Should other civilizations replace their archaic units?
For example: Ottomans and Russians get gunpowder cavalry similar to how the British get rangers.
- YES
- NO
0 voters
2 Likes
cav archers arent an archaic unit though, and definitely contemporary to the gameâs timeframe (unlike longbowmen). They also are actually really tanky units and do their job very well as a sort of halfway point between muskets and goons, with that amazing melee armour/hp and good anticav dps. I canât see those ever being changed. Streltsy maybe could use a facelift for age 4+ but with cossacks being so absurdly pop effective, its almost impossible to buff them without upsetting the power level of russia generally
11 Likes
Yes they are archaic, but not obsolete.
I hope developers can enable Ottoman to conter dragoons+skirmishers. For example, increasing the damage bonus of abus to dragoons.
1 Like
Should they get replaced? Absolutely yes!!
At least for the civs that make sense of course, and i was more thinking about crossbows and similar
8 Likes
Ottoman cav archers should stay while Russian cav archers can be replaced with dragoons, maybe it could allow the option of a Tatar minor civ for Central Asian/European maps.
2 Likes
I could see the Russian Kalmuks from the church getting a similar treatment to the British longbows. Dunno what they could do for Ottomans.
I do think organ guns and war wagons should get their change first though, if any.
4 Likes
It makes sense for the british because they had no other skirm, most civs that have crossbow can later get skirms as well. Longbow also suffered from a lower multiplier vs heavy inf and not benefitting from the arsenal tech for skirmishers.
For me they arent archaic because they cost gold and arent affected by the âteam archaic soliders trainingâ spanush card.
For me it doesnt âmake senseâ for british to have them; it is a âdesign choiceâ.
British (longbows), Japan (yumis), Incas (Jungle bowmen) got much better archaic archer units than Swedish (crossbowmen) and aztecs (slingers), amd donât really âneedâ a skirmisher units. Swedish and aztecs would âneedâ a skirmisher unit more, but I am also against them getting a replacement unit, to emphasize this weakness of theirs.
1 Like
Well wouldnât make sense for the incas or the aztecs to have skirmishers but for the brits it definitely does. Yumi are also a lot stronger than longbow especially with the auras and upgrades. Brits have a weakness vs heavy infantry with longbow being an uneffective counter and not making use of counter infantry rifling, people always mix units like halbs in vs brits.
Swedes didnât have a skirm previously because caroleans were just unstoppable with their age 4 card, they also have leather cannons which can help fill the gap and deal with heavy inf.
Aztec struggle most vs skirmisher masses due to their lack of a unit to deal with them effectively, slingers are fine vs heavy inf and way better than crossbows.
2 Likes
Cavalry Archers were utilized by the Russians and Ottomans relatively late into the gameâs timeframe.
When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, a story emerged where a French general had been wounded after an ambush by Cossacks and Bashkirs. When his troops brought him to the field hospital, the surgeon was shocked to find that the general had been wounded by an arrow through the chest. He had trained to anticipate bullet and bayonet wounds, and was quite astounded that some of the Russians forces were still using bows and arrows!
So the Russian Empire utilized the help of various different nomadic tribal auxiliaries across the Empire to defend against the French attack, and more than a few of these Tatars, Kalmuks, and Bashkirs arrived to the battlefield with bows and arrows, ready to fight in the style their ancestors had fought for centuries. In that regard, giving Russians and Ottomans horse archers is an interesting touch and actually authentic.
15 Likes
I understand that in historical context it makes sense, but the problem is that in the late game the tolerance to melee attacks only turns them into cannon fodder.
Apart from facing the âmelee cavalryâ they are not good for much else. They lose against the carabineros where there is supposed to be something resembling a tie. And they canât kill cannons the way dragons do because they have no tolerance for projectiles.
In supremacy the Ottomans do not have an efficient way to fight against the raids made by dragons. Thatâs why I think cavalry archers should have bonuses against cavalry in general and not just against heavy or melee cavalry. (same for Russians).
They are not a worse or useless unit, just more specialized. They are going to perform better against what they are supposed to counter (heavy cav), and worse against what is supposed to counter them (skirmishers).
