Your damage analysis is on point. +3 would definitely be OP.
Then just changing yeomen UT to give 1 damage instead of 1 range for all archery range units is what I would change.
I think this was one of your suggestions too.
10 range is still more then anything else. Atzec skirms got 9, organ guns, arabelatest all got 8. 11 is still better balanced than 12.
Hahaha i was thinking exactly the same. “here’s a list of things of why they’re op, in conclusion they’re fine”
And you list some totally obscure and situational counters. If goths go huskarl, briton champs eat every goth infantry for breakfast. On top of GB having a WAY better eco and boom.
Britons use arbs to snipe khmer scorps and halberdier their eles. If it wasn’t for the insae range of the arb this wouldn’t happen.
I prefer this as well. Could maybe even lost that extra range from imperial and give them something else in compensation… Blood lines maybe…
But the issue with GB is their numerous bonuses double stacking… The sheep, the tc, the insane range, the faster archery range all compound.
Wow if only the rest of us thought of this… The issue with the OP archers is they kill anything that supports the counters to the archer…
Example you mass skirms, britons make onagers 
to kill your skirms. You make cav to kill GB onagers, arbs annihilate the cav.
Another example… You mass skirms and pikes instead. Arbs snipe the pikes thanks to their insane range then GB cav mops up skirms.
Oh you forgot to include the accuracy of thumg ring additionally to the attack speed. So in total I oukd say +1+2 damage in castle age could also be balanced as an alternative to changing the UT.
sounds more like a natural circle of counter which is totaly balanced
Why the extra range of the Britons which exists since 1999 is now too strong?
The game balance has improved a lot since 1999. I wasn’t around since then, but I’ve heard from the others that balance used to be really bad. I would provide some quotes from around the forum, but that’d be quite a lot of work.
Britons used to be OK in the greater scheme of things, but perhaps as civ-advantages are being reduced across the board there comes a point where it is also good to reduce the civ-advantages in Britons-matchups.
As @phoenix1089 explained, civs which have to rely on ESkirm & (Capped) Ram can really struggle against Britons, whilst some other civs can completely overrun them.
In addition whilst the Longbowman is fine (&fun) for single-player games, and therefor probably fine in the greater scheme of AOE2, I’d like to see them more in multiplayer games (since that’s where I play).
https://aoestats.io/civ/Britons/RM_1v1 For all ELO
https://aoestats.io/civ/Britons/RM_1v1/1250-1650 For ELO 1250-1600
Britons are fine.
can you even read?
My statement: “britons win hard against some civs and lose hard against some civs”
Your reply: “But Britons win about 50% of their matches”
Me: OF COURSE. That in no way invalidates what I was saying.
Let me add a quote from the OP, in fact the 1st sentence of the OP:
Except they arent really making hard counters less effective are they? Look at removing supplies from civs like mayans and mongols as examples of going the other way on that regard.
Or adding extra melee armor to teutons units as another one.
Are they buffing weaker civilizations? Yes. But are they working on hard/soft counters? Absolutely not.
And to do so would require homogenization on a scale I doubt most would want to see
Not pro here. Britons seems good especially in hands of fast player petential to out micro mangonels is insane. and even playing archers vs them is sometimes frustrating. Maybe reason why they are so goood is curent map gen of arabia since they love to go drus -> crosbows.
You have a point that removing Mayans’ Supplies did go in the opposite direction, so it’s possible the devs don’t want to decrease the number of civ wins. I’m hoping it was simple carelessness.
Actually the Mongol Supplies removal shows how civ-wins can be reduced without homogenisation, imo. Mongols have FU Champions (except for Supplies) so with supplies they could counter Goths the same way everyone else does. Without supplies they have to get more creative, but I think they still have a good chance.
Do you have any particularly reasons to think that Goths have a strong civ advantage against Mongols?
