Barely winning and barely positive is same thing? I don’t get you. With your book if you win a game once out of 100 times its still winning? Sure you win the match and still lose 99 and in your case you’re barely winning / positive side. For example past few days I have been purely losing. Sure I got wins here and there but lot of losses and im not describing it barely winning even if my winrate at this period would be 50%
It won’t change it from 3 spears to 2. Yes you will reduce the hit requirement slightly but you’re not factoring rate of fire. Early knight or knight regardless rate of fire is 1.38 meanwhile spear has 1.75 which is like 20-30% slower than knight. They’re also like 40% faster???
So essentially when units are at lower numbers. Like 6 spears vs 2 knights. French can just micro one back while one gets few hits and again. Your spears remain still at the HP they were when they fought, meanwhile french can send knights back to base and wait few minutes to heal up and meanwhile use 2 new knights. Thats why I like the chivalry upgrade nerf more than reducing their health. If all units were to generate their health after getting upgraded then sure 20hp is much more impactful and matters more.
Heck I have even toyed around with monks and their healing. Get the upgrade from monastery after all relics are taken and sent 2 monks to close to your opponents base. With right rotation and cycling through I was able to raid constantly without losing units. I think I had like 150-200 kills and 10-15 deaths after the game. Not something I would recommend doing unless game is basically over but was interesting to test out.
Ofc its different. If we compare you and me. You might find it hard doing thing X and I might finding Y hard but it can be easy for you to do Y.
Disagreeing with you about the knight change and I have explained why and Im putting it to 1v1 perspective. So do you understand the argumentation behind it or are you simply going to ignore it? Told you many times what civilizations like french gain from having early knights. It gives them kill potential on any villager, map control, self healing, mobile army and they trade very effectively against spears, also they scale much better for late game vs spears which become just less valuable unit.
So the HP change won’t really affect them. Yes they trade less effectively but they still have so many strong points over the spears and other units. If bombards were so stacked for china to deserve such butchering then French knights are in same position especially when they have strongest xbows in game too.
Yes you can zone knights out with right amount of spears but knights never have to take the fight if they don’t want to which creates the threat of something coming and forces response from you as defender. Meanwhile french can do what ever they want and this is where the strength of knights come from. You have to always respect the knights and the threat even if they got 20 less HP but it doesn’t mean you end up winning because french is civ that tries to be ahead from feudal to imp and reach it before you can as defender. Their imp may not be strongest suite but they replace it by having insanely strong feudal and even stronger castle.
I much rather have early game / mid game power as china main than late game power. If the siege / grenadier nerfs result china getting one of the strongest feudal / castle then Im more than happy with the trade off because it just means I can win the game in 10-15mins and not in 40mins