What if Cavalry Archers could be built at the Stable, too?

Cavalry Archers’ big problem is being tough to get into early. I was thinking; what if you could build them from stables as well as archery ranges? They are cavalry, after all, not just archers.

That would mean you could save an extra 175 wood to build them, and you could transition straight from scouts into cavalry archers, opening up options for some civs to do an extra-early CA surprise attack.

For example, if you did a scout rush, grabbed bloodlines and husbandry, but started getting countered by spears. You’d have pretty potent CAs at that stage if you could get them out efficiently enough, for a brief period.

Maybe have them produce more slowly there, if they need to be a bit balanced? You’d want to have stuff like Thumb Ring eventually, after all, this would just be to get them out ASAP so you could take advantage of their higher stats before a lot of upgrades start coming in.

1 Like

Three problems:

  • No other standard unit is build in multuiple buildings. Introducing such exceptions is not desireable.
  • Buffing Cavalry archers is not desireable.
  • There is no place at the stable. There is only place for 4 units which already are light cav, Knights, Steppe Lancers and Camels. Introducing a second page for Cavalry archers (like for some ships at the dock) is not desirable.
3 Likes

Setting the others aside for a moment, why not?

What got me thinking was, have you ever seen any civ use CAs without a pronounced CA bonus? I was reading in the Persians rework thread about how the devs intended for Persians to use CAs to counter their weaknesses to cavalry counters, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone actually do that.

As far as I can tell, CAs are basically good in exactly one case; when used by a civ with full upgrades, a fairly major bonus, and even then, mostly in the late imperial age.

Which doesn’t seem right to me. Seems to me that some sort of early-game bonus would make a lot of sense, to make them more viable for more general purpose use.

The devs are trying to buff Infantry. CA is an infantry hard-counter.

So I think it is good that CA is more situational and civ-specific. If it was overall just good to go for CA, Infantry would become weaker.

That is an interesting point. Just by making infantry more viable, they are making CAs somewhat more viable by proxy. Gambesons made CAs about 20% better, relatively speaking(at least in theory), since they now do 33% more damage, rather than 25% more.

I still don’t think any general unit should be so specific, though. Almost every civ can reasonably go archers right now, even with the infantry buffs. The same isn’t true of CAs.

I’ll agree that going so far as to make infantry less powerful isn’t ideal, but I would like to see a place for them somehow for any civ.

I think by the same logic elephant archers, armored elephants, and missionaries could also be made at stables.

IDK initially I liked this idea but the more I think about it the less I’m convinced this works well as a general change.

I think it could work as a civ bonus tho.

Imagine some hypothetical CA civ. They have a bonus for CA can be built at stables. Now imagine how that’d play out if you had a hun ally or conversely a Briton ally.

1 Like

Good point. I had to think about it for a sec, but those ARE civ or region-specific units, so it’s not quite equivalent.

I wouldn’t be super stoked by the idea of making it a civ bonus; that would just make one more civ with a special CA bonus, and it wouldn’t really fix CAs in general.

I think maybe the biggest problem is that CAs tend to become exponentially more powerful the more of them you have, so little buffs to make them a little bit better at the beginning, ends up ballooning out to make them much too powerful in the end. Five CAs are quite weak, but 25 CAs become almost unstoppable.

So maybe have them creatable at the stable, but at a much slower rate? Archery Ranges build them in 34 seconds(compared to 27 for archers), so maybe the ones created at the stable could be, say, 25% slower? 42 seconds for creation means the Huns would still be slightly better off building them at an archery range, which seems fair to me.

Other civs wouldn’t be able to make very many in time, but they could build small numbers and use them against, say, pikemen.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say CAs need fixing but it is unfortunate they don’t see more use.

I think in smaller groups they’re very good at raiding. Get 6-10 in your enemy’s eco and it’s a bad day for them.

But yeah they dont usually end up as the core unit for a lot of civs.

I think because archers are useless against buildings you need to rely on slower siege so the mobility doesn’t end up being so important, so longer range cheaper arbs are usually preferred in that kind of comp.

Paladins are ok against buildings, so some civs could go paladin HCA and have a very mobile comp. But I think most players would prefer to use rams, trebs, or BC. Therefore the extra mobility of the CA can’t be fully used.

1 Like

A big part of that is that the unit is way more dependent on Thumb Ring for damage compared to Archers, thanks to a horrific base 50% accuracy for both base and HCA versus the 80/85/90 accuracy of Archers/Crossbowmen/Arbalests respectively. There’s little reason for even most CA civs to go into them early on over Archers, unless you’re able to take great advantage of their higher speed to annoy the enemy, and I say annoy because Archers are better for just outright killing Vills.

That’s not true. CAs are dominant at higher elos. If you can micro, they are insanely strong, even against their supposed counters.

This is fine. The way it works right now is that you use camels/knights/lancers in early castle age, and slowly transition into cav archers by late caste/early imperial. This is not an issue.

Exactly this. Cav archers+hussars is one of the strongest combos in the game. They really don’t need a buff.

I asked this for Magyars for a secondary effect of their Castle Age UT.

You’d still need an archery range for Parthian Tactics and Thumb Ring though, which kind of defeats the point of making CA at stables. Plus the CA player would often go from scouts and knights into CA so having both Cavalry and CA queued up at the same building would harm your cavalry production. Interesting idea though. Would make a cool civ bonus as mentioned above.

2 Likes

True, but early in castle age most players won’t have that yet. However, they may have bloodlines and potentially husbandry. A cavalry archer with bloodlines and husbandry could be reasonably effective at dealing with small numbers of spearmen or monks, which could make certain strategies more viable, like early unique units.

They wouldn’t be particularly effective against enemy archers, but that’s not what they’d be used for.

They WOULD overlap with other units at the stable, too, but since they wouldn’t take food, it could be reasonable to build CAs instead of something else if you’re investing your food eco into something else at the moment, but have some spare wood and gold instead. This could be especially handy in early castle age, when you’re putting a lot of your food eco into multiple TCs.

No.

Parthian Tactics no, but it’s not uncommon to go for early Thumb Ring with CA

Yeah, and for a lot of the civs which already go for CAs, this change probably wouldn’t be too useful.

That’s the idea honestly; it makes them more accessible to civs that currently don’t go for CAs, without making any real difference to the civs that do. Hopefully it would make them a bit more common for niche purposes. They could be really handy for countering monk/spear defenses, for example.


Edit: I used the simulator to calculate, and you need 18 CAs with thumb ring to balance the cost compared to just making 5 more CAs instead; at that point, you even out with a civ without thumb ring. I don’t think most of these civs would be making that many CAs early on in the first place, so in the short term, it really wouldn’t be necessary.

I mean I wouldn’t be against it honestly.

1 Like