Aztec, Swedish and Ottoman civilizations must have had counter skirmisher

Aztec, Swedish and Ottoman civilizations must have had counter skirmisher

These three heavy infantry-dominated civilizations should definitely have counter skirmisher. No matter how well one plays with these three civilizations, eventually the civilizations with better skirmishers always win. If these three civilizations have counter skirmishers, they can at least fight more balancedly against civilizations with strong skirmishers. These three civilizations should definitely have at least some counter skirmisher.

1 Like

Sweden has leather canons and Ottos get delilers and both civs get artillery; so they dont need it. If they would struggle that much theu wouldnt be 2 of the most played in treaty

4 Likes

Ottoman doesn’t need any late game buffs. If anything they need some late game nerfs. Janissaries are insanely cost effective after their cost is reduced by 20%. Culvs with an extra 15% attack and Hitpoints is kinda ridiculous for a civ with insanely good Heavy Infantry, Grens, Hand Cav, Skirms (Abus), and 20-range-goon-melting-pikemen who also get 20% cheaper later game.

Civs are supposed to be asymmetrical, with how good ottoman is for the first chunk of each game (basically dominate age 2-4) it shouldn’t be good late game.

Russia is very good early, then falls off in the mid game, than becomes strong again late game. This is good design.

Portuguese is awful early game, but good-great from age 3-5.

French is good or okay at everything, but not really great at anything other than super late game.

India is great early-mid game, but falls off later.

Ottoman is great in age 2, and age 3, and age 4, and age 5. Frankly, they need a couple late game nerfs. If you go back a ways, they didn’t have fencing school. That would be a good thing to drop.

Other thing that helped keep ottoman in check was how bad against Dragoons they were. That weakness is gone and probably never coming back.

6 Likes

I could agree with aztecs, but ottomans? nope.
Sweden is sort of artillery centrist, so it doesn’t really need counter skirmishers.

6 Likes

If we consider leather cannons for swedish as grens for others (available at the same age, same hitpoint, same multipliers), then yes i’m agree to say that swedish need skirmishers

Plus all civs have artillery

You have to keep in mind that Sweden can get more cannons because they can have -1 pop cost for leather cannon.
This brings LC to an outstanding 2 pop cost, which is crazy efficient.

1 Like

How does one loose the skirm war with abus?
Ig vs france ethopia their eco is set up better

But like while otto isnt OP in treaty modes

Abus…age5abus with 3 cards
Abus…
Abus… not good??

1 Like

Especially for treaty games, the Aztec, Swedish and Ottoman civilization definitely need counter skirmisher units.

Abus is counter skirm theyvtrade very well vs all skirms

1 Like