I found one example of the matchup, with Viper, and Viper didn’t seem to think Goths had a strong advantage:
Remember, my proposal still leaves Britons with +1 range, +1 damage on foot-archers, no thumb-ring, a usable UU with extra-long range, and skirms which can deal with rams.
It might have many flaws (it’s sure to be imperfect when I put it together with input from only 2 other players) but imo ‘homogenisation’ isn’t one of them.
Just having fully upgraded champs alone doesn’t mean you beat goths lol. Goths still produce much faster and cheaper
Yes, and probably give them Paladin, siege ram, siege onager and bombard canon too. And add bombard canons to Warwolf for extra blast radius. Just 50-80% faster build time and that too just for castles seems very weak. Let all stone buildings get built 100% faster. Also the sheep working 25% faster isn’t that effective, so that should be something like 75% or atleast 60% faster.
Archers were never this strong in older versions, original archers would die easily to skirms in lesser numbers or even vs few knights and mangonels, you can win now with not the best micro and beat their counter units, all archers/xbow shoot insanely fast in DE given the low latency, fast response and firing rate plus more range is deadly on this game version.
However extra range is not that bad, the problem is fast ranges that stacks too hard with other civs, if aztks got nerfed that much it is time to nerf britons fast archery range to 10% and only civ bonus no longer team bonus and that’s it.
the aztec bonus affects all military production. the britons bonus only affects ranges, big difference.
the problem with archers is two fold. stacking (which a slight nerf to would help), and melee pathing needs to get further fixes to bring it in line to where it should be. it’s already better then when DE went live, but still room for improvement.
No offense man but that answer shows little to not real experience vs briton archers, first they have more numbers and they can just give one step back and destroy other xbows civs once balistic is on, in order to beat that you need to sacrifice numbers to get close enough and even doing so you would be simply behind in numbers, any experimented players knows how awful is to fight briton xbow specially more in team games cause mayans and ethiopians gets stronger heck even saracens.
Aztks in the other hand well, no knights and missing vital upgrades for archery range, docks and missing halb was enough sacrifice to justify the speed creation.
put a ram in front of your archers and win. its a very commonly advised tactic against britons.
and even then, britons archers aren’t firing as fast as other civs archers are shooting either.
as for you saying they are beating archer civs with ease, tournament results are a mixed bag on that
and yet they still ahve insane siege and monks
This makes your entire engagement at the speed of the ram. So can easily be out manoeuvred.
Also britons don’t ONLY train archers. Besides the fact they can literally kite and kill the ram they could use other units to detonate the ram while sniping your army.
Welcome to aoe2de…literally a different meta…
And on top of that yall saying all civs have always been balanced? Im sure peeps been moaning about britons forever. Nevermind the archer buffs in de
We also have more wallable arabia (further decreasing the strength of melee civs)
yes and no, you don’t need the ram to remain out in front, you just need it to soak a volley or two.
and that requires micro which takes focus away from your actual army, which you can use to your advantage.
yeah that is why britons were always a top tier choice for the first 15 years or more of the game?
oh wait the game revolved mainly around huns, aztecs, mayans, and vikings for that period. yes britons are stronger now then they were at release, but you could argue every archer civ is stronger, and the reasons for that have already been discussed, pathing and stacking. pathing is getting better but still needs improvement, and stacking is something a lot of people wouldn’t mind seeing nerfed slightly.
which is also apparently getting nerfed, which means more aggression and better for melee civs. as pathing gets better you won’t see archer civs be so dominant
something to think about, but in tournaments this year, Britons have seen fairly neutral results, which would indicate that they aren’t overbearing.
They do, they’re the most one trick pony civ in the game.
If I’m against Britons I know in the beginning what units he’s going to make: Archers-Crossbowman-Arbalest (Longbow in Imp if he has Castles)
Britons are fine, the only thing that can be changed is their Team Bonus, because it’s very strong with an Ethiopian/Mayan/Vietnamese flank.