Some people had recommended similar stuff before but was wondering if we could make the 2 skirms more wide spread to help certain civs…
Primarily… Imp skirm to burmese… Their current skirms are garbage tier, so this gives them a little help v archer civs late game
Genitour (even basic one) to spanish (historical and fits with their mounted army comp) and possibly porto? It was regional right? I thought of turks, but sipahi genis could be too powerful in 1v1, so at most they get the basic one, not the elite
Now this is a controversial one… Imp skirm to celts, and possibly Sicilians. Mainly celts because they’re an infantry civ with really bad hussars (lack 2 key tech) and fairly bad skirms (lack 2 tech), and if anything its historical their skirmisher types should do well, and since they will usually use siege v archer it doesnt over buff them?
sicilians are moderately better off with their LC, but their siege is worse, and imp skirms seem to compliment infantry well, plus the civ just sucks, so could do with buffing.
byz - imperial skirm, standard skirm becomes quite lack lustre in imperial age vs certain match ups, even discounted e skirm vs civs with good ecos or CA
There’s probably more civs this might work for, that others have mentioned but cant think of them atm
I’m in with the idea. Moreover, both vietnamese and berbers do not need their second UU, as their primary UU already fulfills that role (rattan is already anti-archer and came archer is already anti-CA). I would also give the imperial skirm to byzantines.
yeah definitely think the imp skirm for viet is really weird… since their UU is so effective v archers
wrt berbers ive found in 1v1, mixing genitours with your CA / camel archers in 1v1 really helps with their tankiness vs opposing archers, and then if you’re facing foot archers (britons, mayans or ethiopians) then the geni can be super useful
Imp skirms on Burmese has maybe some merits, but Imp skirms on Byzantine is dumb (if you think that they “fall of” in late game, then imagine what it must be for a generic civ!). It’s dumb on Celts too, they have siege ram, siege onager and furor celtica. Would be even more dumb than giving it to Franks who “only” have paladins to fight archers and CA while having the same bad skirms.
And siege engineers. Even their cavaliers are much better at fighting archers,nevermind the paladins. On top of being able to close out the game sooner, as opposed to byz that are much more likely to get into the period where CA are much more dominant and SE is more meaningful
Wow thanks man. As always really intelligent posts. What would we do without your insight… Especially since i did say celts would use their siege…
Yeah just imagine having siege + SE, blood lines, better archers or pierce resistant cav or being able to close the game sooner:roll_eyes:
You mean, like Burmese? In fact, everything they have in their siege workshop is the exact same than what Burmese get. This has the merit to show the flaw in giving Burmese Imp skirm: they doesn’t help in castle age at all. But maybe it’s fair after all the new arambai is much better at fighting archers now.
Lol + 4HP.
33% cheaper imperial age. I wonder what this could be used for? Siege ram? Halberdier? Can be handful too
Well, it seems I had to say it since you just said they would “use siege” without elaborating much more. But Celt siege ram and/or siege onager alongside halberdiers can just destroy cav archer civ. Only cav archer that ruins Celts is mangudai, but Celt imp skirms sure as hell won’t change anything about that 11
And the historical argument? It could maybe be worth it … if the Celt’s depiction wasn’t pretty fantasy already. And you can’t fix that with a unit that is mostly fantasy itself 11
So let’s give imp skirm to Burgundian they objectively need it more 11 And if Byzantine have problems against CA then so much civs have worse problems. Japanese and Malay have siege engineers but no siege ram, gib imp skirms. Teutons don’t have husbandry, have no siege ram and their siege isn’t buffed against range, gib imp skirms. The list could go on with such criterias.
I think both genitours and imp skirms aren’t that strong. I like them, but generally skirm-type units aren’t so strong in the lategame.
I wouldn’t mind giving both unit type to almost all civs and buffing them especially for berbers (speed) and viatnemese (even more hp).
because light cav stank as the game went on, losing to nearly everything (they couldn’t even beat longswords back in the day), and pikes couldn’t handle paladins, let alone war elephants. meanwhile elite skirms do just fine against archers.
Units with a ranged attack get stronger as they are massed. E-skirm can already kill everything in the game, basically, so long as you have 100 of them. They don’t need to be buffed. They get buffed by you making more of them, just like any ranged unit.
But that’s just the thing… They don’t always(specifically when not FU, and even more so for a civ like burma). Or they get hard countered faster than they can do their job
Knights will force skirms to attack them, since it becomes inefficient to micro down 30 individual arbs. Even more so for briton arbs.
Or for example the speed difference between a halb and paladin is smaller than the difference between HCA and skirm.
That makes sense… But the civs that have strong archer counters will still exist so still lessen the power of archer civs, and these additions are specifically primarily for civs that generally lack strong late game archer counters. Lith skirms, Huskarls, Siege engineers galore, heavy cav dominance will still exist, all lessening the power of archers.
Byzantines have cheaper skirms but that’s where it ends. They lack siege engineers (the main counter for archers late game)
Burmese are true garbage v archer civs.
If access to gold runs low, celts have terrible scout line and weaker skirms, with only slightly faster halbs as compensation. We can’t buff their cav, which leaves only the skirm.
Sicilians are simply a weaker civ.
Porto and Spain are neither performing very well on the ladder.
