No, Archers mustn’t be that effective vs buildings, check the Viper’s game 1 million arbalests and see how broken obsidian arrows was.
WTF are you talking, the why you see the most dominant civs in the game being all archers, arbalest alone is super powerful, even Hera said that arbalest upgrade cost increase was fine for that reason.
Maybe because Britons actually lack Thumb Ring and the extra range is to offset that, without mentioning that Brions have already weak cavalry, and for that reason I proposed no more range in Imperial so Onagers can get a bit closer to kill?
I think in general it would be helpful to also describe why you’re changing things. What’s the goal? To make range only Longbow-specific and in return make Archers train even faster?
It’d also be helpful to reformat how you’re presenting the changes, as initially I thought the ‘pre-change’ bit was already the intended change and got confused why there was nothing. Or at least write (old) and (new). You’re not immediately reading the bottom, so it could be helpful!
However, on the topic of changes, I’m not sure how I feel about removing the bonus range entirely. IMO it’d be nice if they simply got one range in Castle Age, and Longbowmen got +1 additional range. Creates more incentive to go for UU if you’re after long range, reduces their power a little (can even maybe bring the +1 range into Imp only?), while still remaining strong with the identity of having sniper-Archers.
I don’t know who is Viper and I don’t watch video too much. I can agree with your point with a different opinion, nothing should be able to kill buildings fast in castle age.
I know we can’t really have a conclusion here because I am talking about the archer itself , not the strategies that based on archers in your opinion. I think archer civs with high win rate because they can snowball advantage that they gained in early game, As I mentioned before, archers can be build in feudal age and xbow upgrade will provide a huge power boost in early castle age. At this point, archers can fight knight well that made you think archers are good.
What I am trying to say is that If you have played Death Match or any close map, you should know foot archers are fairly weak in late game and they can’t even stop any infantry beside pike line. With the same gold cost, probably archers can only have a chance to kill monks.
Their cavalry is weak does not mean they are not enough to kill onager. You don’t have to use paladin to kill onager and nobody will upgrade paladin when they are using archers as their main units. British archers can outrange all common units since castle age which #### #### #### to counter.