Sorry Who, but your comparison to not compare them are a bit lackluster.
First we donât want to compare HC to Arbs in all tasks. We just compare HC vs (X-BOWS) in the MAIN task of HC. If HC canât even outperform xbows in their MAIN task, it actually shows their biggest issue, it shows why they are in their current state. It basically makes no sense to make HC if you can make xbows which perform just better in the task you need HC to perform. I will come to this later.
This is not a good thig if arbs are basically better in almost EVERY real scenario you want to switch to HC. And in most cases these scenarios arent as clear as we project them here. HC are very vulnerable to ranged fire, especially arbs but also skirms. Usually the scenario isnt going against âonly halbsâ but more halbs + ranged support. In this scenario the more HP/value, more micro-revarding arb has great benefits over the HC. But we figured out that HC even in the clear scenarios which should suit them, are actually worse than their counterpart ONE AGE EARLIER. This leads to the current state of HC were you almost never make them, cause there is basically no reason for most civs. I know there are special scenarios were they make sense, sometimes. I made them when testing the FImp full Feitoria strat with Portuguese, cause of the low tech-in costs and arquebus, I wanted a food-consuming ranged support to my siege which could deal with low numbers of enemy cavalry aswell. But this only works with HC as long as you have higher numbers. Itâs exactly the opposite than the sits you want them usually. You want them as ranged support to the cav. You want them as possible counter to a halb spam. And we usually see anything but HC in that situation. We see champs, skirms, various UUs. But almost never HC, which are supposed to be the âeasy to tech in hard counterâ. So why people prefer the other options in the exact scenario HC should excel in?
This is the problem. And the reasoning behind it is shown by the comparison to x-bows in THAT SPECIFIC task. If they canât outperform a more common, more versatile unit in their main task, there is basically no reason to ever make them. And I think almost all civs have access to castle age x-bows comparable to Trashbows. And Trashbows actually outperform HC vs halbs with equal res.
Thatâs also not what we do, we just compare them to arbs in their main task, to show that they are quite bad in doing what they should compared to a more common well-rounded unit. And we also donât compare them to Arbs, we compare them to x-bows, even xbows lacking the last attack upgrade perform better in that task HC are supposed to excel in.
We just show that HC are heavily outperformed in their main task by a NOT FU more common unit. It currently makes basically no sense to ever make HC over xbows lacking the last attack upgrade. Even FRANKS would do better making x-bows to counter halbs than HC. (OFC franks do much better with TA anyways, but it just shows how terrible the current HC state is)
Thatâs why we compare them to x-bows. Because it illustrates their problem quite nicely.
We donât compare them to full extend vs arbs, they canât be as good and versatile as arbs anyways. We compare them vs x-bows in the single task they are supposed to excel in. And they suck in comparison to xbows.
So please donât bend our argumentation process with your false claims. MAybe you just dont like HC. Thatâs ok. But thatâs no reason to make false claims about our argumentation. Thatâs bad habit. We also respect your argumentation process in other threads. At least me.
Thatâs also misleading and was also defied already in this post. The archer attack upgrades you usually make anyways, even if you never make archers. The archer armor upgrades are for both the same and chemistry is actually mendatory to make HC. So the only âdifference makerâ are ballistics (which you sometimes also want for your castles), bracer and the xbow and arb upgrade. Thatâs 4 small to medium upgrades for Arbs which arenât so hard to come by at this stage of the game. And in most real cases you have to chose HC vs xbows or/and without bracer. This reduces the tech-in costs even further.
This comparison is just misleading in that form. Yes HC need less tech investment, but itâs not like you have to chose wether to go paladin or not. The difference is way less than it may look at first glance.
Also you completely ignore that we donât want to buff the HC per se, but instead add a tech to make them more viabel IF you want to tech into them. You just completely ignore that we already discussed that HC may be a bit too easy to tech in (not even considering the comparison to arbs, but in general) for a late-game counter unit. And you completely ignored it with your false claims.
I think I shown that your claims are just misleading and our discussion was already above that shallow tech-in comparison.
We never claimed to make HC comparable to arbs, we just figured out that they are out-teched by trashbows in their main task. Here a video from agearena without micro, which should actually favor HC over trashbows as trashbows are more micro-revarding than HC:
As you can see, HC are even out-teched by trashbows IN THEIR MAIN TASK.
That illustrates what the problem with the current HC implementation is.
