This is often a mistake, first, because they cost a lot more, more than 30% more, and second, because even if people don´t realize, cossacks are one super strong cav, one of the strongest in the game, so of course if you compare them with a higher cost and super strong cav, they end up being underwhelming, but no, i think coyotes are good, actually strong in some cases, i do think they can use a buff, i´m not saying they are OP or super fine, i do think they could use a little buff in something, but i don´t think they are bad: they basically have like 15% less hp than the standard cav, but have around 8% more attack, or 50% more with the plaza wich is massive, and almost the same speed, and take 80% of damage and often less than that, form anti-cav, so i think they are actually strong, you can raid and enter battles, and then run and heal up in 15 seconds and repete xd.
the reason they are uniformly weaker in stats and ranged resistance is due to that tag.
they cannot be as strong as true cavalry since they have much less weakness to anti cavalry bonus.
if they had the cavalry tag and took the full anti cav bonus, their stats would increase to compensate.
if a shock infantry with 30% ranged resistance and same stats/cost as a true cavalry was released, it would be op.
as they take reduced anti cav damage, they will always have less ranged hp and deal less damage to light infantry. this is intended.
but like they are not, the steppe rider breaks that. and also their stats numbers are comparable to hussars when you take pop into account and with the civ unique upgrade they even have the same range resists as hussars.
That is a false assumption i think since, there is nothing that stops the civ designers from going in another direction, since you can also just do something like change their cost rather then their stats. aoe 3 is flexible enough in design that rules are broken constantly
you are only half right here, their base stats are comparable in damage to hussars, coyotes for example deal sligthly more damage at the same pop. its only the range hp that holds them back
lets compare them to other units then. all numbers rounded up so not 100% accurate.
a raider has 258 effective ranged hp, 33 attack vs light infantry and 7 speed for the cost of 100 food 40 coin.
a coyote runner has 173 effective ranged hp, 18 attack vs light infantry and 6.25 speed for the cost of 85 food 25 wood.
a 49% increase in ranged hp and a 83% increase in damage.
that’s 1.85 hp, .24 attack per cost vs 1.58 hp, 0.17 attack per resource. thats a %40 increase in damage vs light infantry and %17 increase in ranged hp per resource spent.
steppe raiders have 215 effective ranged hp, 30 attack vs light infantry and 7.25 speed for the cost of 85 coin.
shotels have 189 effective ranged hp, 19.5 attack vs light infantry and 6 speed for the cost of 55 food 50 coin.
a %54 increase in damage vs light infantry and a 13% increase in ranged hp.
thats 2.6 hp, .36 attack per resource vs 1.8 hp, .19 attack per resource. a %90 increase in damage vs light infantry and a 44% increase in ranged hp per resource spent.
cavalry are on a whole other level against ranged infantry because they need to be, they take more damage from anti cavalry.
steppe raiders have more ranged hitpoints and deal vastly more damage against light infantry than any shock infantry in the game. they also only cost 85 coin and move much faster, with higher siege.
at 30 damage a swing and 215 ranged hp, while costing 20-30 resources less than shock infantry, they are indeed much more cost effective.
agreed, anything is possible.
since there is a pop difference I prefer to compare within same pop examples.
Not if you are in cover mode as you suggest… half speed and attack and will never get to touch those skirms.
Which is what I said, they are pretty bad at their job unless they are carded. Either way Keshiks are not the main point discussed and I don’t wanna turn this into that either.
I thought they also had the infantry stat properly. However I think coyote runners need the benefit I mentioned. For the powerful combination Dragons + skirmishers + cannons (Which although it has no bonuses against these, they are still effective).
