I disagree with that. There is no reasoning to make a dead-end at any random time. It’s an rts, it doesn’t has the requirement to represent 100 % historical accuracy or have dead-ends or whatever. And the way the devs approached it with the different campaigns also doesn’t make it necessary the out of campaign gameplay needs to be historically accurate.
It makes absolutely no sense to have teutons or celts in a medieval rts.
What about meso civs in 14 th century?
…
I don’t want to list it, but first your argument of historical accuracy is already defied by the game itself. And then you use wrong historical methods to justify your bad claims.
HC are part of the game, it makes no sense to make them deliberately terrible just because some people don’t like them. They have a place in the game, they are supposed to be a support unit for cavalry civs in the lategame. And this is historically accurate to much more degree than your claims. Because in the process of firearm development they became exactly what they represent in the game.
And the game is also historically accurate with their first appearance as hit-and run cav and turkish janissaries. Maybe it’s a bit too early in castle age, but that’s devs decision.
It makes no sense to add a unit with a certain task representing the firearm revolution that just sucks. If they want to represent the firearm revolution they must be able to perform it - if the player decides to tech into it.
xDDD
made my day.