There is an easy fix, make archers go melee when other melee unit attack them, when in melee they do less DMG
Easy.
1 Like
NOT SAYING THIS IS ACTUATED IN THE GAME: but if you could reach said âcritical massâ with say 10 units 7 minutes into the game; would you consider this hypothetical 10 unit critical mass a balance issue???
Range units CHEAPLY and quickly achieve critical mass; critical mass of everything else you just mention would take much longer to achieve and be in some of those cases extremely costly.
Lastly youâre not arguing your prospective with any examples or detail? Youre just saying stuf like
Yes i preceive your opinion earlier now can you defend it some? Youâre literally just saying, âi disagreeâ.
We talking about the center engagement between beastyqt 8 or 9 horsemen plus 8 archers vs 18 or so lb under a tower kiting back home? Thatâs about 1600 resources a piece with the counter system on paper favoring the cav/bow vs the tower lb; but that wasnât the case. Now beastyqt could have did some tricks to body block but still even needing to do such a thing to better trade in a fight tht SHOULD favor the cav??
The dev specifically said in an interview back when they still did patch overview podcasts that they wanted the archer to OUT RIGHT counter the spear WITHOUT it requiring micro. Then in another discussion, same forum said they wanted the spear to strongly counter the horsemen bc of the horsemen ability to pick its spots⊠so strong archer v spears and strong spears vs horsemen but the dynamic requires a soft counter of horsemen vs archers?!
ok we should stop discussing, because a âcritical massâ arent 10 units for me 
10 longbows = 900 resources
7,5 horseman = 900 resources
make the test, upload it on youtube and post the link
and again, please stop talking about critial mass if you mean 10 units
oh look what I found, its over a year old but you would be suprised:
please just read the full post and you find arguments, why I dont think there is a change required, but honestly thats only my opinion.
1 Like
I think the biggest problem is maybe not the critical mass, but if you add just a few spearman you canât engage with cav while the archers just shoot at you. Itâs also more difficult to kill these spears with archers before the enemy archers kill yours. He can just run his spears behind archers and you canât reach them before your archers die.
1 Like
IMO this would be less favorable to the BUNCHED up archers if archers were WEAKER vs each other AND cav were more IMPREVIOUS to those FREE archer shots that have to keep eating as they kite away from the few spears. My suggestions would NOT remove the mini-game between striking archers and getting out of there when spears get close; BUT it would mitigate the archer volleys depleting your backline archers and free archer volleys on the cav playing the mini-game âIN-AND-OUTâ.
I donât agree with making counter system more complicated.
I think range units are fine.
You probably had like 10 horse against 50 longbow⊠(which can be confusing because they take almost the same map space, even though you have way less horses).
Otherwise at equal resources the horseman will destroy the archers. And knights even more. At equal resources the horses will occupy way more space on the map because of their size so you need to learn to scale that.
If you want compare unique unit. Try french knights vs longbow⊠Knights easily win.
2 Likes
Like you said Spearman should murder all types of cavalry
you just demonstrated you didnât understand my suggestions; if you thinking making cavalry a strong impervious counter to archers is MORE COMPLICATED??; in the same way archers are a strong effectively impervious counter to spears; and spears are a strong effectively impervious counter to cav .
You further demonstrate that you didnât read/understand my post by your reductive comparisons that donât retell the same story; nor the conversation I THINK youâre drawing from which was from 2 pros players playing? Beastyqt HRE vs PuppyPaw Eng; 8 horseman + 8 archers vs 1 Tower (no attack) + 18 longbows; and the horsemen got kited into a horrible trade for horsemen side (aka beasty HRE). But again maybe you didnât read/understand thatâŠ
Thereâs a lot of micro also, and upgrades that matter.
Does Beasty complain about range being too strong? I donât think so.
Longbow are a lot lot stronger than most range units. Which makes them slightly effective against hoseman but still countered by them. If you want argue longbow are too strong thatâs different than archers and all range. I used to struggle a lot against longbow when i was gold, but not so much now. Never struggled against archers.
What is the beasty video of that fight.?
I wouldnât like a counter system where you have so many +x against that +y against that + z against that like they did in age3. It felt too forced.
