’m sure I forgot something, but it’s just a list, why pros chose them preferably.
If you’re not a pro, you might suffer to abuse their utility as pros do. And even pros go often knight line to counter archers. They avoid Franks aswell as britons, berbers and goths because they are too one-dimensional. Mayans is the only one-dimensional civ viable in pro, not only because of their discount, but because their archers become siege later-on, so their biggest weakness is off-set.
Archers snowball very hard, so when somebody is winning with them always looks like “OP!!!” but if somebody loses, the opponent often thinks “yeah i just played better”. Most of the time its actually the other way arount. When you go archers you need to be better than your opponent to win, but it’s also easier to win if you are better.
Of course Viper as the GOAT almost always goes archers, because he can raise his chances with this strat. So Viper going archers doesn’t show archers are OP, but Viper for sure is.
Skip to 47:00. I pasted a link to start at that time, but the forum seems to do something that stops it working.
3 Likes
Interesting strategy of viper, i would go fast castle into mameluke vs cumans.
But this is also not the “real” turnament viper, his just making fun in his streams ;).
But it shows, archers are not op, you don’t even need knights or onagers to destroy them. light infantry might also work.
thanks for the vid
There are a few reasons Archers are stronger in DE which are explained in this video I watched a while back. Aside from bad pathing, another major reason Archers are better in DE is explained perfectly from 15-17 mins in this video. I think for Archers to be balanced the way they were before DE the pathing would have to surpass vooblys, which should happen eventually I hope.
1 Like
No you weren’t, no need to lie dude
Sure as hell him being top 8/top 16 makes his opinion a lot more valuable than yours (or than mine, for that matter) simply based on the fact that he undestards the game a lot better than any of us.
I already do. I see a noob raging because not everyone is agreeing with him.
The solution to your problem is git gud, glhf in your next ranked
6 Likes
On this I completely agree and sympathize with you, but you started this topics ranting, accusing people and laughing at them when someone didn’t agree with you, and onestly, this is even worse and ruins the forum a lot more than people who think that only high elo should decide the balance.
I disagree whith who decided to find and publish here you elo to shame you, this isn’t how conversations are made, but you too need to admit your guilt.
I agree with you when you say that the archers collision box need to be fixed, and I know that archers are the main meta in the game right now, I just think that it’s fine, other units are viable too, and if someone likes playing archers, he shouldn’t be ashamed of it.
1 Like
Archers are quite dominant nowadays? yes they are. It might change after the recent pathing improvement on knights plus hopefully some changes with the collision box in the future as explained above by another user. But they are not OP at all.
You can keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you as much as you like. I’d recommend you to get some help though.
You can also go for your “self-improvement” all day if that’s what you enjoy (it’s a game after all, the goal is to have fun with it). But you’ll just lose most of the games you play, just like if you try to do the same thing playing chess vs any player who knows basic chess openings. I bet you’d cry about bishops or knights being OP in that case and attack anyone who says you are wrong 
6 Likes