Someone else quite rightly pointed out the very odd fact that the upgrade from archer to crossbow is strangely cheaper than the upgrade from Man At Arms to Long Sword.
Which is quite strange, given that the Crossbow is actually quite a bit more powerful then the LS, and you’re typically going to make more archers than infantry.
Which raises the natural question; is the Crossbow upgrade too cheap? People have been complaining about the power of archers for a while, maybe this is the solution. Increasing the cost by maybe 75 gold and 100 food could make the upgrade more in line with the militia line and make the crossbow deathball a bit harder to get off the ground, and buff other playstyles in turn.
No, it is hard countered by even the normal Skirmisher so hard, it is not even funny.
Better than Longswordsman, however. Even Pikeman is better than Longswordsman.
So…it’s better than the longsword, but should still be cheaper anyway?
It is not the Crossbowman’s fault, that Longswords are bad. Crossbowman is balanced alongside Knights and Monks, which also show up in Castle Age.
Elite Skirms delete Crossbows something fierce, and even Turk Skirms are amazing against them.
So maybe the LS upgrade should be cheaper, instead?
Perhaps it should also be faster.
yes, this is definitely an issue as it is so easy to upgrade feudal archers xbows with bodkin and get a big power spike and get a perfectly viable unit that can be used throughout castle age. Not to mention xbows don’t hurt your eco boom at all, you can soundly go 3 TC boom behind it, 25 wood isn’t much at all and you can easily mass them up
I disagree, as Crossbows are not hard to counter in Castle Age, despite their power spike.
On the contrary, they are about the same level as Knights, Mangonels or Monks.
It is Longswords who do poorly for their price point. From the best unit in Feudal, to the worst in Castle.
I agree that skirms counter archers in feudal pretty hard but in castle, you’ve to invest food and skirms themselves are pretty bad as units vs anything not archer, the mangonel also comes into play to deal with skirms, so thats another thing thats changed in castle age.
Not saying xbows need a nerf, but the Xbow upgrade should be more expensive. At 125 food and 75 gold, even if you’ve like 5 archers left and you’re about to transition into something else, its a no brainer upgrade
to be fair when i brought this up, i didn’t say i thought the price was an issue, i was just pointing out that, by the logic used in the discussion we were having that the price was way to cheap.
i am honestly fine with xbows the way they are.
No, Skirms also counter Crossbows pretty effectively in Castle, specially since teh Elite Skirm is so cheap, and even if you play Turks, just the second Archer Armor will do the trick.
To counter Crossbows, you need substantially less Skirms, and the other player will lose quite a lot of Gold on those Xbows, which may prevent him from going for Knights.
It is easier to field Knight + Skirm, than Knight + Crossbow, or Crossbow + mangonel.
@DemiserofD what are the costs?
Its quite annoying how you state your opinions as “facts” everywhere. Especially when you clearly lack game knowledge.
Theres a reason in 1v1 games, early castle we see xbows in 90% of the games. Eskirm upgrade is more expensive and takes longer and before you have +2 armor and ballistic you can trade quite fine with xbow vs eskirm. With the current DE xbow+mango+monk is more effective than Knights+skirm.
But this is not even about “are xbow too strong in castle”. This is about if the “upgrade is too cheap”. And it definitely feels like the most cost efficient upgrade in the game (maybe with light cav). Imo it could definitely be a bit more expensive, maybe 150/100? Dunno…
On a side note, why was the Elite skirm upgrade made more expensive in DE?
On the subject, are people unhappy with xbows when pathfinding is better (ie.Voobly) Because if we start balancing around DE’s flaws it’s going to be more of an excuse to fix things even slower 11
Tbh there is no risk of light cav being OP in Castle age. Actually, I have no idea why no one cares about the fact Light cav is as underplayed (if not more!) as infantry in castle.
Missed this. African Kingdoms had reduced the Eskirm upgrade cost significantly. Guess they felt it was a bit too much. Also guess they didnt knew back then how dominant ranged units would become
It is not strangely cheap. The crossbow upgrade comes after a player investing into archery techs and making several archers which in itself is quite an investment (you typically need two archery ranges to make them). Add other techs like thumb ring and ballistics that require a fair share of resources and you realize that the archery investment is anything but cheap.
On the other hand, Archers really don’t need their Armor upgrades, while the militia line definitely does. Plus Supplies, which reduces their cost in the long run but actually increases it in the short term.
I’d say they have equal costs except for elite upgrades, where the crossbows are substantially cheaper.
This. I have always thought of the Huge Crossbow spike in Castle Age as Toxic for this beautiful game. The crossbow upgrade price must be doubled at the very least.
Really… and the immediate power spike you get from being able to make knights in the castle age is not “toxic”?
This is how RTS games are built… power spikes exist and it’s up to the player to use them or offset them when dealing with them. Your opponent can only spike on crossbows if he already made a chunk of archers and by then you should have some sort of a plan against that.
That power spike is also quite toxic to unit variety indeed, but this is off-topic. We can talk about Knights in another thread. This thread is about the Crossbowman upgrade, so be on topic.