The Britannies were the most lacking in mobile units of the archers civilizations, which made them difficult to upend against the wind, and the Vietnamese cavalry had a cost-effective pedigree, although there was no third-level attack; Maya has a 100hp bird; China had extensive cavalry; Ethiopia has its machete warriors; The Italians had tech-laden winged horsemen and heavy knights; The Byzantines had armor and discounted camels. As far as the room is concerned, the British cavalry without blood has at least three levels of defense, only suitable for spear throwers, but I don’t think the British should add blood, if you give him the advantage of riding range, can you enhance his maneuvers to do something that the archers can’t do?
Some civs have a mobility weakness, and that’s fine. They still have much better mobility than the Dravidians on open maps. British longbows are very powerful defensive units on closed maps. Despite missing bloodlines, they still have full blacksmith upgrades on their cavalier, that’s great when compared to the Dravidians. They also have husbandry.
The British were not known to be exceptional horse archers. I think using a massive British Longbow is next to impossible on a horse. And employing massive amount of horses is expensive.
Standard British doctrine was basically. Infantry in the front, spear/swords, archers behind. They did have heavy melee cavalry and they were far out numbered by the masses of infantry and archers. They were used sparingly.
The British Isles it rains a lot and also it is a island environment. The ground becomes muddy and slippery, that makes it difficult to use cavalry on great numbers. There quite a few castles around the land, so use of horses was restricted during a siege.
1 Like
The Britons were historically known to have master horse-breeding which played a crucial role in their wars in Scotland and Ireland.
On the other hand, they did also use mounted archers, but on a small scale and probably not equipped with longbows. Longbows are indeed very inconvenient to use on horseback.
Frankly, adding health to their mounted units makes more sense than increasing range. Neither the former nor the latter is necessary, however.
I’m not asking for too much historical regression, I just think people are more and more willing to adopt mobile arms transition, even if their technology is very crippled, such as the Georgians using horseback archer to buy time for the UU, the Vietnamese using horseback archer against knights, the Goths using horseback archer to transition to the castle era, and so on. It would be very interesting for the British to have a bloodline or equestrian archer to enjoy the range and improve the nation
I’m not asking for too much historical regression, I just think people are more and more willing to adopt mobile arms transition, even if their technology is very crippled, such as the Georgians using horseback archer to buy time for the UU, the Vietnamese using horseback archer against knights, the Goths using horseback archer to transition to the castle era, and so on. It would be very interesting for the British to have a bloodline or equestrian archer to enjoy the range and improve the nation
And even if the range of the equestrian shooting to the first, 4+2+3=9, it will not be unreasonable. In the end, the British archery was only used for transition, because the importance of rings and bloodlines was too high, and there was a lack of Parthia
Still would be a hard sell without Thumb Ring Parthian and Bloodlines
If the Vietnamese use the crossbowman against the cavalry civilization, after the opposing cavalry upgrade the second level of defense must turn the lance soldier, and the mounted shooting only needs to send a single soldier, there is indeed a certain restraint in the element