Why the Goths? Why not just add a Swiss civ?
1 Like
What do goths have to do with swiss?
Teutons would make a better choice than goths.
Japanese - Mounted Samurai replacing CA.
Cost - 40w/55g
Training Time - 35 seconds, 30 seconds
Melee Armor - 0
Pierce Armor - 1
Attack bonus +2 vs archer (except skirmisher)
Rest are same stat as current generic CA.
If you are going to make it this boring you might as well not add it
More interesting than existing Japanese bonus. Anyway forgot to twist the armor. Regular Heavy CA has 1 MA but 0 PA. Japanese new UU would have 0 MA but 1 PA for both standard and elite.
You could double down on that! Give them two pierce armour and increase the extra bonus damage, in exchange of lower base attack
If its small enough to be a civ bonus let it be a civ bonus
The issue with skirmishers is they have a pathetic attack value (except their bonus vs archers) while a javelin throw should be devastating, if you played M&B it’s one of the few attacks you still fear in the late game (alongside couched lances) as your armour can tank anything else. The closest that fits is the arambai.
If we went by historical accuracy, the entire archery range should be to remake, archers taking the role of saturating fire but weak vs armour (pretty much replacing the skirm line) while crossbows shoot slowly but partly ignore armour (replacing the archer line as the power unit). Bodkin arrows would be a secondary attack mode for archers, lowering their range and damage but increasing armour piercing (making them better vs armour at close range).
Skirmishers would be rarer units, possibly with some regional replacements like the throwing axeman, who’d deal short-ranged but devastating throws and often before charging into melee (and those would fit better in the barracks)
Aoe4 did the whole counter system alot better for sure - has the exact archer/xbow setup you’re talking about.
As for IRL tho, the performance of xbows and war bows was pretty much the same. In a volley fire scenario, the heaviest bows an xbows were tested to be in within yards of one another. In other tests vs armor, the bow and xbow were the same - beat mail, failed vs plate.
In irl arcehry range would give archers/xbows the same damage and range, with the xbow being much cheaper/faster training and the archer being faster firing.
1 Like
For equivalent projectiles types. A broadhead would travel further and cause more trauma, but was very bad at armour piercing (cuts over a wide distance). A bodkin has less range (heavier arrows) but more armour-piercing (all focused on a single point). So longbowmen used broadheads at long range then switched to bodkins at a shorter range if they faced armoured foes.
But indeed as all the energy comes from muscle it all evens out, depending on the design crossbows allow storing more energy to be released at once but at the expense of the rate of fire (windlass crossbows) for fewer stronger shots, or at the opposite end the chu-ko-nu has a rapid fire but real damage came from poisoning the bolts as bolts were probably stopped by winter clothing. As opposed to gunpowder for which the energy comes from the powder so you can scale it up.
1 Like
Since Japanese have PT, I didn’t suggest PA. But with lowering the base attack, they may work. However, having 1 less attack means they will do only 1 damage to skirms. Even with 2 PA like Ratha, that will be problematic as they can’t switch to melee. They will be completely non-skirm anti archer. Even Rattan archer has higher base attack than generic archer. So I think lower base attack will be an over all nerf.
Oh, yeah. That is for sure. Maybe this idea can work. Buff their ROF to compensate the less attack. 1 less attack and 1 less MA than generic CA, but +2 attack vs archer (excluding skirms), +2 PA, and +15% faster ROF.
No… It doesn’t make sense that the foot samurai require a castle but mounted samurai can directly be accessible at the archery range.
1 Like
It makes about as much sense as the Spanish being able to train mounted gunmen innately, but needing to research a technology to get them off their horse.
3 Likes
Compared with the foot one, the mounted one is the relatively rare one, so that having the mounted cannoneer at castles makes sense when the foot one is at archery ranges while having the mounted samurai at archery ranges doesn’t make sense when the foot one is at castles.
It won’t be from the stable?..especially if he has a katana or a naginata…
The problem still stands.
Besides, the Japanese hadn’t adopted the shock cavalry until the very late of the timeline of the civ.
Up Up until the use of cavalry charge by the Takeda clan in the 16th century, the mounted samurai were primarily archers.
I also really hate ignoring armor as is implemented now. I would rather make some units deal increased minimum damage.
Lithuanians example: Lets say Leitis does 13 damage and has a minimum damage of 6 that means it will deal 6 damage to paladin or boyar or teutonic knight even if they have 10 armor.
If this would be implemented i would add armor piercing attack also to some other units. Whit this kind you can also balance easier such units so they dont look like glass canon or op with every small nudge.
1 Like
Ah…I understand, I understand…
The mounted Samurai did appear earlier tbh
Like Im pretty sure Samurai cav archers were their earliest form
If you can use a bow on horseback pretty sure using a spear or sword is much easier.