2
(post must be at least 20 characters)
You are way off base Avihool. First of all, using civ data is pointless, because nearly every civ gets xbows. I can go xbows as huns, persians, mongols, aztecs, celts, vikings and just about any civ. In fact many of these civs are better for xbows then archer civs due to their eco bonuses. Take vikings for example, a infantry civ, which can mass xbows with the best of em due to free wheelbarrow, or celts with their lumber bonus, or tuets with cheap farms. You simply cannot extrapolate from civ winrates HOW people are winning with these civs. Aztec and celts in particular have a devastating natural progression from drush to fc xbow/siege/monk. Then take into account that archers/xbows can hit/run knights to wood lines and force knights to retreat. That leaves skirms, but the problem there is if you counter xbows with skirms, you will lose, because you will not castle fast enough. While he is saving food, you are spending food on skirms. You may say well but you are saving gold. Doesnt matter. 200 gold is easy to save. 800 food is not. I dont know what level you play at, but my gaming experience is filled with xbows and they are so difficult to deal with that i primarily find myself going xbows as well.
2 Likes
Itâs funny because Iâm going through this thread and all youâre saying is a version of âarchers have been same for 20 years, my buddies and the âcommunityâ think so too, your opinion is just biasedâ.
Edit: also stop with the unnecessary flagging
3 Likes
I do feel archers are pretty strong. I pick archers civs for almost every Arabia game. For me archers works much better than scouts/knights. So yeah, for me archers can get some nerf. They felt much stronger than just other units.
On the other side i feel like pathfinding for melee is broken / kinda bad. I feel like this makes archers stronger. So i feel like let us first fix path finding, before we really make a nerf to archers.
And we have to note: Based on winrate we really cant conclude archers are too strong. We also see other civs with high win rate.
And another point: Is it just me thinking archers are too strong or is it just i am bad in for example scout rushes?
1 Like
Crossbow is researched by non archer civs a lot since itâs a power spike. The upgrade isnât expensive so it really isnât too much of an investment. Youâll need the archer attack upgrades and ballistics anyway for your castle, TC, and ships. You can get by in castle without thumb ring or any archer defensive upgrades. You cannot say the same about knights or infantry. You have to get their specific armor upgrades that donât apply to any other units or buildings (late game hussar but that is a big maybe). Getting the crossbow upgrade should really make it more difficult to tech switch than it already is.
2 Likes
Archers are very strong on open maps, like Arabia or Serengueti, because walling in is hard. In maps were it is easier, Archers have a lot of trouble being cost effective in Feudal, and Castle Ages, and Scout or Knights step forward as the main tools of aggression
1 Like
Thatâs literally what I have to face in all my games 11 So yeah, my archers end up being a distraction for the enemy while I try to figure out how to get in.
1 Like
Comparerd to knights, there are too weak. Over 5 crossbow and beat knight(full up)
But why do we think they are OP?
Because they are stack from Feudal ages
If you train more than 20 archer from Feudal ages,
It is very reasonable your crossbowmen beat knights who appear 2 by 2 (even if you have 2 stable)
I have never thought this games archer-line is OP
If both players start Castle same, archers never have chances to beat knights.
4 Likes
while i agree with you, you could have just posted this in the thread already discussing it.
3 Likes
Maybe a mod merges this thread with the other one
The problem discussed in that other thread is not that crossbowmen are intrinsically OP, it is that the Castle age meta has become very stale/unvaried with only 2 units being seen in practically every game : Crossbows and Knights
While there are other units, they only number a few in the Castle Age, if ever made.
2 Likes
The thread goes about archers in imp, not about knightsâŠ
For archers comparison: You can stick all archers stacked into a corner. All archers can hit, but just a few knights can attack. That is also one of the strengths of archers.
Ohh i meant this one
The Castle Age actually uses more units than the Imperial Age. Scouts are still used in Castle, and because of them and Knights, Pikes are often seen as defensive troops in large numbers.
Because of the prevalence of Crossbowmen and Cavalry Archers, Elite Skirmishers are also very common, and often even used in offensive roles along with Mangonels.
Mangos and Rams also step in use in the Castle Age a lot.
Monks shine in the Castle Age too, where Ranged units are still not good enough to neutralize them without effort, and where Knights and Battle Elephants are juicy targets for conversion.
On the contrary, most of the Imperial Age is just Paladin-Arbalest-Siege Onagers fests, with Trash units only coming in when Gold is no longer available.
No, it is so difficult to rebut by even the most basic Skirmisher that it is unfunny.
However, Longswordsman is superior. Even Pikeman is superior to Longswordsman.
Really⊠And the instant power boost from being able to create knights in the castle age isnât âtoxicâ?
This is how RTS games are made... When dealing with power spikes, it is up to the player to utilise or offset them. Your opponent can only spike on crossbows if he has previously created a large number of archers, by which time you should have some form of advantage.
Crossbows are required to get their Blacksmith upgrades more so than the Knight line. This is why Bodkin and Crossbow are almost always researched simultaneously. Without Ballistics, doing the polka mitigates their effectiveness against a variety of enemies, which requires the construction of a university.