Yes, I try to get them every game. Because otherwise the eco is way to easy to raid as TCs damage doesn’t scales naturally. And ofc it helps all other defences, too.
Archer attack upgrades are very important, also for civs who usually don’t use archers.
Edit: dagorad I will come to you tomorrow, atm I’m too tired to respond to your post.
That doesn’t mean the large majority of players do, neither does it mean top players (that have to play with the balance you are attempting to screw with) do so. That just means you do.
If you do that every game then no wonder you think HC’s are a worse investment. You, specifically, are doing something to make their investment less valuable compared to a similar option. That doesn’t mean you’re right, or that you’ve got an argument to buff the HC. That’s just foolish. That’s like arguing to buff the LC because you never get the Hussar tech because it’s too expensive and without Hussar, LC isn’t good enough. It’s nonsense.
There are multiple reasons to it. I don’t really think about it anymore, but also one of the main reasons is to have a smoother skirm switch. As the armor upgrade makes no sense to make preemtively, the attack upgrade actually does.
Maybe pro has too high pace or whatever, but I can tell you it’s very neat to have these upgrades as it can be very costly and even game-deciding not to have them when you need them.
I’ve not checked it, but I’m pretty sure in most pro games going deep into imp you will see both players getting the archer attack upgrades. They are just too useful to skip. I’m pretty confident to say, that I expect pros to pick them up every time they see the game will be quite long.
Do most pro games use a skirmisher and/or archer unit on both sides of the game?
They do? Geez, wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that archers are one of a very few class of units in the game (monks, siege, cavalry, infantry, archers, villagers, tell me if I’ve missed one) and Skirmishers are an archer-class unit that counters archers, and thus, will use the same upgrades?
You see attack upgrades because if your opponent decides you’re going archers and thinks skirms are an efficient long-term option, they’ll do it. Thus, both sides have the ranged attack options. It has almost nothing to do with defensive structures. Also, archer v archer matchups aren’t exactly unpopular so that contributes to the tech use.
Against Eagles? Because that’s the contention. Mayans. Aztecs. Incas. Skirms are really bad against Eagles. So why get the attack upgrades? Go HC. That’s what he did. It worked. His play makes sense.
actuallz i have seen viper to this as well many times. getting aercher attack upgrades just for defese buildings in advance and for alter switches even thought he goes full knights or something.
Yes all the pros at some point get arch upgrades and ballistics even eventually for defence at some point
Thx guys, I almost startet to overthink my general gameplan xD.
Maybe you don’t get always all upgrades or you made the bold decision to not get them.
And that why in the very beginning I made the decision to let the attack upgrades already be researched, but not ballistics and chemistry.
So my attempt is already in concession to whoistowhos opinion, besides I think it is not a good way to transit into the lategame without these upgrades. I already calc to make more upgrades for the arbs/xbows than I would usually need to do if I were in that sit.
But ofc I never make it, cause even the arb or xbow switch is comparably bad, especially in the long run. But the argument is, that the HC switch is actually objectively worse.
And that’s what makes me understand why they are in this bad state currently.
Viper goes Archers in feudal against the drush, and grabs Fletching. Never gets another archer tech despite going castles for UU’s, because he doesn’t go for an Archer unit the rest of the game.
Just because you see people do it often doesn’t mean it’s always going to happen. Ever think it might have to do with what you expect from your opponent?
You haven’t watched the example if you believe that.
But it’s not. We’ve been over this. It’s just clearly not. Two people claiming every game the pros do the same thing are not a credible source. No top player can do the same thing every game and be successful.
Yes, he’s trolling with organ guns… is this your argument? Trolling viper doesn’t does it, so it’s not common?
We are talking about common games, not trolling viper.
It’s just disrespectful to use this kind of “example”.
It must also be disrespectful to mention Tatoh’s game where he didn’t get any, right? Because you don’t like that example. Explain again why you don’t like that example? I actually have forgotten why you decided to throw out an example of the HC winning a game.
How about this?