Iâm not sure what you mean by this, cannons deal siege damage, not ranged damage. Cavalry Archers should hold up better against cannons since they have higher base health.
3 Likes
Ottoman cavalry archers with the Irregulars card are one of the best raiding units in the game with a 2x multiplier vs vills. Absolute beasts.
2 Likes
I mean the dragons can tolerate ranged attacks better by the units protecting the cannons. For example, if the canyon is protected by dragons, it is more difficult for bow cavalry to win that battle.
I mean a situation where I have to defend myself against raiding by dragons. Usually this is defended with units that are of the same type due to the same versatility (dragon vs dragon), but archer cavalry loses against these types of units. Eagle Runner Knight of the Aztecs can fight against them without problems because they have 6.0 base speed and 30% projectile tolerance.
Of course, I know that abus or janissaries would be the answer, but Iâm talking about a hypothetical case where I have to persecute them to defend my economy. I hope I made myself understood.
This card is somewhat situational. I would say it works in team games on maps where there are no bottlenecks, and not so much in 1v1.
Yo creo que sĂ, pero solo a travĂ©s de una o varias tarjetas para no quitar opciones a los jugadores.
4 Likes
It could at least be available as a shipping card from the metropolis to them, and enabled in the fort. Thus it would not be an absolute replacement for these units and at the same time it makes them more competitive, and also increases the diversity of units and strategic possibilities.
I have never agreed that a new unit is an absolute substitute for another unit, I just like to think that these are elite units that are specially obtain, and at a higher price, like the espahi and the nizam. A unit like this could work in a similar way. (Enabled in the fort and as shipping).
For example this unit could be enabled in the fort, it is not necessary to be enabled in the stables and it will automatically eclipse the archer rider.
Mounted Nizam-I Cedit (Napoleon: Total War) | Total War Wiki | Fandom
1 Like
Usually, in most cannon battles, you want to protect cannons from melee cav. At that point youâd rather have Cavalry Archers with their 30% melee resist and higher hp and damage to hand cav than a dragoon. Hit and run tactics donât matter anymore with the cannon being in bombard mode.
Saving your falcs to counter his infantry while your ranged infantry and light cavalry have a go at their equivalents is ideal.
So i guess it just comes down to your preference, both have their strengths and weakness, one is just more specialised, like the zambs, but arguably better.
If youâre going to raid with goons, youâll want them to be cav archers, or having to send your entire goon army to raid which is risky. Chances of them getting caught are high, or you could just right-click his base and catch his skirms with their pants down.
Besides goons only have 0.5x multiplier vs vills.
Not anymore itâs not, with âThe Buildâ (multiple tc boom with Otto) becoming semi-meta, they are as good as opri raids, but better since theyâre goons themselves. Not as uncommon anymore.
1 Like
this is entirely incorrect. Cavalry archers have 65 extra hitpoints. Their ranged hp is nearly identical to standard dragoons. Having extra hp gives them more resistance to cannon fire and they are extremely tanky in melee, while still requiring the exact same number of skirmisher or musket volleys to take down. Its win-win.
the only disadvantage is they canât kite particularly well. People - especially skirm goon bots - trash on cav archers all the time but theyâre very very cost effective and tanky ranged cavalry. I love em, its one of the best parts of playing lategame russia. They have the most hp of any standard ranged cavalry.
quick edit: it seems cav archers actually have more ranged hp now that goons are standardized to 20rr and not 30rr. cav archers are definitely better against ranged damage, as well as melee damage and siege damage!
7 Likes
That doesnât help much as the game progresses. Above all in NR. The most ideal units are usually those that have tolerance to projectiles.
The problem with Ottomans is that they donât have an efficient way to deal with light cavalry. The abus is supposed to do it, but it has 2 population slots, is expensive, weak, and has very little tolerance for projectiles. They have high damage, but behave more like a mini cannon than a skirmish.
This problem does not have the Russians. Cheap infantry, almost instant and much more versatility on the battlefield. They can better deal with civilizations that use dragons.