That is why people are pushing towards an archer bonus. Armor is ok, despite it is just a worse Vietnamese bonus. Maybe add hp regen. There might be something more creative.
A generic bonus would push them as a more generic civ, which might fit the oper tech tree later on.
A trash bonus would be very useful to survive the early stages (they do need this), but does not give an identity
This makes sense, a little worried they’ll end up being a generic archer civ worse than the other ones (Britons, Ethiopians, Vietnamese…), since all good bonuses are already taken.
Feels like Portuguese, being forced into this generic state of being a mediocre Archer civ, with University bonuses, very lame. But I dont see any other solution so whatever 
Elite genoese upgrade is among the worst elite upgrade in the game possibly
+1/+1 armor would be in line with vietnamese bonus in feudal, and could be doubled down on pavise in Castle Age. Pavise need to affect skirmisher also, atm is just a bad tech imho compared to something like silk armor
But all in all, Italians do not suck, they just Need a little help to help their identity as an Archer civ, si c’è they have nothing atm outside the UT which is just bad for archers
Which makes sense, since Genoese is a difficult unit to scale, just like Conq, Jannisary and Organ Gun. Ranged Unit that’s efficient vs. Cavalry units is very tricky one, if scales too smoothly to Imp it can be unstoppable. According to the mechanism of AOE II, ranged units can ball into a deadly mass, especially those who are anti-melee units, with the assistance of siege they’re just too strong.
And that’s the beauty about this game, not every Elite upgrade should be as rewarding or as valuable per cost.
Monks could be created faster; reflecting that Italy was the center of Christianity.
Very true. The only strong bonuses are extra attack and extra speed. I think the second might actually work.
We can also trust devs in terms of possibile options. They invented charge mechanics for instance. You could give Italian archer extra attack (or extra arrow) with a charge mechanics, which can be easily balanced (e.g. +1 attack every 60s is clearly not op).
that’s just silly reasoning. if the upgrade does not give you anithing, what’s the point in researching it? it should at least be cheaper. another way could be the elitè gain like +2 MA with elitè upgrade which would change nothing in their unit composition (which btw other civs have similar if not even better) cause geno would still be countered by skirms, other archers, and onagers, while further emphasizing the fact that cavalry is not a good counter
with +1 range (or +1 attack) would be enough
I wouldn’t go for extra attack/arrow, but the idea of extra movement speed is wonderful, especially for a civ that has no Cavalry Archer. With that being said, it’s such a globally dominant bonus, it has to come with some nerfs, one of them would be getting rid of Pavis, and/or their University bonus. I’m all for minimalism, especially when it comes to this kind of great bonus to the most meta unit.
We dont want Italians to end up being as poorly designed as Britons (civ which is inflated with good highly relevant bonuses)
You want Elite Genoese Crossbowman to be a perfect substitute to Arbalester with a massive Bonus vs cavalry on top? So just the ultimate unit that is good vs everything?
So the cost increases, it makes no sense that the best mercenary crossbowmen in history have lower rank and gold cost than a normal one.
The real question is how much extra speed is balanced. If you give them a small amount, then the bonus will be still behind Ethiopians and britons
I think they are actually very good designed. Ofc, they are highly pushed towards one unit, but this is how the game works. Except for 1v1 late game, none plays FU knights and FU xbow. Indeed, you will play one of the two. That is why britons and franks are top tier to me.
The elite upgrade is overpriced, then a trivial solution is a cost reduction of the upgrade.
+1 range would pair it with other UUs. To me the real important thing would be the spammability (so I would go for a much smaller TT) since the unit is supposed to be a counter unit.
But this is not the real buff the civ needs.
Being introduced as a halb replacement, they would work better with no gold cost but weaker stats. However given the current unit design and its historical accuracy, then even +1 range would work
i personally havent’ even tough about that since again i want their core weaknesses-strenght to remain the same, thus why i proposed more MA, cause if fits (they alreadu have more MA than regular archer line) and emphasize the fact that cavalry is not a counter, but keeps them weak against other generci arbalest due to less range, and skirms and onager of course
Good point, I’m seriously against small bonuses. It must be 10% or rather 5% per age.
Britons are as bad as it gets with a civ design, not a single feature is well implemented nor harmonic. It’s beyond the “one-trick-pony” nature of the civ. I dont know even where to begin.
10% is like a pike after Squires. It would be useful to escape dangerous situations especially in feudal, which is essential for one of the worst eco in the game.
Conversly, it does not help you in holding a position (for instance if you are pressured and you wanna keep a forward gold). Also the micro advantage is way inferior to britons/Ethiopians.
It may be reasonable, 15% is maybe too much.
The game is win by single strategy (knights, xbow, eagles) until imp. The winning civ are one dimensional because the game higly favors that style. Unless you have a top eco like china…
Indeed, 10% is Lithuanians Skirmisher level.
It’s less about the single-dimensionalism and more about the management of power-spikes. Britons have the best Archers on Castle Age, which is the best Unit in the game to begin with, +1 range is supirior to even free Thumb Ring, the only bonus that could be better than this is free Ballistics.
AOE II has a comeback mechanism that’s designed to fight this death ball of Archers, it’s called Siege, which are barely useful vs. skilled Britons players.
I’m cool with this bonus on paper, especially when the civ lacks Thumb Ring, the problem is at the implementation, the civ has also 2 major eco bonuses, that’s a childish design, you cant give a civ the best military bonus on top of multiple eco bonuses especially when the unit/composition is the most meta one in the game.
And finally the Longbow, imagine Vietnamese had a bonus to their Crossbows, having +1 pierce armor per age, it would drain the purpose out of the Rattan to a major degree, that’s why we dont see Longbows, they serve no win-condition, it’s an over-the-top luxurious unit for closed maps.
Design simply couldnt be worse. It’s so bad a fix will require a whole redesign.
to me personally armor suites italians much more than speed, which speaks to me more about steppe-archers/ guerrilla units flavour. italians were knows for advanced technology and fine blacksmiths, and pavise also reflects that.
i think +1/+1 armor for foot archers and skirmishers from feudal would go a long way and would be more accurate on italians, and would indirectly help pavise being more useful doubling down on its effect
but seriously any feudal buff for their archers that could help their early game and help their identity as an archery civ would be completely fine for me, i just think armor would be more effective and accurate
+1/1 armor is ok especially if affecting more that just archers (skyrms indeed, as the old pavise).
Speed might be more distinctive over the Vietnamese.
Speed, especially on open maps can be too strong for different reasons:
There’s a good reason extra speed/attack are not used as a bonus for archers