A unit with Longbow range in ratha mode?
Leave the extreme range to the english UU, such unit would mainly be good for quickly moving into position.
But I think at least 6 base range will make more sense, compared to Magyars CA.
Ok so CA is fine for britons franks burgundians.what about the rest of them celts spanish portuguese teutons vikings polish and italian civis.
Btw, polish suddenly become one of the worst civs according to hera. I havenāt yet to play Polish since the patch update. Perhaps a new unit can help Poles.
The Spanish already have the widest tech tree, and further boosting them by giving them Genitour and Mounted Crossbowman does not make sense.
The Spanish would end up with four fully upgraded trash units!
Giving Genitour to Spanish will have minimal effect on balance while making it historically accurate. Besides, I said Spanish had Conquistadors and did not need mounted xbow. It is similar to why Franks should not have it (throwing axeman).
I could swear that originally crossbows were great at quelling nomadic horseman attacks. Part of how China fended off northern Hordes
2 Likes
Mounted xbowmen were deployed together with lancers+ light cavalry to charge at enemy heavy cavalry and pikes. Mounted Crossbowmen discharged a bolt before enemy lancers successfully attack friendly lancers. Friendly lancers can have number advantage to fight enemy lancers. The enemy lancers had ways to fight back actually. The lancers can pursue mounted crossbowman.
Mounted Crossbowmen could also open a gap in pike formation before lancer charge.
So it can have bonus damage vs pikes and cavalry. But we have mameluke with bonus damage vs cavalry in the game. Heavy cavalry can actually fight back mounted crossbowmen while pikemen cannot. So I choose anti-spear bonus for them.
This is true. But Chinese mounted crossbowmen seemed to be a bit different. What I find is only against Xiongnu and Khitan heavy cavalry. But no evidence against pikes yet. I still need more time to research Chinese mounted crossbowmen.
I didnt say mounted I just said crossbows. How come irl they seemed to do bonus damage vs horsemen but in games never do except Italians
As Iāve been pointing out to others in my Japan-Historical thread, the Yumi Japanese longbowās asymmetrical design meant the Higoyumi, with about the range of a longbowā¦ could be shot from horseback.
However, I didnāt give their Samurai Cavalry more than +1 range over normal cav archers to avoid being obscenely OP
Nice question. Although I have discussed the concept of a mounted crossbowman unit with the OP in another topic, I do think itās hard to justify the game seriously needing it as a regional unit in a deeper meaning.
The Cavalry Archer is still legitimately representing mounted infantry archers (no matter bowmen or crossbowmen) of Western and Central European countries, so there is no need to introduce a more specific Mounted Crossbowman to replace the CA. If it is to be introduced, it should exist alongside the CA rather than as a replacement. But, we may not have enough space in the Archery Range.
Besides, while this unit could probably have some sort of unique role in early stage of an Age similar to the Steppe Lancer or Condottiero by design, there are very few decent horse archer games among almost all of those European civs that might have access to it. Once those civs can have better power with the Mounted Crossbowman than with the CA, it means they are buffed directly and explicitly but it may not be needed.
As for potential European regional units, Iām personally more enthusiastic about the others: Throwing Axeman for the barbarian civs in Feudal Age, Missionary shared to the Portuguese, gold-consuming new Genitour for the Spanish and Portuguese, Hobelar for Britons and Celts as a replacement for Light Cav, and (Elite) Boyar for Slavs and Bulgarians as a replacement for Knight line units.
To some extent, I feel that the mounted crossbowman is very similar to the Camel Archer, a concept that basically every desert people that raises camels had had.
Iām not sure if people are also trying to push for making the Camel Archer some kind of regional unit, but I think it would be nice to have the Crossbow Cavalry be a UU of a new civ. Personally, I always hope that after the Khitanguts split, the Khitans can get Crossbow Cavalry (or Crossbow Cataphract, Cataphract Crossbowman) as UU. Soldiers in the heavy cavalry units of Liao Dynasty were once recorded using crossbows, while the existence of the heavy crossbow cavalry of Song Dynasty also indirectly increases the credibility of the Khitan crossbow cavalry. (Itāll be more accurate but less cool if it is a Cataphract Archer with the same stats but visually using just a bow instead of a crossbow.)
1 Like
They said to introduce a ratha mode of CA. It is somewhat like Dragoons replacing CA totally for Burgundians, Franks and Britons. Fight in melee when mounted while shoot from range when dismounted.
Elephant rams, rocket carts, steppe lancersā¦
iāll leave the balance and design to the devs i just want the extra unit/skins
1 Like
Basically any cavalry unit has a historical reference for being able to dismount for fight, so Iād say itās unnecessary to reduce the uniqueness of the Konnik. The CA itself should have symbolized the concept of mobile archer, no matter shooting on horseback or on foot.
Also, it feels weird that we offer something special to those civs but itās still their weak spot. However, those civs should not have generally viable mounted archer games, except for surprise use.
South Asian civs did historically frequently use elephants for sieges, so were also designed with elephant rams in mind as a part of viable gameplay, such as Armored Elephant + monk rush in fast castle.
The Chinese are well-known for being the first to widely use gunpowder weapons. Since the introduction of Rocketry, their use of gunpowder has been something that people have longed to emphasize in the game in various ways.
Steppe civs, which have good cavalry both historically and in gameplay, have the Steppe Lancer to emphasize that steppe warfare is not unacceptable.
(For your reference, there were people complaining the introduction of Steppe Lancer.)
They all have gameplay that fits those units. Some civs that have them were designed from the outset with their gameplay and upgrades in mind.
Providing a mounted crossbowman to European civs or replacing their non-main, lacking upgrade CA with mounted crossbowman is essentially an additional introduction. Most of them are not historically known for their mobile archers, and I feel that mounted crossbowmen were not actually an important or famous part of their warfare.
Is it accurate for the Europeans to have mounted crossbowmen? Absolutely. But do they really need mounted crossbowmen so much? I personally think something like the barbarian Throwing Axeman, Missionary, new Genitour, Hobelar, and Boyar are more interesting.
That feels weird to see. Why would a ranged or mounted unit be called infantry when infantry means either melee men or the basic gunmen in more modern eras when people arenāt using sword and axe any more?
Sometimes I donāt understand real life military unit counters? Were real life javelins really so good against archers? I know horses were afraid of pikes and camels but did they actually cause more damage? Speaking of cant someone just hit a fatal spot and 1 shot anyway even if you use rusty wood?
Basically, civs without thumb ring will not produce a few CA. When they are in need of ranged units against monks and spears, they can produce one urgently but weaker and more expensive. There will be more strategies available.
I saw more about the OPness of small collision box than design problem. After collision nerf, most people suggested to buff them a bit instead.
Usually, cavalry charges were decisive for the battle. Like cavalry archers, cavalry xbowmen is only a support type but slightly different. Cavalry archers harass while cavalry xbowmen delivered the first blow to enemy cavalry/pikes to open gaps. There was Strzelcy that shoot with xbow on horseback by arcade when Polish cavalry charged, making their cavalry charge more powerful.
Besides, chu ko nu should be cancelled then. Chu Ko Nu is rarely deployed in battle due to its actual weak power.
Nope. Javelins were useful against footmen shield formation. Slingers can carry a shield and have similar range as archers. Aoe1 counter is more accurate but slingers seemed to disappear before high medieval age, which makes it not to suit medieval euro-centric aoe2. But there were still asian civs using slingers in medieval age.
well itās a way to nerf franks xD
My point is we are trying to over historicalize a game where it could in real life be very possible to kill an elephant with one attack but here its impossible
1 Like