this is a flawed comparison cause not all cav units have the multis as units like raiders, steppes, sowars ,naginata and iron flails. those are specialist units that have unique roles in clearing skirm type units. by this comparison then the steppe rider also deal twice the damage to light infantry as hussars at the same pop, but that doesn’t make it an universal claim that steppe raiders are also better at clearing light infantry then all other cav ( even though its true). the steppe rider is also an unique unit, so using their stats for comparison is doubly flawed since the comparison is not general
yeah but if they are in cover mode then their main job is to tank, not to actually fight, so you don’t need to care. a similar thing happens in treaty, the monk can just stand there and take shots, he doesn’t even need to move half the time to be effective
yeah but that is 1 card and most chinese units need cards to be effective or to realise their power, and tbh if you get them in mass mongolian scourge isn’t even that needed, the mass is always more key
falcs only do the 100 dmg to coyotes, that has always been the case I think
Well at least the monk has other roles like collecting treasures, building TP and TC, etc, beyond simply being a very slow moving wall vs one very specific type of unit that people won’t typically mass against China until later in the game (cause they usually exploit cav weakness before any skirm goon combo can happen).
So again if the question is ‘‘are disciples completely useless’’ then no, as other pet-like units they help with exploration and weakening treasure guardians, plus they are a very slow moving wall for defense against skirms. Now the OP title is units that need a ‘‘buff/rework’’, and as I expressed earlier, I think that White Pagoda disciples fall into this category in supremacy (for reasons already referred to), and as such, I proposed my ideas for a rework/buff.
i will just disagree that they need a “rework”, buff maybe ( if they snare starting age 2 I think that would make them pretty good, op even)
then feel free to compare Cossack stats per cost to any of the shock infantry available. 2.15 hp, 0.18 attack per resource vs the 1.58 hp, 0.17 of coyote runners, the .1.8 hp, 0.19 of the shotels, or the 1.48 hp, 0.19 of the chimu. the comparison with the raider is even more lopsided.
but this brings me to my main point:
individually and per cost the 3 available 1 pop shock infantry are much weaker against light infantry than the 3 available 1 pop cavalry. and this is by design, since those 3 shock infantry also take 40% less anti cavalry bonus damage.
1 pop cav vs light infantry> shock infantry vs light infantry per cost and per unit.
what I’m saying is that as an aztec/inca/ethiopia player i shouldn’t have to pay more than other civs to counter light infantry with my cav equivalent, and that the tradeoff between taking reduced anti cav damage for much weaker capability is not worth it. i would rather them take full anti cav damage and have their ability vs light infantry massively boosted.
in other words, replace the shock infantry experiment with cavalry instead.
I’ve never seen anyone ever argue that hussars are more pop effective vs any of the 1 pop cav, or claim that steppe raiders are not pop effective counters vs light infantry. that steppe raiders feel flimsy and hard to mass are separate issues. raiders are also more effective than steppe raiders.
it is normal for 1 pop units to be more pop effective than 2 pop units, it actually holds more true for 1 pop cavalry than shock infantry. just compare raiders, steppe raiders and Cossack stat per pop/cost to hussars vs light infantry, then do the same with 3 available one pop shock infantry. the 1 pop cavalry will always be significantly ahead of the shock infantry.
all one pop cavalry and shock infantry are unique units. when comparing shock infantry vs cavalry, we should use same pop equivalent.
You are right, it’s the same thing 
So stat wise (these are approx ones):
Comanche Raider (rifle rider)
Age III unit
18-20xp
200hp
20% melee resist
7.25 speed
15 LOS
16 attack x3 vs heavy cav and inf, x2 vs artillery 1.5 RoF
12 Range
13 siege attack 3 RoF
A decent visualisation from Empire: Total War
Comanche lancer:
16-18xp
250hp
20% ranged resist
6.75 speed
15 LOS
25 attack x1.5 vs heavy inf 1.5 RoF
25 siege 3 RoF
I’d say visually a leather wearing rider with bonepipe on painted horse with lance and possibly a shield as a coup rider has. Kinda like:
Buffed Horse Archer:
18xp
200hp
10% melee resist
7.25 speed
16-18 LOS
20 attack x1.5 vs settlers x2 vs heavy cav 1.5 RoF
15 siege attack
As I said, stats are only approximated to show the purpose of given unit, not perfectly balance them (Raider similar to Rifle riders, Lancer a bit like faster, weaker spanish lancer and a decent horse archer, good against villies).
yeah and by the same token, shock infantry are also more effective then hussars, doesnt mean you need them to be made better
that is very bad logic, 1 pop cav are not the norm in the game, they are the exception, they are designed to be more effective then the normal cav counterpart. comparing them like that distorts the baseline comparison in the game. if all shock infantry were to be made comparable to a cossack, thats not bringing them up to par, thats making them overpowered
I am personally heavily against giving the Comanche a melee unit. The Comanche appear on many of the same maps that the Cheyenne do - to make them different from each other, I believe the Comanche should focus on ranged cavalry while the Cheyenne focus on melee.
