Want to know about your opinion and thoughts about the cost increasing to the archer line upgrades?
Is it too much? Or is quite balanced?
Crossbow upgrade: From 125F 75G to 175F 125G
Arbalester upgrade: From 300F 300G to 450F 400G. With chemestry and blacksmith upgrades (1300F 1050G)
I think on Castle would be an interesting change but on early Imperial are cheaper Cavalier upgrades (925F 725G) even when economy is set on food and gold when you play KT line.
I add other data about winrate: (according to Age of Statistics and AgeStats)
1000-1200 civs rank.
- Gurjaras (camel civ)
2.Hindustanis (camel civ)
3.Franks (kt civ)
4.Poles (kt civ)
5.Huns (kt-ca civ)
…
13. Vikings (Archer Civ)
1200-1700 civs rank
1.Gurjaras (camel civ)
2.Franks (kt civ)
3.Hindustanis (camel civ)
4. Huns (kt-ca civ)
5. Berbers (camel- kt civ)
…
8.Vikings (archer civ)
9. Mayans (archer civ)
+2000 civ rank
1.Gurjaras (camel civ)
2.Burgundians (kt civ)
3.Franks (kt civ)
4.Chinese (archer civ)
5.Aztecs (eagle-archer civ)
2 Likes
They nerf archer line not because archer line is op in archer civ but the non-archer civ can also use crossbow and viable. Therefore I think following the archer line nerf, they should also buff the archer civ for compensation
1 Like
Castle age nerf was deserved. Imperial age one is probably too much. Maybe it could also be only 50f/50g increase, not 100f/100g.
This will shake the whole game balance by a lot. Archer was useable to play despite having bad eco. Almost all infantry civs used to play as Archer civ because they could justify this archer play even without any archer bonus.
Now I’m really concerned about following civs - Japanese, Goths, Malay, Koreans, Italians, Portuguese, Dravidians, Vietnamese, Bohemians, Saracens, and Incas. Some other civs like Malians, Byzantines, Sicilians, Khmer, and maybe Vikings are also in very rough spot.
7 Likes
now go look at tournaments and what not and tell me if archers are overbearing or not. they absolutely are.
1 Like
what are archer civs supposed to play? Early Pikeman tech? Opponent just rides them down with Knights and runs back low HP ones?
You got any idea how hard it is to beat mass Knights with Crossbows once the Knights have +2? You can never take a fight on your terms due to mobility and Knights are also better healing target.
Already now, Crossbow + Pike dies to full Skirm, dies to Knights if the push happens early enough, dies to Mangonel… question is what does it NOT die to…
Please. Crossbow mostly punished players with bad walling, scouting and especiallu bad macro. If you are 2nd to Castle Age AND haven’t walled properly, shame on you.
3 Likes
funny, when i watch pro games i sit there and watch pure xbow beat just about everything…
15 Likes
Archers civilisations are overall too dominant. Mayans are borderline broken. Skirmishers now a have much more value for the money to counter an archer rush. Powerspike of crossbows was insane.
The Burmese for example now might have a better chance. Archer civilisations absolutely destroy them.
I can see cavalry civilisations doing much better now. A big blob of crossbowmen will be delayed. Civilisation such as the Britons will be unaffected on maps like black forest.
2 Likes
I prefer to improve the melee pathing before nerf on xbow. Non top tier archer civs get hit by this without knowing there is compensation. If any nerf needed, I prefer to reduce upgrade cost of elite skirmisher as an indirect nerf.
5 Likes
Agreed. I was hoping for an indirect nerf via decreased Cost/Time for the Eskirm upgrade and better pathing (as well as something like the Xbow cost nerf, which they did).
Its true, which is why Xbow definitely needed some kind of nerf, but I’m less convinced with Arb. Pro games are one thing, but I just see this increasing the already dominant cav play at lower elos, and this definitely hurts “infantry” civs that usually go Archerline.
1 Like
I still think its too little of an increase for the value it provides. It should at least cost 50 net resources more than bodkin arrow as it buffs hp, range, attack and training time.
