It’s cheaper by a long shot compared to pike, skirm(literally half the price to upgrade than the counter unit) and LS.
Why did the devs decide the game inherently supports xbows and knights over any other gameplay?
As in if the skirm upgrade was cheaper it would make it more viable upgrading to eskirm.
In mixed armies, skirms power falls off completely as they engage ANYTHING that isn’t an archer. Nevermind you can actually micro to defeat skirms. And how weak skirms are vs archers in feudal…
Archers power only falls if they engage arrow sponges.
Example a goth player defending off archers in feudal and early castle is significantly handicapped creating counter units as opposed to the mayan attacking them…
Ive never understood why the devs are set on this mindset? A game about counters where the counters are generally lagging. Pikes that are just weak enough that knights can actually defeat them in numerous cases.
Maybe that is because trash counter units are too cheap and devs balance these unit line for upgrade need some cost.
Also archer line has so many counters (not only skirms, heavy cavarly, seige, defense building…), and too gold intensive and pop-inefficient compared to cavarly in late game. So archer line should use their early castle and early imp powerspike that their upgrade cost is cheaper than other unit line. Arbalesters are quickly fall off after players can access to Onagers, and Lightcav/Hussar spam with massive farm economy.
Generally, counter unit can be more used when you are defensive/losing position. If these units are more easier to upgrade and get it, game become longer, player tend to play less aggressively because their attack will more easily blocked by counter unit. So, it should pay some cost to get trash counter unit.
Fun fact is that ESkirm upgrade cost was 250f 160g in the release of the game, and African kingdom reduce that cost significantly to 200f 100g, and increased to 230f 130g again in DE. Maybe that is because archer rush was so easily blocked by ESkrim when the upgrade cost is too cheap and archer civs were bad at that balance. So it was changed again in DE.
skirms are the most cost effective counter to archers in the game, what more do you want?
that is because every other game mode is based on having endless gold.
all ranged units require micro to be effective. if you just attack/patrol moved with archers they aren’t going to do very well against cavalry, but with micro they can take good trades.
Fun fact: it used to cost more! 250 wood 160 gold in the AOK release, vs 230/130 now.
Skirms and pikemen are supposed to be supplementary options to a main force. They’re the cheapest military units to make, and have high attack bonuses against the units they counter, meaning they usually don’t need the full suite of attack upgrades to be effective. These are some of the reasons why there is a difference in the cost. You can’t play cheap trash as a main unit and win, that’s a result of good game design.
You must be missing armour or something, skirms really shine in Feudal. Sure, you can’t win 6 vs 25. But they do great. Get upgrades.
This is kind of a misunderstanding. Yes, going skirms as Goths will “put your eco behind” as you spend food and wood to defend from archers, but this is typically done to buy time for a castle so the Goths can make Huskarls. The fact that it is so powerful (goodbye, 30 Mayan xbows) is also the reason it is so difficult and expensive. You should have to invest into counter units to defend; I think a lot of the “behind-ness” people experience is more down to poor economy management under pressure and an over-investment in skirms.
If the best are nerfed then a new generation of best archer civs will rise and civ pickers will choose them. The whole civ/position pick deal is a whole different problem than balance. Because first if you remove position picking then people will just pick civs that perform good regardless of their position, and I don’t think you would be very happy about that either, second nerfing so much bonuses or even a whole unit line just because of this would be so bad for 1v1 players.
What you ask is to remove trade so endless gold is no longer an option. Then you will see 4v4 trash war in the late imp.
Endless gold is the problem of all team game modes, not skirmishers or halberdiers.
Well, it’s not the only reason. Even without trade, making skirmishers would still be a bad idea since at least during feudal and castle age no one would care about gold yet and make knights to support their ally’s archers.
The deal with team games is just that there is less need to make counter units yourself since your allies can cover your weaknesses, and a double gold unit composition beats pretty much every combination of trash units. Which is a good thing because in 1v1 trash wars would begin so early otherwise 11
What are you on about? Skirms are absolutly carzy strong, they counter archers hard and good skirms can carry a civ in the lategame.
In teamgames, it is a different story. In feudal, you cant go skirms as going skirms means sitting in your own base - but the opponents can just go to the next base then, making it a 2v1 and ending the game.
Castle age its pretty much the same, but worse, as there will be always kts and your skirms wont ever be able to even hit archers.
Imp is when we sometimes do see skirms in teamgames, since everything starts to be so messy the army is not always in place and you can sometimes trade with arbs, making skirms actually useful. However, its nothing you really want to invest into, as there will always be paladin and even a huge ball of eskirms just die to them.