I still believe the Cheyenne should get the Dog Soldier as their unit, considering Dog Soldiers are a Cheyenne Warrior Society.
The Comanche should get their horse archer buffed, and then given a unit with a repeating rifle, similar to the Rifle Rider, to make them unique and useful. The Cheyenne have a cavalry unit good vs cavalry and, with the Dog Soldier, a cavalry unit good vs heavy infantry. Giving the Comanche Raider stats similar to a Rifle Rider would give them two ranged cavalry units, one best against cavalry and one best against heavy infantry.
But one unit per TP is enough and the bow riders are decent enough
I love the idea of ranger raider. I created a Comanche Lancer for myself and it looks kinda like this:
Tried also to attach him a shield of coup rider and remove sash to not be that dog soldier like, but to no avail.
But I really love your idea of a rifle rider-esque 2nd gunner on horse and I will work on the model too 
to present something sensible. I use already existing models and just mix them for inspiration but a new textures would not do us no harm. Something like:
Is close, but rider himself is the same as horse archer, so needs new textures
hussars have 2 ranged hp per resource, 0.15 damage
chimu have 1.48 ranged hp per resource, 0.19 damage.
coyote have 1.64 ranged hp per resource, 0.17 damage
shotel have 1.8 hp ranged hp per resource, 0.185 damage vs infantry.
I completely agree that currently they are fine, and that shotels are actually too good against light infantry for the cost when considering that they take less anti cavalry damage. if anything this shows that hussars, which take full anti cav damage, probably underperform for the cost and need a cost decrease or stat buff.
that’s not new information though and hussars have always felt underwhelming.
so long as they have the shock infantry tag and take reduced damage, they should not perform better than they currently do. I want this tag replaced with the normal cav tag first and then be buffed.
I feel that shock infantry are even more of an exception? 2 of out of the 3 have only existed for less than a year after all. they are more specialized than any cav unit due to being able to survive more pikemen and dragoon shots while being less effective against light infantry. and I totally agree they shouldn’t be as strong as any 1 pop cavalry vs light infantry due to that, all 3 of which are better than any shock infantry.
I’m kinda curious if people think it would be good if ninja became 2 pop? They are the merc version of the spy and since spies had their pop cost reduced from 2 to 1 I think it would seem reasonable that ninja got their pop halved as well. I think it seems odd that they are one of the few 200 gold (if not the only?) mercs that cost 4 pop.
In terms of base combat ability it is not that much better than a swiss pike that costs 2 pop. It costs 40 gold more and has +75 hp, -2 base attack, -4 siege attack, and +1 speed (which is obviously nice). Swiss pikes counter calv which are more often on the field than mercs meaning it is likely the more useful unit so if swiss pikes are 2 pop it would seem reasonable that ninja could be as well.
It feels kinda bad doing a merc strat and having ninja to train due to how fast they house you. I think it could also make the ninja shipments some civs have more viable. (maybe the industrial shipment some civs have could be moved to age 3 as well since I think their combat ability falls off compared to normal shadow-teching spies)
One thing to note of course is that ninjas can turn invisible which potentially makes them strong raiders but still it could maybe be at least a 3 pop unit.
The Comanche Lancer unit you made has the problem of using the Dog Soldier warbonnet. Not only are the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers about a whole thousand miles north of the Comanche, but the Comanche didn’t really have a comparable warbonnet often used.
The second unit you made, however, woudl make for a damn good model for the Tokala Soldier, if it had a lance instead of a rifle.