Thoughts on this hypothetical bonus

Shrug. All i know is he thinks its balancdd and at best says make them lose thumbring. But lets be real. How do you even fight this as a cav civ?

Thry kill castle knights in 24 shots.

1 Like

Which are the arguments in favor of this idea?

I think +1/3/5 is too much, except if the civ lacks all archer’s armors and thumbring.

Maybe could be not so extreme, +1/+1/+1, if you design the civ around another power unit and these archers as a support unit.

Go read the reddit post linked above. Basically at most he thinks they could do without thumbring as well.

For me the biggest problem with this concept is getting a free power boost in Feudal followed by massive powerspikes in early Castle and Imp (Getting +2 attack instantly without having to pay for or wait for techs).

Definitely busted.


I’m reading the original post in reddit (i saw it the link after my first reply), and actually, with a little tweak I think it could work…
In one hand, you have the insane wood gathering bonus, but in the other hand archers TT is 5 sec more than knights, so they would more hard to mass and with the -1 range would suffer a lot against Eskirms and a few knights… Mangos would destroy them.

Even if they don’t lack of armor upgrade, should be mandatory to research it to offset the -5hp. So, you have to spend some res in upgrades anyway…

Not that hard to mass. Remember they cost roughly half whst a knight does and wood is faster then food.

They can also be massed starting in feudal.
They also have +3 attack in castle which means you kill knights in 24 shots. Compared to the normal 40.
Skirms? You do 3 damage a shot in castle, compared to the normal 1.

1 range disadvantage but you do 3 times the damage. You also have an insane wood bonus and half pop spears.

You also do 4 damage a shot to eagles as opposed to 2. Pretty significant advantage.


Yes, this is why I said need some tweaks.
Maybe just +1atk free per age could work and be balanced. Still is a good trade if lose more Eskirms than against generic crossbows

I agree +1 per age would be more balanced but i just think + attack for archers in general is a bad idea. Its going to end up either too strong, or pretty much useless.


Such a bonus of strong generic archers will fit well for hypothetical civs that used large composite bow and less armour due to tropical weather, Africa, India comes to mind.

Not without heavy drawbacks it wouldnt. It would be absolutely busted.

To balance make them one dimensional archer only civ, no good trash units for meat shield, no fast cavalry to counter enemy skirmishers.

I tend to agree. I’m open minded if someone proposes a design with tradeoffs that seems balanced, but this is just such a naked Feudal and early Castle Age powerup as to easily establish a winning position in a ton of matchups. There are plenty of other ways to buff archers as well, I don’t know why people have to instantly gravitate to the most broken and hardest to balance method.

Also, judging by that thread, it seems like people on Reddit are way more positive with regard to civ designs (never made an acct). I don’t know if I’ve seen that much unmixed praise in any civ thread here, much less one with an average design + 1 clearly OP aspect. Looks like reddit is the easy mode for civ designers who want positive feedback.
On the other hand though, having seen that I’ll definitely tend to trust peoples’ judgment and discernment more on here.


I think you’re slightly over stressed about this whole “+ attack for archers is bad” thing.

-range is a pretty serious downside. -hp on top of -range is serious too, and a long TT is not negligible.

There are UUs which have +1 attack over archers and aren’t super OP.

A civ which has decent archers with +attack in Imp definitely shouldn’t also have +attack in Feudal, but that doesn’t mean that all civ designs which grant archers extra attack are terrible.

Because they are limited by requiring a castle to mass which is a huge downside.

Look at longbows. Pretty much better then arbs in every regard in imperial. Yet more often then not we see arbs.

Im not saying it cant happen but such a civ would need clear drawbacks.

1 Like

With their Wood gathering bonus its also way easier to build additional archery ranges to offset the longer tt.


I think you are overreacting… Ethiopians archers fire +18% faster from feudal for free without drawbacks (stackable with thumbring), gain free resources and free pikemen upgrade (stronger than half pop spears)… I find this civ concept design very similar… Even weaker than already existing Ethiopians.

So it’s better than an xbow/arb without having to pay for xbow/arb?

It’s goofy and I hate it. Kill it with fire.


Extra damage is a much bigger upside then faster attack.

Im not sure how you can say this is a worse Ethiopians

I refer to the whole civ design… Imo after Feudal Age Ethiopians scales better than this civ. I have tested in editor and skirms still do it great and still have less TT and not cos gold… You poteancially could even defend you with turks’ skirms

Im sorry but killing knights in 24 shots is far better then Ethiopians extra attack speed. Maybe its worss against archers but vs cav? N2m the far better eco.