The comparison is flawed in multiple ways. You’re comparing speed to cavalry archer, pierce armor to rattan archer and cost to Arbalest. Cavalry archer are a different class of units which are expensive but mobile. Amongst foot archers, rattan archers do better on maps with limited mobility while plumed are better on more open maps. Plums have 65 hp and that’s a lot. Its extremely difficult to surround and kill them, so in team games you can always run your plums and take cover from your allies.
Their rof is higher too and they get +2 bonus vs infantry. So plumed archers are by no means trash. All unique foot archers are good, but transitioning from crossbows or arbs into one of these makes sense only in some situations. And that’s very rare for longbows, while its more often for other foot archer uus.
I make this comparison because Plumed Archer thought to be too fast because its animation seems like they are too fast, however it is significantly slower than generic Mobile archer unit which is Cav Archer (1.54 vs 1.2 speed). Plumed Archer is combined with Eagle Warrior, Plumed Archer isn’t matched Eagle Warrior in terms of speed as well (1.43).
Rattan Archer has 1.1 speed as well, Plumed is slightly faster, this doesn’nt make huge difference in open maps. Can’t you see that 6 PA in team games simply broken against archer civs.
Plumed Archer has 1.9 RoF while other Archers 2.0 speed. It is only 5% faster which is minor. Plumed Archer with +2 attack vs infantry gives 7 damage to infantry which is equal to Rattan Archer.
Problem of Longbowman is cost of Elite Longbowman upgrade, other than that Longbowman has +1 attack, +1 range with pretty much same cost of Arbalest.
Lastly, Plumed Archer is widely used in pro games. I don’t think it deserves such widespread use. I think the pros is making the wrong choice. I saw a similar situation in Coustillier. They used to use Cavalier instead of Coustillier. But despite Coustillier nerfs (bonus attack nerfed from +40 to +25), they started using the Coustillier correctly and naturally had success because the Coustillier is still a very powerful unit.
That matters while running away from cavalry, makes it so much harder to get a surround.
There’s a good reason why it is being used a lot. You fight against army if you have better numbers or retreat if you don’t. If your army doesn’t have mobility, you’re forced to fight in situations which might not be favorable to you. This is why faster moving unit compositions are stronger. And also you usually do crossbows first and then get the transition. With cheaper archer-line and a super strong eco, mayans can do that much better. They don’t have to do it, but they can if needed.
Rattans are in general more powerful in maps where you go straight unique units like Regicide fortress, Black forest etc. And problem with longbows is not just the upgrade. Its the value you get from the transition. For rattans, plums or genoese it’s worth it in more situations compared to longbows.
I agree. In pro games it is all about preserving your units for as long as possible and mobility is key for that which makes Plume Archers great.
I can’t see how any of his posts going further should be accepted as anything but disingenuous
which post or thread are you referring to?
I think he ment his latest post that got temporary closed since @CloudAct trolled hard in it
Was the poles vs slavs boyar one
There is no need to nerf any civ this drastically because one will always replace it.
Agreed except in the case of Mayans, which is really way over the top.
No, but It Will tone down the unfair advantages and bonuses to a more Closer margin so other civs can compete.
A personal attack is your only objection to my post? Kinda proves I’m right…
The Mayans are over the top on Arabia/Runestones. This does not transfer to maps like Black Forest, or even Arena.
True they are mediocre on closed maps. But, correct me if I’m wrong, most games are on the open-maps end of the spectrum.
I really dont get the obsession with nerfing strong civs. Sure, they are strong, but none of them is op at this point. Franks have already received nerfs since DE came out, Chinese are strong but difficult to use properly, Aztecs rely too much on gold, and they strugle in trash wars, the Briton tech tree is limited, and a combination of rams and skirms can hold them off, Mayans are no longer OP since the removal of Obsidian Arrows, I also see no reason to make El Dorado more expensive, it already is a difficult tech to get.
Because you aren’t even playing at the games or levels where the civs are OP, and is easy to say lets let them as they are for that reason, but for people, which see these civs like 90% of the time (franks and britons are soo OP in tgs that other paladin/archer civs can’t compete vs them), or have too many unfair advantages (Mayans on open maps, Bohemians and Turks on Arena, Chinese on 2k level, vikings on water) is just unfun to play against.
People, seriously must stop begging for endless buffs to other civs to match broken levels, instead nerf the OP ones to acceptable levels (even pros agree with this).
Bohemians arent even that strong on Arena. And i dont know the whole “even pros agree” I havent seen Viper, Liereey, Tatoh or someone else propose such heavy nerfs, and I see most of them happy with Aztecs and Chinese. And I have played tons of TG against Britons and Franks, and I and my team have been able to deal with them with civs such as Goths, Vietnamese, Celts, Teutons, Lithuanians, etc. And Camel civs eat Franks, and they no longer have 60%+ win rate.
And yes, we insist in buffing civs with lower win rate so that all can be played efficiently.
Man check their winrates on arena across all ELO, is basically 60%
No, but overall pros consider Mayans and Chinese too strong.
Yes but that doesn’t kill the fact both civs are overpicked and as the point I made, probably the players weren’t using their strenghts properly (btw in TGs 3k level britons are a must have).
Arbalests say hi
Yes, i’mnot opposed buffing certain civs (burmese for example) but only buffing and no nerfing is stupid and only lead to powercreep, look at khmer, since farm bonus the civ only received nerfs and the battle ele was overnerfed just because of khmer, Tatars only got buffs in 2020, the civ became broken until the feudal sheeps were gone and keshik cost was increased.
As I understand it, the Arabia/Runestones archetype is the most popular gameplay format, though there are other open play styles, like Atacama, which are less popular. The Mayans play most naturally on the Arabia/Runestones style open map.
Its a clear 55% on average
Franks used Paladins and Britons used Longbows :v. I agree that they are overpicked, but thats mostly because those have always been the most popular civs in the game.
Franks dont have arbalests :v
No, SOTL isn’t always a great source…
And? Is just annoying and unfun to face the same civs 100% of the time cause are too good.
This clearly shows you don’t understand the TG meta, I mean the flank Will be here with arbalest, and arbalest + paladin beat camels hard.