Even +2 defense knights are useless against massed xbows, which are way easier to get to.
1 Like
not really. it takes 40 crossbows to 1 shot knights. if mass crossbow is such a winning strategy why don’t winrates reflect it? most the top civs on the ladder are cavalry civs
1 Like
Because people (myself included and I’m 14-15xx) can’t use crossbows properly.
1 Like
even at the pro level cavalry civs are still prevalent.
1 Like
Source? (don’t show me 1650+ stats, 1650 is not pro)
1 Like
Hidden cup 4 saw a healthy mix of cavalry and non cavalry civs on arabia, as did the arabia invitational.
1 Like
you should probably review your favourite stats. You claim everywhere that Lith relic bonus (being capped at 4 in castle age) is alright , but you might wanna check Lithuanians and their early game winrates again:
pretty susceptible for a nerf, isn’t it? As well as their +150 food should be changed for something maybe a bit more consistent long-term and less impactful that early.
Though in this case, i agree that knights and xbox are fair. 1 small mistake (mangonel shot or knight surroung) is enough lose everything…Yet archer civs are undoubtedly more frequent than cavalry civs, especially thanks to nowadays’ walling - just check the civ pickrates in various tournaments and it’ll become obvious. Even Jordan went xbow as Franks(!!)
What would relics have to do with early game winrates? You aren’t going to get relics in the early game.
And even if you somehow manage to pull off an early castle age and start collecting relics you aren’t going to get 4 in the early game.
That Said I’ve already agreed that the food bonus could be reduced to 100 at the lowest.
The relic bonus could be capped in castle age at +3 but the +4 overall is fine, and I’ve said that before too.
Again the relic bonus is something that can be lost. Unlike other bonuses.
It’s high risk high reward