Skirms with no last armour are fine vs arbs. Also look at all the civs lacking ring archer armour and tell me which one would not be overbuffed from getting imp skirms. Anything other than “Burmese” would be a wrong answer. And it does nothing for Burmese cuz it’s not a castle age tech.
2 Likes
Skirms with no last armor trade 1 for 1 vs Arbs (actually Arbs narrowly win 1v1 vs a +2 armor Skirmisher). You can do the math yourself. They are average at best and arguably in mass fights the Arbalest player comes out on top.
If it’s a 1v1 trade why would arbs be better in a mass fight when they are more expensive?
gold is easier to gather + Arbs steamroll advantages better.
Come on it’s imperial age, don’t tell me food is hard to get anymore
not only is food not hard to get anymore, but you actually have to start worrying about your gold as it goes on.
I see another way to nerf archer play – enforce defensive play with archers in feudal. Make it risky for archers to move out. Seizing map control to opponent.
I think currently archers are excessively well-rounded unit in feudal age.
It could be done in several ways.
Variant 1
Reduce archer movement speed. Make them slower then men-at-arms and skirms. Only for archers, leave crossbow movement speed same as now.
Also this bufs maa openings (which is good in my opinion).
Variant 2
Reduce archer attack to 3 (now 4). Reduce skirms armor respectively.
This will reduce their offensive abilities, making it harder to kill vills with only 2-3 archers. And also much weaker against scouts.
Skirms main resource is wood not food.
Militia/men at arms is already the most common opener, why would it need buffs?
What is your MMR? Id rather skirmishers cost wood entirely rather than some food, just so I can compete with my opponents castle up time…
Increase their train time to 30 secs, like the archers, and they should be fine in most situations.
the answer is simple
people dont want to put in the effort to learn to micro, or they tried and gave up because some other players are just better. people tend to seek the easier way out.
what other easier way is there than to post on forum and complain, hoping for a change. Vast majority of dissatisfied player who share similar sentiment would band together and be loud, blow the issue out of proportion.
this is the problem nowadays people no longer have patience to sit through and learn and would rather call them broken, bug rather than keep at it and find workarounds or get better.
if one was to nerf xbow, it’d be the collision and clearance size so they are much easier to get surrounded rather than be in group. then again, some others would come in complain.
how is Crossbow vs Knight interaction a “get good and micro” issue? It seems to me that the main reason Knights aren’t played is:
- Knights are food-intensive and getting to Imp first matters a lot, especially as an Archer civ
- Monks counter Knights harder than Mangonels/Scorpions counter Crossbows
- Crossbows can’t be quickwalled
None of these 3 seem to be solvable “by microing Knights better”.
Also you realize that if I was a salty player I would propose something unreasonable like +15g, instead I’m proposing +5w which is a very minor nerf and doesn’t impact gold expenditure long term, either. Mostly I want the Archer player to choose a bit more between developing eco and flooding Crossbows from 2-3 ranges, Knights players must make this choice, Crossbow player shouldn’t make this choice as harshly because Crossbow doesn’t scale as effectively, nevertheless you should be penalized a bit for massing army as the archers player, currently it’s 3 TC boom AND full army basically AND fast Imp time.
how is it not? the title of this thread isnt xbow vs knight, its xbow nerf.
you have options to use civ that has access to xbow, many civ have access to them.
they choose not to use them because its micro intensive. need to gitgud
ah I see. So basically you don’t like the idea of cavalry civs playing their “natural” unit in Castle age and you would like cavalry civs to default to Crossbow in Castle age. Might as well give everyone Arbalest and remove Stable from the game. Every civ should be renamed “Archer civilization” and tech trees adjusted accordingly. Occasional Knight to kill Mango can be made directly from Archery range which is the only micro-approved building.
/s
Mangonels? That’s illegal now, it would stop archer play being easy, so actually, you don’t need knights anymore at all 
.
ah I see, so basically you like to put words in other people’s mouth
Man everybody above a certain level can micro archers decently.
That’s NOT the issue with archer play.
And if we talk about Mangonels then it’s really only about the pros who are even technically able to do that - and one “solution” is to just make the mango projectiles fly a bit faster.
This doesn’t change the fact that for the majority of players archers are actually objectively worse than knights on arabia. But the reasons for that are much more complicated and no, it’s not micro (except maybe for LEL), that I can tell you.
you would not balance based on majority of players, because when u do, the best players would take full advantage of it with their skill level.
because issue with that logic is, majority of players at around lower elo say ~1200-1300 example and most don’t micro. you remove the need to micro then there would be no need for weaker units. next thing you know people would complain about knights too strong against siege because pros would micro the knights killing siege.
you should and mostly balance it on the best of players at any given time frame, and reward players who do micro, and microing well.
Well I give you some hint so you can maybe start thinking in the right direction:
Many archer Players at mid elo actually lose cause they micro TOO MUCH.