I guess on that level cav or infantry civs perform generally better because you need some basic micro skills to be successfull with archers.
1 Like
comon you cant compare Franks with Britons or Goths 
They are so much better balanced than Britons or Goth are that pile up the same bonuses on the same units over and over again.
1 Like
One version of my idea:
- give britons free Bodkin and Bracer
- allow the Yeomen technology to be researched in the blacksmith, and add +1 damage to its effect
- make the base range of the (elite) longbowman 8
- grant an anti-siege bonus to one/some of the Britain units
The aims of this change would be to:
- maintain the power spike Britons get when entering the Castle & Imperial age
- make sure Britons don’t lose their range advantage in the first 35 seconds of Castle age (the time needed to research Bodkin)
- increase the DPS of Arbs (without giving Thumb ring)
- maintain the Briton identity of (long)bowmen with long range
- buff non-FU longbowmen
- give Britons an answer to Siege rams
Some problems and questions which need constructive solutions and answers, and some more explanations:
- Getting Bodkin but not Fletching would be a bit weird (though there are many parallels where this happens the other way round).
-
- (Getting free Fletching would probably be overpowered)
- Yeomen is (currently) much more expensive than Bodkin
- getting +1 range and +1 attack soon after entering the Castle age would be much stronger than the current bonus of having +1 range.
- I think the +1 damage should be compared with the 36% DPS increase FU Ethiopian xbows get - does it feel about right?
- If range-11longbowmen in Castle is too strong, the base-range of non-elite longbowmen could be reduced
- Should the anti-siege bonus be given to infantry, skirms, cavalry, siege, onagers/scorpions only, base-archers, or some other unit? Should it apply to all siege or only to the ram-class (which consists of rams and trebs)?
2 Likes
The problem I see with this is that you have literally just buffed a top tier civ that doesn’t need buffs
2 Likes
I am a bit confused. Your intention is to promote the use of longbowmen and gives longbowmen significant range advantage over arbalests, right?
1 Like
yes
I can see the problem. The +1 damage in early castle would be a buff, which would be bad. Can you find a constructive/creative solution?
1 Like
yeah. By leaving them alone. Thry are a good civ as is abd don’t need change
5 Likes
Longbowman still has certain advantages over arbalest currently. +1 range, lower gold cost and +1 dmg makes longbowman a better version of arbalest. Arbalest cost +5 gold but easier to mass in faster-working archery range. But your intention is not bad at all.
There is not a real USA civ at Aoe 2 DE.
Since Microsoft is an USA company and the Britons are Founders of USA, it will be normally if Microsoft make the Britons the most powerful civ at Aoe 2.
Until now, it is not among the most powerful civs.
The Britons Foot archers may receive their + 1 range from Feudal age and + 1 range from Castle age.
I fully agree with your points. Either you can’t touch the brits at all which is very unfun or you overrun them. it feels unfair to lose your o range you can even land a blow with your own archers.
I would suggest changing the range bonus in imp and Castle to +1/2/3 damage in feudal caste imp for foot archers instead. They keep the UT for extra range.
longbows would have 10 range which is more than any other unit besides bombard cannons, trebs, and cannon galleon.
1 Like
I think probably more than +1 pierce damage would be OP.
Taking some inspiration from the previous posts, I’ll suggest a new (hopefully improved) iteration of the balance change:
- Britons get +1 range in Castle (no extra free range in Imp)
- The Briton UT Yeomen is changed to provide +1 damage instead of +1 range, and its cost is reduced
- Britons get free Bracer (after researching Fletching and Bodkin)
- The base range of (elite) longbowmen is 7 (8)
- Britain Skirmishers receive +7 bonus damage against the ram armour class, for a total of 5 damage/javelin against siege rams
This way Britains are unchanged until late-Castle, and I think they’d be nerfed in the situations where they currently are OP (due to having Arbs with 11 range) and buffed in their ability to take out range-counters. (Skirms against rams, the UU against magonels, and the extra damage would help a lot against high-PA units.)
It’s a question whether they’d really need free Bracer, but I think it’s necessary in order to keep them in A/S tier, and this ‘balance’ change is not intended as a nerf.
PS: I know a lot of people are against all changes, and consider Britons ‘balanced’ already, go give Mat another heart 
1 Like
This thread is a load of nonsense. The Britons are perfectly fine. Cheaper town centers help with booming economy, faster shepherds. You literally have a unit that has the same range as a bombard cannon (Unless its a teuton’s castle with crenellations) meaning that it can actually hit a castle without being hit. Mass longbowmen are basically snipers.
Potentially have a bad match up with the Goths. But every civ has its strengths and weaknesses.
1 Like
excell with archer into xbows maybe early siege or mass longbows with light cav i think @BomberGriffin got a good point
I’m slightly confused.
It sounds like you’re saying Britons are too strong.
But you’re also saying they’re “Perfectly fine”?
1 Like
Not really. They can be countered. So, they not OP. Massed war elephants and huskarl eat longbows for dinner. Khmer/Persians are one of the strongest civs… in team games, where they can potentially boom like crazy.
I’m just noticing that all the counters you name are only available to a small number of civs. Which is precisely the issue I address in the OP. And the thing these changes aim to address.
1 Like
Mass skirms i mean except turks they are ■■■■■■ their
He’s suggesting to remove the range bonuses and replace them with these, so it’s not really a buff.
2 Likes
I think this way too many changes you want propose. My approach is smaller to just change range bonus to attack and extend to feudal to compensate.
Also it would not be too high dps at all. Ethiopian archer exist after all with thumb ring and attack speed bonus.
I don’t want 12 range longbows in the game, so no need to adjust.
1 Like
To explain why I think +3 pierce damage is OP:
FU arbalesters have 6+4 attack. Common targets have between 4 and 8 Pierce armour. Against an 8 PA target (eg FU skirms/eagles), +3 damage is +150%. Compare this with Ethiopian FU arbalesters who have 36% greater RoF than Briton archers.
In Feudal a mere +1 damage against skirms would lead to similar problems.
In contrast +1 damage gives +50% damage to FU skirms, +33% against FU Paladin, +25% against FU HCA… It seems much more reasonable.
As for the suggestion I’d change too much…
It certainly takes more text to describe.
But I’m leaving almost everything before late-castle as-is
(the exception being that the UU would be buffed and skirms could counter the rarely-seen vanilla ram)
transmuting the UT from range into damage
and transmuting the Imp range-bonus from a permanent bonus into a temporary bonus
It’s intended as a coherent list of minimal changes.
Maybe 11 range would be enough, but AOE has to have some loyalty to the mythos of the insanely-long-ranged archer. A mere 10 range won’t do 
1 Like