Archers dominate the game, it is a fact. And it is a problem should be solved.
Otherwise it would not be a good RTS game. Everyone would just make many range units.
We don’t want to play a game that is too reliable on range units. Otherwise we should go to play AOE3.
I had made a similar post few days ago.
However, seems it was not a good suggestion because most of the people are not used to that change skirmisher to become an infantry. Also, rather than strengthen the skirmisher to fight against the archers, it is better to weaken the overpowered archers. By the way, I am very appreciate to some people that they read and replied my post seriously. Because I also created the post seriously.
About Fletching, Bodkin Arrow and Bracer
These technologies (I just say Fletching in the following) are really a big problem is the game. In view of the amount of benefited units, Forging benefits both infantry and cavalry, Fletching benefits archers, boats and buildings. Each of these 2 technologies benefit to different units, that is fine. However, the problem is, you know, +1 attack to a range unit is much more valuable than a melee unit. That’s why infantry and cavalry would prior upgrade armor to offset the Fletching in archer (and protect from the seiging from villages). However, Fletching not only +1 attack but also +1 range to the archers? So you see the imbalance problem?
So, I have the following suggestions:
Fletching, Bodkin Arrow and Bracer no longer +1 range to the units.
New technology [Bowstring] in Archery Range in Feudal Age, +1 range in Archer, Crossbowman and Arbalester. Cost 150F, 100G. Just similar mechanism and importance to Supplies and Bloodlines.
Upgrade to Arbalester, Cost: 350F, 300G → 700F, 600G.
Upgrade to Imperial Skirmisher, Cost 300W, 450G → 450W, 550G.
Range of Arbalester: 5 → 6.
Range of Skirmisher: 4 → 5.
Range of Elite Skirmisher: 5 → 6.
Range of Imperial Skirmisher: 5 → 7, AT: 4 → 3, and it becomes a common unit.
Range of Cavalry Archer: 4 → 5.
Range of Heavy Cavalry Archer: 4 → 6.
For the UUs,
Range of Chu Ko Nu: 4 → 5, Elite: 4 → 6.
Range of Genoese Crossbowman: 4 → 5, Elite: 4→ 6.
Range of Mangudai: 4 → 5, Elite: 4 → 6.
Range of Camel Archer: 4 → 5, Elite: 4 → 6.
Range of Elephant Archer: 4 → 5, Elite: 4 → 6.
Range of Genitour: 4 → 5, Elite: 4 → 6.
Range of Plumed Archer: 4 → 5, Elite: 5 → 7.
Range of Rattan Archer: 4 → 5, Elite: 5 → 7.
Range of War Wagon: 4 → 5, Elite: 5 → 7.
Range of Longbowman: 5 → 6, Elite: 6 → 8.
Range of Slinger: 5 → 6.
Range of Janissary: 8 → 7, Elite: 8 → 7.
Range of Conquistador: 6 → 5, Elite: 6 → 6 (unchanged).
Range of Arambai: 5 → 4, Elite: 5 → 5 (unchanged).
Simply speaking, players have to pay more to increase the +1 archer range in Feudal Age (the new technology [Bowstring]).
But if they are investing to the UU, they do not need to research it because it benefits the foot archer created in Archery Range only. Similar to the infantry UU do not need Supplies.
Generally, the maximum range of the range units decreased by 1 from Castle Age. 5+2 to 5+1 in Castle Age, 5+3 to 6+1 in Imperial Age.
Archers getting +Range from Blacksmith not only makes sense, but is also congrous with Archer design. They start with much less range than they should have, and Arrow Fletching was definetly to add more range to projectiles.
If you don’t like it, then there is only 1 sensible solution: fix the pathfinding.
There is already a tech of “similar importance”: Thumb ring.
Their base range always has been 4
But it’s a gunpowder unit, why would you nerf it because of a tech for archer range? (and just why would you try and make it look more like the normal HC?)
Thumb ring is important. But it benefit to all archer units include UUs.
The [Bowstring] is only for the normal archer.
To make it be weaker in Feudal Age.
Thanks, fixed.
It’s because even Janissary is not an archer, Crossbowman and Elite Skirmisher were the only units to against Janissary (Not Mangonels). If Crossbowman and Elite Skirmisher reduced by 1 range, Janissary should also to do so (at least in Castle Age). Otherwise Janissary would have no counters.
The game overall has moved to the more fast paced territory leaving little room for slow moving civs with power spikes in the imperial age. For example, Lithuanians and Cumans get speed boni for their civs and all the four new civs are cavarly civs.
Most Medieval wars were fought by using infantry but this is not properly reflected in the game.
But then why not make it so that Xbows would get their normal range back after Bowstring? Because making it so that both archers and Mangonels counter Jan better would be a jerk move, especially since Turks deserve to have strong gold untis (because that’s the theme of the whole civ)
Anyway just fixing the pathfinding (which hopefully will be done someday) is what we need so Age of Archers can become Age of Knights again. So the whole point of this thread is quite meh.
Because Steppe civs are the theme of the Last Khan and well, those cultures were based on horsemanship. But we have a non-Steppe civ (Lith) and guess what, they get a bonus for footmen. Bulgarian are in there because of their nomadic origins, but they were sedentarized and they are also an infantry civ. And Cuman even have the luxury of being the first steppe civ to have FU infantry.
And yet we see tons of Halbs in almost every single game that isn’t a Meso civ mirror.
