Training time of archery UU

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

As most of us may have noticed, DE has been encouraging the use of cavalry UU as they have shortened the training time of Boyar, Leitis, Keshik etc, and made 15 seconds for the new Coustilier, so they can almost match the production of knight line in stable. Infantry UU are often very fast to produce (their limitation are often high food cost), which left those archer UU in behind a lot now. Sure Devs do notice this, and cut the training time of Genoese xbow. But I still notice some ranged UU which are discouraging to use due to long training time:

Mangudai (26s, it could potentially be broken if the training time is too short, but 26s made it so hard to mass even in closed map. extremely difficult to replace if you died a big team of them)
Conqs (24s, definitely OK in castle age as they are dominant and expensive. But it gotta be shorter in imperial)
Mamelukes (23s, one of main reasons they are not commonly seen, heavy unit cost + heaving castle cost)
Kipchaks (20s, the time seems reasonable, but this unit is weak without massing. Recently used them vs Plumes in Fortress, they are so weak without bloodlines)
Longbow (18s, for cost efficiency, this is way too long, so arbalests are preferred in 90% of situations)

Lets vote for average how many seconds you think those ranged UU training time should be shortened?
  • no need
  • 1-2 seconds
  • 2-3 seconds
  • 3-4 seconds
  • 4-5 seconds
  • 5 seconds or more

0 voters

2

So first of all, you can’t put together foot archers, cavalry archers and gunpowder all together, they have different TT for a reason.

And the longbow isn’t used for their long TT, but because you most likely already have have a big ball of xbows from the early ages, and your ranges work 20% faster.

The GC now have the same TT of LB, but it was reduced because before they took 22s to be trained. Rattan, CKN, and plumes yes took 2 seconds less, and that’s the maximum of what you could reduce on LB and GC, but onestly they are still strong units.

Those are all three different units…

Mangudai is supposed to be difficult to mass, they are a super strong unit, and mongols also have buffed CA if they don’t want to go fir a castle. The reason they want to go for mangudai all the time is because they are stronger, and so rightfully takes longer times. Anyway, it’s a unit really strong in small groups, so no it’s not necessary a buff on them.

Conqs are fine, in castle they are effective in small numbers, and in imp you can still snowball them and keep massing them if you don’t lose your numbers. Otherwise, you can mass HC as spanish, which is probably what you are supposed to do.

Kipchaks already have a very short TT for being a CA, and they are also fast and easy to micro, so despite being squishy, you can train a group of them fast, and replace them as fast if you need. You can’t give them a lower TT, otherwise you would basically them the TT of a foot archer. They are also cheap for what they do, so they are fine.

The problem of mamelukes is their TT, but their gold cost, the higher gold cost for a non-siege military units. And again, they are supposed to work in small units.

So to summarize, the only archer who could see a small reduction of TT are the LB and GC, that they could lose 2 seconds in castle age (the EGC already take 16s) to be brought to the level of the other archer UU (16s), but onestly, it’s not that necessary. All the other UU have reasonable TT…

2 Likes
3

The only archer unit which I feel like needs a TT reduction is genoese, since italians only have pikes otherwise to counter cavalry. All of the other units’ TT seem fine to me.

4 Likes
4

So what do u think abt Boyar and keshik cutting training time, just for the sake of NOT replaced by knight line?
If u playing Fortress, would u even consider knight line if u can train boyars or keshiks?

Since mangudai, conqs and mamelukes aren’t substitutable, they should then have longer training time? Why do War wagon has a shorter training time than conqs and mamelukes given WW is a bulkier unit?

IMO the gameplay is totally unbalanced if one go for cav uu and the other go for CA-type uu (cav 100% on top). It is a similar reason why CA is often not used in open map, you just CANT make enough to stand with knight and xbow. U just need to invest extra wood in archery range, which actually means increased unit cost, esp in short run.

And i don’t get why the mameluke cost isnt related to training time. If u can build 3 castle instead 4, u saved 650 stone which is a lot in early imperial!

For longbow, i dont see why they cant be cut to like 14-15s given how fast their substitute xbow is. As i said over 90% of time players prefer arbalest, even in Arena, and the only reason is the training time. In addition, do u notice why Chukonu is so deadly? I guess one of the reason is the elite 13s TT! Arguably they are the foot archer having the least need to mass (huge DPS), but they are the easiest to mass too…easily see chukonu transition even in arabia.