A better fix would just be +1 range armor on horsemen if thatâs really needed
Personally i think the game is extremely well balanced. I think the only big balance issue i still have is not enough defenses on water map. It becomes obvious against delhi fishing boat that can rush yours. I think they could easily fix this by allowing fishing boat to shoot boats while garrison and maybe increase to 5 ship per dock garrisoned.
Well, if it is foolish to consider it fair, that units of feudal age defeat units of castle age; due to the fact that in team games or in their supposedly elo, Cavalry units is a problem.
France is not OP and Rus has a higher winrate due to the militias.
All civ within 5% seems pretty good.
I think there is much more influencing this than cavalry.
French also has a unique range unit rememberâŠ
First weekend of Tournament has occurred and if you were watching; and still can go back and watch the replays; youâll notice main army fights were DOMINATED by range units. With the exception OttomansâŠ
SIDENOTE: (that jans/crossbow with meaty sipahi/knight combo with double mango all supported by mehter.... is UNSTOPPABLEDDDD!!)
Point being cavalry were successful in main fights in niche situations and mid the small size fights; once the range unit mass hit critical; it didnât go well for cav heavy opponent trying to fight in the main fight.
We all know your opinion about range units now, but could you defend it some?
Youâre literally just saying, ânerf all range unitsâ.
I am sure you can post some links with examples for us
1 Like
this is defending it some? no?
not really, you just say critial mass range units against how cav, but how many? if you watched so many games with this kind off problems, wheres the example?
did you saw themista vs bee yesterday?
04:32
A mass of horsemen seems better to me than the knights themselves, the more ranged units like archers there are.
That composition you mentioned can be countered by archers, spearmen, and springalds.
But doesnât historically it makes sense that at some critical mass, and with upgraded weapon, range will outperform melee? Itâs just how it is in warfare, range > melee. I donât think historically cavalry stood a chance against huge volley of arrows. And even less against a mass of handcannon or crossbows directly shooting at them.
Thatâs why in later ages you have mangonel to counter range, and mangonels are preferable to cavalry to kill big mass of ranged units⊠While calvalry is more efficient at raiding, being flexible around the map and killing smaller armies.
Since cavalry ALREADY has the mobility advantage. It would be extremely too strong if it was on par with other units in the counter system⊠Cavalary is already used a lot for raids. Itâs not like cavalary is not used⊠Itâs the fastest unit in the game which is an advantage in itself. Imagine having to run after mass cavalary with your spearmen. It just make no sense.
I think it makes total sense to have critical mass of range units destroy any melee units. Thatâs why we have mangonels.
In feudal, or small armies: spear â cavalary â range â spear
But in castle or with mass units its not, it is: spear â cavalry â mangonel â range â spear
Cavalry remains useful in later ages if your opponent gets too greedy and make too many siege units.
Honestly I really like how they made the counter system evolve through the ages because thatâs how it was historically and armies had to adapt to new technology with new strategies.
1 Like
Historically, cavalry always defeats archers, but in this game archers have 100% effectiveness with arrows; The archers would only win if they were protected, such as with stakes, as happened in the battle of Agincourt.
My idea for not eliminating the micro-attack is to reduce the base attack of the archers when they move, it is something similar to what happens with the Streltsy, and once and for all balance the archers, there is data that shows that they are units produced in huge quantities; against a large mass archers producing riders is not enough, especially with the micro-attack of the archers, this is due to space limitation since they attack melee, so to counter the archers you must produce riders and archers, that is say produce 2 production buildings. Please balance this at once.
The second that archers are in an unfavourable spot vs cavalry they die. Cavalry also has a pretty strong position of dictating fights with their mobility.
Having spear + archers is quite strong but Iâve seen more knight + archer comps win out. And in the late game you have mangonels.
It already takes a large amount of arrows to kill a knight.
3 Likes
In games yes not in real life. Archers were effective mostly against anything unarmored, including cavalry.
Agincourt was famous not because the archer won over cavalry, but because they were outnumbered 2 to 1 and still won.
A quick search shows that historically archers could be very effective against unarmored cavalry. And sometimes even against heavy cavalry.
1 Like