Arbalester upgrade provides so much more value than cavalier upgrade considering the point of time when the upgrade kicks in and cost of the units. What I mean is at 50 min and 130 vills, Cavalier upgrades are cheaper and more valuable than Arbalester upgrades. But usually archer players hit imp sooner with less eco and at that low eco, Arbalester upgrade provides so much more value.
Those stats for “all” maps which includes open, closed and nomad start maps. Obviously archer play is suboptimal in Nomad starts and situational in closed but top-5 win rates for Solo open 1700+ from ageofstatistics.com is Gurjaras, Franks, Mayans, Hindustanis and Vikings. So two archer play based civs are there, and Gurjara, Hindustanis have received appropriate nerfs. So this nerf to archer upgrades is totally fine and will probably not even affect the state of archer civs.
Unfortunately Franks might look even stronger now than before because the civs that commonly challenge them have all received a nerf.
The meta is going to change to a more defensive gameplay, first will be guys going skirms, eventually archer players doing the transition to knight and then the skirm players just defending with monks and boom which will cause a defensive meta trying to counter the counter play reducing the economic hit.
As for team games it doesn’t change anything, the strongest army composition remains the same.
Considering how much the crossbow upgrade offers, it’s just a tiny nerf. 50f 50g isn’t going to starve the empire.
Arbalest upgrade doesn’t offer the sheer value but the powerspike with bracer and chemistry it offered with the faster imp of archer plays and ability of beating all its counters of castle age warrants the nerf. It might look harsh but when you consider the costs of paladin, heavy camel, champion and HCA upgrades it’s still pretty cheap
9 Likes
Crossbowman change is good but arbs didnt need a change imo
I think the nerf is justified and long due. Archers become more and more dominant the higher Elo you achieve and that is specially noticeable at Pro level matches, since they are so good at both preemptive and quick-walling, mitigating most of the damage from melee units such as Knights.
2 Likes
It is time for me to bury the vietnamese in oblivion and pick a better competitive civ to play with.
Bengalis and dravidians are tempting me. Yes, I cant help but pick low tier civs
This will definitely effect all archer civs and almost all infantry civs. The number is as high as 15 civs.
True. Franks will be back at #1 after the patch. Or maybe #2 as Gurjaras nerf is not enough.
Pick Italians in Arabia then.
2 Likes
Yes the performance between different skill level are too different for xbow compared to other unit.
please post links because PURE Crossbow is both a very bad strat and easily countered by full Skirms. Normally it’s like, 3 ranges xbow, FEW MONKS to turn a 10 Knights vs 15 Crossbows literally around in terms of outcome, and Siege to pressure. I haven’t seen pure Crossbow in ages in a tournament and for that matter you see tons of Knights too, to snipe Siege and if it’s 2 Knights civs it’s Knights vs Knights always in the long run, neither player makes more than 15-20 Crossbow throughout the game.
1 Like
I have picked them in TG, not in 1v1…
But with the archer nerf i am afraid they may became bottom 5 in arabia
2 Likes
I’m betting Devs have plans for gurj as well as bengali down the line, and maybe even drav.
Gurj is almost a net buff, considering xbows being nerfed (gurj hardly go xbow), their sheep might be buffed if you drop a 2nd mill, leaving the 10% bonus damage nerf(basically inconsequential?) And shivs will still be as oppressive with that speed and dps. And if anything, cheaper to upgrade
Like this sicilian nerf came out of nowhere with no warning (people complained about it for months, but people complain about Britons for years, but Devs never indicated they thought it was an issue)
I just wish devs gave a little more clarity on the direction they’re going.
At least they’re putting these PUPs out, but still seems they surprise us with these decisions, like why nerf the bonus damage reduction but not hauberk or construction times(both complained about A LOT more)
Why do they leave civs like Britons untouched when they’re basically an auto pick in TGs, but nerf stuff like sicilians with their avg WR?
3 Likes