For kipchak, they are pity to be treated as CA-type (40hp…), while the other uu at least 55hp (conqs). u could see Kipchak being micro down by xbow in similar numbers

5

Yeah exactly this

So what? They’re still good with blood lines for the job they’re meant to do.

Plumes are one of the worse match ups because they’re super tanky with PA. But FU kipchaks still beat them cost effectively

Here’s a tip… Try screening them with the super spammy scout line

6

So u ve assumed they can get bloodline up at once?
I feel Cumans are often killed 1v1 coz people want to get to kipchak but they are fallen quicker than produced. Bloodline isnt up most cases coz it is so expensive to afford both castle and barricks stables.

I agree they are good enough with bloodline tho

7

Keshiks are already used a lot, since they are so cheap they have more PA than a knight, and they already have half the TT of a knight.

The boyars also train at a fast TT, the main prois that they are slow and more gold expensive, so if you are against a cav civ, they can be used, if not knights are better.

Because WW is already an expensive unit, and it’s the only viable strategy for Koreans.

Because no archer UU is produced so fast, and standard archer can be trained and massed from the feudal age.

Most CA are countered by xbows, since they are cheaper and have more range.

Because they could be trained in even 3 seconds and no one will pay for a unit that cost 85 gold and needs 10 upgrades to be good.

And thank God for it, since such units when massed are incredibly powerful, more than massed knights or massed xbows, so they shouldn’t be faster to produce.

3 Likes
8

Besides the keshik, every cav UU is worse against archers than the knight line. Except boyars since they got buffed and Slavs don’t have paladins, but they also are slower. Try beating a deathball of mangudai with just boyars 11

9

melee units are more likely to die, so it makes sense that they have lower training times then units like archers and cav archers.

2 Likes
10

I think the ‘problems’ with archer UUs are completely unrelated, and a blanked TT reduction is a bad idea.

for example the following UUs are all either fine or borderline OP:

  • Rattan archer
  • Mangudai
  • Plumes

I think Longbows and Mamelukes could be improved, but that is outside the scope of this thread.

1 Like
11

longbows already have a very small frame delay, longer range and damage, as well as costing less gold then arbs. why do they need to be improved?

12

Because they don’t get used (much)

I think simply giving non-elite longbows +1 range, -1 damage would be enough.

13

that has nothing to do with the power of the longbow and everything to do with the fact that the game doesn’t go to the point where longbows can be used frequently. though frankly we saw them already in HC4
by your logic we have to buff almost every cavalry unique unit in the game, because most of them don’t see much use.

1 Like
14

To some extend I agree with your argument.

I agree that buffing cavalry UUs to the point that they get made (somewhat often) would be undesirable, and hence in principle the same could apply to Longbows.

However I would like to see Longbows more, and I think it can be achieved in a way which makes the game better, (ie without breaking the game balance,) probably via the change I suggested above (+1 range, -1 damage for non-elite longbows)

I think cavalry UUs can’t be buffed to the point of relevance only because the knight line is borderline OP. Anything stronger (meaning more useful than) than a knight/paladin would be OP, It’s no accident that the cavalry UU I remember seeing most (the Cataphract) belongs to a civ with rubbish knights/cavalier/paladins.

15

This imply cav UUs aren’t relevant. Which is false, since most of them are relevant.

16

meanwhile archer civs are the ones dominating HC4, even the land maps. but hey, knight OP.

1 Like
17

We definitively have seen different matches, because i see knights win more.

4 series are in the video (sry its spanish, you can search it in any language you want), Obviusly I skipped most of the stream, but I only find 1 match were a civ with archers won against knights (5:25:00 Mayans vs Franks). Also lithuanians are doing great in this HC.

18

maybe the way i control mangudai is too weak, but at my level I would have 80+% chance killed mongols before the deathball is formed. who the hell wouldnt mix in ranged unit when vs mangudai. And like by the time I get to 20 boyars, opponent only get 12 mangudais unless he built 2nd castle. How can I not on top in that situation :thinking:

19

So this could be my own problem. I can’t keep the number of CA alive enough (except Huns and tatars perhaps) so as to hold off the initial big advantage of knights and reach a CA deathball in later stage. And what do u think about elite Chukonu 13s TT?

20

i could accept all other arguments, but this one is non-sense.
Mameluke would be MUCH MUCH more popular if they can be trained in 3 seconds. In Fortress Mameluke would be OP. btw may i know what your Elo is?