Collection cup, Ro16, neither player gets any archer upgrades in game 2.
Every other game was archer v archer, and as such, had full upgrades. Which means for the one eligible game to prove your claim, it doesn’t.
G2 (again) on Nomad, Neither civ gets an archer upgrade the entire game.
G4 on Golden Swamp, No archer upgrades for Red (and we shouldn’t expect it here, but still.)
And… Most importantly, G5. Blue goes HC. He never picks up an Attack upgrade. and wins (warning, heavy dose of AOE 3 shenanigans)
Stop being full of it.
There is so much more I don’t like this example. Because Liereyy made really bad decision in this game. He just played a comp that cries “use HC against me!” and didn’t even try to adapt.
He should have used arbs as mayans. They have the cheapest ones, it’s nothing wrong with using arbs in that situation. It makes playing against that comp so much harder.
He heavily commited to eagles, but didn’t used them to their strength. Eagles are supposed to mainly counter archers and raid. He didn’t do either. As he saw the HC he should have made a switch to arbs and used his eagles to raid. That would be common game sense. Instead he took very unfavorable fights against a unit which counters his comp and even with less ressources and bad engagement.
This is a very bad example, cause Liereyy played really, really bad.
And ofc what I mentioned before, tatoh was already ahead by far. Maybe the HC were the right move there, but only because liereyy had made a bad decision for his army comp.
If your opponent doesn’t uses monks or halbs you can games easily with elephants. It doesn’t make elephants a good unit, it 's just bad gameplay from your opponent.
What about the other three examples in the Bo5 between Vinch and Villese.
I will watch them at some point. I’ve not unlimited time. But it will be the last time I look at your examples if it is the third time it is a bad example. I will give you some time to chose a good example that’s worth looking at.
I don’t have unlimited time, sorry.
“If it can’t make my argument look good, it’s a bad example.”
Completely ignores four examples because he expects only bad examples.
Explain exactly, what is the point in trying to have a discussion with you?
And how can any game be a “bad example” of a player not getting the archer attack techs when you claim that’s it’s common for players who aren’t going for archers to get the archer upgrades for fortifications? The only qualifier to look for is whether or not a player does as you claim they would, and get the attack upgrades for fortifications. So if they don’t (and these are all recent tournaments involving the best players in the world) then what are you on about?
recently, i played with burgundians. Opponent made pikes with aztek, so i figured my best counter was HC, because burgundian has bonus on them, and they are supposed to be good against infantry.
i got totally crushed …
explanation i think: low fire rate, lot of overkill damage
I am not trolling stop asserting that I am. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are trolling. This is now the second time you’ve asserted I’m trolling just because I don’t agree with you. Stop it.
Very good addition to the thread, thanks.
I was wondering about Burgs HC all the time. But maybe they finally show the devs what’s the prob with HC in their current design.
Thank you.
Next balance patch, accuracy will be set to 72%, kappa
Another game where one player never gets the attack upgrade for archers, Game 4.
Game 6, Nobody gets an archer upgrade until a minute before the game ends, then blue gets Fletching.
I will remind you, for literally every game besides the ones I’m mentioning, both players tech either full archer or full skirm, and get the upgrade for military. Thus far, there is *one example (this g6) of a player getting an attack upgrade for a defensive purpose, mid raid, (fletching) so contrary to your belief, it’s far more rare to get archer upgrades for anti-raiding than it is to just ignore them entirely.
The basis for your argument is bunk.
I actually threw the burg HC into my calc. They actually performed quite well in comparison.
This may come from the fact that they only need 2 shots to take out a halb.
From 27 burg HC in average almost 23 survived against 56 FU halbs.That’s pretty good result.
But said this, i’m not 100 % sure if this is the case in a real game cause of the mentioned overkill. I think even the medium hit and run uses individual unit micro where overkill is way less impactful than it is in a real scenario.
Nevertheless I think for Burgs the HC switch might actually be the best HC switch in the game because of them needing 33 % less shots to kill a FU halb.
And if this doesn’t works, it would show how bad HC are.