I don’t think so. Only Malians and Tatars can play both.
I agree. I saw Franks go for MAA+Archer and Vikings go scout. That doesn’t mean Franks an infantry+archer civ or Vikings a cavalry civ.
Not all civs are grey. Most civs are clear black and white. We all can draw conclusion that upcoming archer upgrade cost increase will give benefit to Teutons while give disadvantage to Japanese.
I’m unsure what will happen to Incas after the patch. That’s why I threw them here. I think you don’t need to worry about them anymore. They are not an “archer” civ by majority of the people that voted here (so far).
Only one I had no agreeing with majority is Khmer.
I guess Khmer is often played with their cavalry. But I felt like it’s mostly because cavalry in general is so good AND their cavalry is their best meta units. Not because they are (or feel like) a cavalry civ.
Next time you’re in game mouse over husbandry and tell me cav archers aren’t cav well unless you have a mod that changed the words.
Same applies to cumans civ bonus
but realistically its almost impossible to actual label a lot of the civs due to the variety, but if we’re really being forced to label them, then i think the better idea would to at least use double barrel names, example koreans would be a defensive archer civ, japanese a hybrid infantry civ, tatars could use singular terms like cavalry, since it encompasses the variety of (real world meaning) cavalry. franks would be something like knight and castle civ. maybe inca would be a counter civ, or whatever fancy word means the same
well unless you have a mod that changed the words.