Core units such as archers shouldnt be changed just because they seem to dominate the game at some point in time. Actually, the year before DE came out it was rather the other way around. Feudal/castle age play was characterized a lot by scouts+skirms / knights+skirms compositions. Obviously that changed a bit but after melee pathing is fixed entirely (I hope we will experience that day^^) I assume melee/range balance will be fine again.
Again, do not take snipets from a post and ignore the main argument.
Last Khans was about speed and cavarly. Examples:
Playing as the Cumans, or Tatars one does not make infantry often. Their strengths are Cavarchers, Kipchaks, Hussars and Keshiks. They are focused on cavarly.
The Lithuanians get a strong bonus for cavarly units, their UU is a cavarly unit. Yes the Lithuanians get a bonus on their infantry but it is about speed.
Similarly, the Bulgarians get a cavarly UU and Stirrups. They are a half-focused on cavarly too.
The above only validate by argument that the game has moved to a more fast pace nature leaving little room for slow moving civs. See Teutons. And yes we see halbs because they are a trash unit, but not the champion line often nor melee infantry UU.
The issue will be solved hopefully with continuing improvements on pathfinding for melee units. That’s the direction of the patches thusfar.
I didn’t ignore anything. I quoted the relevant parts to make clear what I’m answering to.
Of course an expansion about steppe civ that relied on horses for almost everything is going to be about that. It’s like complaining Rise of the Rajas civs are about elephants.
One has FU infantry while the other one has the worst infantry possible. It must have a repercussion on gameplay right?
Trust me if the enemy has full skirms+pikes you’re not going to beat that with any of these.
The original plan was to make trash units cost no wood for them. Of course testing showed it was completely busted, so they had to come up with a new bonus that would be useful for both units. And it happens that more speed on a unit that counters cavalry is good, and more speed on a unit that needs to keep its distance is good too.
Because the other half of both the UU and the focus are on infantry. Not to mention Bulgarians are one of the civ that has the easiest time using infantry.
Celts? Koreans? Arena in ranked movepool?
Not only we do see them, but they are also usable (if required) even on a civ who doesn’t have very good infantry. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PedEzayjY&t=1866s (Huns lack Champion and plate mail armor)
And that’s why proposing tons of tweaks to archers is just going to cause pointless endeavours both for devs and players to adapt since in the end all these changes will have to be reverted.
I didn’t ignore anything. I quoted the relevant parts to make clear what I’m answering to.
And like I said, missing the wider point. Moving on.
Of course an expansion about steppe civ that relied on horses for almost everything is going to be about that. It’s like complaining Rise of the Rajas civs are about elephants.
I am not complaining about the Last Khans. This comment is irrelevant.
One has FU infantry while the other one has the worst infantry possible. It must have a repercussion on gameplay right?
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Trust me if the enemy has full skirms+pikes you’re not going to beat that with any of these.
But that’s their default strategy regardless.
The original plan was to make trash units cost no wood for them. Of course testing showed it was completely busted, so they had to come up with a new bonus that would be useful for both units. And it happens that more speed on a unit that counters cavalry is good, and more speed on a unit that needs to keep its distance is good too.
Yeap, my point about speed.
Celts? Koreans? Arena in ranked movepool?
Koreans have a cavarly UU and wood discount that helps with archers. Celts have a wood gathering bonus that helps with archers.
Not only we do see them, but they are also usable (if required) even on a civ who doesn’t have very good infantry. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PedEzayjY&t=1866s (Huns lack Champion and plate mail armor)
What time stamp are you referring to? I might have missed it because quickly skipping through the two games I see CavArchers, LightCav, archers.
And that’s why proposing tons of tweaks to archers is just going to cause pointless endeavours both for devs and players to adapt since in the end all these changes will have to be reverted.
Viper went Huns, raided with Scouts, then Cav archers and the few 2handed swordsmen appeared at 29 minutes to counter halbs and the rams from Villese. Then Villese resigned on the 30th minute. The next games are of a similar nature without the infantry. I don’t think I can say anything more. Self-evident.
To finish this discussion up, I’m not agreeing with changing the mechanics on archers. I just pointed out the direction the game is going. A fast-paced esports game. That’s fine. But we need to make sure infantry or slow civs are put at a disadvantage. Improved pathfinding for melee units will help and the recent patches point to that direction.
Militia-line is anti-trash, anti-eagle and a building killer. Obviously, you see it in those situations, if you aren’t being countered. Otherwise not. Plain and simple. The gameplay just happens to favor other units so that you don’t often see them for that last purpose, it’s merely a nice bonus if you are fielding them for the 2 other causes.
True. You also have civs that are infantry oriented and their armies consist of infantry units mostly such as the Aztecs, Goths, Japanese, Vikings, Malians, Malay whose armies are not used just for anti-trash and building killing. Anyhow.
Not because speed in general is good, but because they had to find a bonus that helps both. Anyway if speed in general was so good, then why is it seen as the worst Lith bonus?
A cav archer that is still slower than Teuton cav even after researching Husbandry. And 15% less wood of 25 wood is almost nothing, and definitely less than the bonuses that make Korean go towers. The thing that is so slow it doesn’t move at all.
Teutons also have a wood bonus that helps for archers. Does it make them faster? And Celts have among the worst archery range in the game, and it slows their Castle/Imp transition (along with their awkward cav) and yet they see play even in the most biased/tryhard tournaments (see HC3)
Oops, I should have given the time directly. Anyway, the point was that those bad, unupgraded swordsmen literally were the game winning move. Do you see Viking Cavaliers or Huns Xbows winning games like that?