I have to wonder about the design. The Streltsy is cheaper and better than common hand cannoneers and has a huge melee attack that is higher than his range attack and it feels like it was forgotten to be nerfed. The Arbaletrier is also a jack of all trades and so is the grenadier. These units have, once they are available, no real downside and can only be countered by siege, which in the case of Rus gets completely taken out thanks to their 13.5 range springalds. They got the best range anti siege and the best hand cannoneers. Where is the counter to this comp? That’s just too much. And when you take a closer look at the Arbaletrier, he ends up with more melee armor than MAA or knights and also has the pavise. They need to either have much lower armor or should be counted as heavy… How can a light unit have that much armor? It makes no sense and is also a balance problem, because it’s only siege that successfully counters them. The patch made Arbaletriers even more powerful, when they already were by far the best crossbow unit. And if you say “we don’t see the Arbaletrier that often and don’t think he’s a problem” then I would have to say “Yeah, because the French also have the best knights and actually are not required to have this powerful crossbow unit as well”. Had the french baseline knights like the HRE, boring and with no techs at all for them, then we would see masses of Arbaletriers, because they are actually insanely strong.
The units I mentioned, and also other units but not to that extent, actually beat the rock, paper, scissor idea of the game. They break the counter system and they definitely need to be looked at.
And Chinese bombards with (and without) grenadiers have no counter unless you are Mongol or Rus and build tons of springalds. Maybe then you can counter the Chinese onslaught. Or maybe not.
“Do not let civ x get to point y” is not a good balance design. There need to be answers for everything and some things are just massively overtuned. Streltsies and Arbaletriers have zero trade offs. The Chinese trade off is requiring more time and ressources to get to their lateimp comp, but once they get it, they are unstoppable (unless you are Mongol or Rus. And even that is no gurantee). These things need to be more in line. I am not saying “make everything equal”, not at all, but I am saying make things different by not overtuning them. And also try to avoid untertuning them as well, by making them expensive and weak. The Landsknecht gets a double punish for being lightly armored: Little armor, terrible hp. That’s way too much of a trade off.
So we are left with units that have no trade off (Streltsy, Arb, Chinese lategame comp once you get there), units that have a slight trade off (Longbows) and units whose trade offs are just too great (Landsknecht).
And at first it was said, you wanted to improve crossbow damage vs cav. But you improved their dmg vs heavy including infantry and that is particularly bad for MAA centered civs. The improved elite tactics is a lategame tech and does not compensate for the increase in power of the crossbows vs MAA. Maybe the crossbow damage vs them is actually okay, that needs to be seen. The Arbaletrier, however, is a bit too much, because of his ability to be strong vs somewhat everything.