It’s a bit weird from a design perspective to have hca but no tr, that’s true. But buffing their accuracy a bit in castle age wouldn’t change anything for these civs. Hca in imp is a huge commitment. So as khmer and so on you still wouldn’t do it. For arbs it’s not a huge thing bc you might wanna open arbs in early imp or so but then transition into other units. Also against missing knights tr in castle age isnt the biggest deal. It does make a difference but usually people don’t do it before they have large number or even before clicking to imp.
The only thing your proposal would change is buffing ca for civs that have tr before they can get to it. So I don’t really see the point.
It’s not a matter of “people would or wouldn’t”, it’s a matter of strategical choices, even if it has very limited cases. How many players at high level go for Teutonic Knights (and take the elite upgrade), for example? But TK was buffed nevertheless.
Without TR, there’s virtually no reason to go for HCAs. My last and definitive proposal is just to buff HCA’s accuracy, this wouldn’t impact castle age CAs at all so I believe it wouldn’t break anything, the worst that can happen is that this change would be 100% useless, useless for useless, why not? I don’t like to have units/technologies that are virtually useless, what harm would it cause a tiny change only for HCAs?
What kind of diversity? Cavalry archer is one of the most shared unit ever, 35/39 civs have it. And the first non-meso civ that misses it took only 20+ years to appear (Bohemians).
The Heavy upgrade is present in 28/35 civs that have the regular Cavalry archer.
So again what are we talking about? This is not diversity, diversity would have meant to have a lot of civs without the cavalry archer/hca upgrade, ideally those without TR.
So tired of people that add nothing to the discussion and just come to criticize others.
And they costed 40W 70G, I also distinctly remember Bombard Towers dealing melee damage and almost all infantries having 0 pierce armor. What’s the point? Everything can be changed, the latest huge infantry buffs are the proof of this.
I know most people are going to be disappointed when I don’t rally hard here against more CA buffs, and they’re going to be shocked at this length of post out of me. If your civ doesn’t have thumb ring, you will absolutely never make CA because CA lacking that upgrade is unusable. CA should not have it’s unit viability hinging entirely on the back of a secondary technology. I agree with the OP in principle. The base accuracy of the CA should be much higher. End of story.
Agree there, but I thik at the same time cav archers are too strong in the lategame to justify making it easier to transition into them.
I think in the exchange their lategame power need to be reduced a little bit.
I disagree. I don’t even agree on the principle argument that making them more accurate makes them an “easier transition” so to speak. Maybe a higher accuracy makes one extra villager dead in the midgame in the right matchups with a map that suits it, prior to TR. It could just as easily mean one or two extra cav archers get picked for being out on the map before they’re in a proper mass. Better early accuracy induces both of these possibilities.
Higher accuracy means the most when the numbers are small and the missed shots matter a lot more. These are the exact circumstances where the CA is at it’s weakest. For later stages, it wouldn’t matter if the CA had even 80% accuracy, you’d be unreasonable not to get it for the added fire rate.
I find it shocking and bizarre that people think higher accuracy CA before Thumb Ring (at which point they revert to their previous balance state) will somehow destroy the metagame and will result in even Civs with bad CA going for them, despite Tatars being a civ that gets instant free Thumb Ring the moment they gain access to CA, and even with that and other great incentives to go for CA they’re one of the most consistently mediocre Civs in the game based on stats (from Ageofstatistics).
Actually it has unintended consequences, such as the Britons becoming a potent Cavalry Archer civilization simply because they can achieve a dangerous horde before anyone else. Who cares if they are 2nd rate, they still eat Frank Knights for breakfast, and sweep the floor with civilizations like the Teutons.
Really? There is nothing about CA in their current early Castle Age pre-Thumb Ringless form (keep in mind Post Thumb Ring CA would literally be unchanged) that suggests an overpowered unit, and even Tatars a Civ that has CA with base 100% Accuracy + 18% Faster Firing Rate for their CA often prefer going with Archers instead in Early-Mid Castle Age due to requiring less buildings and resources to upgrade them, +1 Range, significantly shorter frame delay and the ability to mass them in Feudal.
I find you thinking Britons being a potent CA civ also bizarre, seeing how none of their Archers bonuses or UTs affect them aside from the TB, they lack Bloodlines for Early Castle Age (a tech that critically adds 40% additional Health for CA), alongside no PTs. Even Teutons and Franks would be unironically better than Britons for CA in Castle Age, seeing how their Wood Eco bonuses come in earlier, they have extra Cav HP (Bloodlines for Teutons, 20% extra health for Franks), and every other CA upgrade Britons have (sans Husbandry for Teutons), Franks also have the foraging bonus to assist.
That’s a weird argument. Chinese and Spanish have almost FU CA and neither uses them because arbs/chu ko nu/conqs are better for them, so ofc 99% of the time Britons players would not bother with CA anyway tho if they also received the range bonus
The Spanish have a miserable archery range transition, lacking the interim Crossbowman unit. Crossbows are very important, both for their raiding potential, and for the player’s survival before they can acquire sufficient Cavalry Archers. Conquistadors do not require thumb ring, or archer attacks to be effective, and add good flavor to that civilization.
As for the Chinese, I have made use of their Cavalry Archers myself, but Arbalester/Chu Ko Nu is a less demanding build, and more importantly a faster build. The Britons somewhat flip things, because whilst Briton Arbalesters are produced faster, their Cavalry Archers would be produced at around the pace of non-Briton Arbalesters. If they were also given 80% accuracy, the versatility gifted by having either option would be a boon. It is not as if one could determine it off scouting as Briton players commonly have at least 1 Stables.
official are afraid to change anything even though it is unreasonable. Anything unreasonable was mistaken for reasonable after 20 years. they can not predict what will happen after things be changed.
