Should the cost of the crossbow upgrade be increased? currently one of the best value upgrades in the game if not the best and provides a meta dominating power spike.
I really don't know why elite skirms were nerfed tbh.The +30 +30 increased cost of ESkirm tech cost in DE is part of the problem.
See my previous post.I really don't know why elite skirms were nerfed tbh.
Well 1650+ tells a quite different story.Nerfing xbow would just switch that play time for knights (and knight civs). This doesn't seem too clever when considering top 5 civs in winning-% are all cavalry civs. And if something is brainless that is full kts spam, with xbows you atleast need to think about when it's ok to move out since you can't just disengage from bad fights, also micro is more than just patrol at enemy.
View attachment 192906
Sure, mayans cheap xbows are super strong but it's not the whole story. You also have archer focused civs at the bottom halfWell 1650+ tells a quite different story.
KT spam is just as boring as xbow spam I agree. Any single unit spam is boring. We meme AI armies but they are far more interesting than the comps generally seen in competitive play.Nerfing xbow would just switch that play time for knights (and knight civs). This doesn't seem too clever when considering top 5 civs in winning-% are all cavalry civs. And if something is brainless that is full kts spam, with xbows you atleast need to think about when it's ok to move out since you can't just disengage from bad fights, also micro is more than just patrol at enemy.
View attachment 192906
Well yeah, as long as different types of units need different upgrades it's gonna be beneficial to have single unit army when resources are at limit.KT spam is just as boring as xbow spam I agree. Any single unit spam is boring. We meme AI armies but they are far more interesting than the comps generally seen in competitive play.
Well the win rates are not only dependent on kts or xbow but the main thing which is eco bonus. Civs with weaker eco bonus tend to fall behind in win rates as the meta is pretty much defensive and almost all of the strategy can be countered via defensive play.Sure, mayans cheap xbows are super strong but it's not the whole story. You also have archer focused civs at the bottom half
- Vietnamese 44,16%
- Saracens 44,25%
- Byzantines 45,99%
- Malay 46,83%
- Koreans 48,17%
- Italians 48,93%
- Ethiopians 49,75%
- Japanese 48,92%
So where exactly is the op'nes of archer civs? I rather see op'ness of Mayans (and sometimes brits or viks). Better just nerf them than all archer civs or these listed civs will get even worse records.
Like make Mayans lose some major archer upgrade so although they still have strong castle age they are on timer with their archer line. Or something similar
Unless there is more value to be found in having multiple unit types than there is in stacking a single unit to synergize with the investment in that upgrade.Well yeah, as long as different types of units need different upgrades it's gonna be beneficial to have single unit army when resources are at limit.
Besides that, it's way harder to efficiently control an army that exists of 4/5 unit types. With only 2 control groups you can easily macro you army but that gets way harder with more than that.Well yeah, as long as different types of units need different upgrades it's gonna be beneficial to have single unit army when resources are at limit.
I feel like the game is too fast if a player cannot efficiently use more than two control groups for their army.Besides that, it's way harder to efficiently control an army that exists of 4/5 unit types. With only 2 control groups you can easily macro you army but that gets way harder with more than that.