It has long bugged me that the Britons, long famed for their use of the longbow, should generally prefer to go crossbowmen instead. I’m sure they still had crossbows (historically), and used them to great effect, but not as their primary ranged weaponry. Therefore, I propose for your consideration the following rework (changes in bold):
Britons:
Archer Civilization
Shepherds work 25% faster
Foot Archers (except skirmishers) +1 range in Feudal/Castle Age (+2 total)
Unique technologies: <New Name>: Towers +2 attack, garrisoned archers fire 25% more arrows. Cost: 300 food, 150 wood
Yeomen: Foot Archers +1 range, upgrades your Archers to Longbowmen and allows you to train Longbowmen from the Archery Range (with appropriate train time)
Team Bonus: Archery ranges work 10% faster
Tech tree changes:
Lose: Crossbow, Arbalest, Warwolf
Gain: Siege Ram
Overall, I think they’d be a bit weak in castle age, but they would actually have something to go for in feudal age (+1 range archers), and their Imperial Age wouldn’t be dominated by Arbalests, but by Longbows.
Admittedly, I am unsure how this would actually affect them balance wise, I just hate that they use crossbows so much. Also, “Warwolf”, really?
As for their “garrisoned archers fire more arrows” bonus, some civ should have it, so why not the Britons?
yeah removing warwolf is the last i want to be done to britons tbh…
It’s strong, but other civs have BBC (with bonusses). It’s such a nice touch to the civ, one of the best conceptional UTs ever created.
I don’t think this would be a good change. A classic civ shouldn’t get huge changes like that
this would make the longbowman even more similar to archers instead of more unique. If anything I think they could get extra damage to make them better than Xbows/Arbs. But I think a simple train time reduction would make it easier to mass them.
Alternatively Yeomen tech could be included in Longbowmen, and a new UT could be added (that way the range difference between Longbowmen and Archer line is more pronounced)
I was thinking it wouldn’t be enough to make up for losing crossbowman.
Wasn’t that a single machine? It is better suited to a scenario editor object (and there is one) than a unique technology.
Britons basically create bombard cannons from the archery range. Warwolf is either overpowered or useless, a terrible design, IMO. Besides, trebuchets are borderline overpowered as it is.
The addition of new unique units/buildings and/or regional buildings to older civs would be a great opportunity for the Devs to revisit the original civs and give them a minor refresh/modernization. It could be a free patch like when they gave different castle designs to all civs.
Well, even though players prefer more on asians/African split, I expect devs do a better work on Euro split. I would prefer split on Euro civs instead if they are likely to mess up with Asian/African civs like 3K
in theory I agree, but the current devs wouldn’t be able to resist adding some dumb gimmick. Maybe I’m just too jaded, but i just don’t trust that any good will come from design changes to classic civs.
I think you might be right, but I really hope you aren’t. Splitting civs means taking existing civs away from us and replacing them with something new. Any such change should be optional, with a classic data set available to those who don’t want this.
A lot of hopeful thinking you have, the original DE version (and the HD) is already wildly different from the original game, and already modified many of the original civs, and you can’t really expect them not to change original civs more when they have already done it with Persians or Chinese.
They are the same devs and same project leader since the HD version, this game is already by this point more theirs than from the sacred original developers, who apparently in the opinion of many people didn’t ever make anything wrong or gimmicky (fake koreans UU, weird gimmicks for cathapracts/berserk/Hurskarl etc).
Games evolve with its players and can’t/shouldn’t expect to satisfy everyone (no company can satisfy everyone), if they make the changes they do it’s because they clearly have the numbers to back that most people are ok with it, otherwise they would be ore conservative or reverting changes.
