One of my biggest gripes right now is well, Huns being OP, but that's not what this thread is about, instead I want to talk about units and mainly what units you get if you had no emblematic ones whatsoever.

Here's the types of unit in the game atm.

Melee

Anti-Cav

Light-Cav

Heavy-Cav

Ranged

Siege

The first units you get are archers and warriors. And they're great. But here's the problem. Unless you get an emblematic ranged unit, the next upgrade for ranged is at the start of era 3 tech wise. Which if you are not going full science you'll probably get waaay later around the middle or even end of the 3rd era in terms of stars.

Now you could say well, melee units you get swordsmen in the middle of era 2, isn't that late? Well, not really, because you get spearmen just before that, and spearmen for all intents and purposes can serve as your melee unit of choice for a while.

And the thing is, ranged units are essential to early combat, if your enemy has one and you don't, you are at a HUGE disadvantage. Yes, cavalry can somewhat cover that issue up. Cavalry has a long movement and can bypass zone of control which can help you in a similar way ranged units do, but here's the problem with that.

The earliest cavalry you can get is scout riders but they suck for the most part, so no, the earliest are chariots and horsemen. Horsemen you get way after swordsmen so they're a no bueno, and Chariots while cool, you need resources to get, and their tech costs quite a bit too. In fact chariots in general cost quite a bit. So for a good while, your only options are archers that have a low combat strength and you have to use those against swordsmen? That's not gonna work. Use them against emblematic units that are extremely strong and need range to be countered? Not gonna work. If you have javelineers, you can easily hold a choke point with range. But archers just don't cut it.

So here's where emblematic units come in. Ideally those can make up for the gaps in your army composition, but the problem is, not all cultures get them.

Some cultures get crappy naval units - *cough* Phoenicia *cough* - and some just get units that aren't even possible to be built in the era you're meant to use them - *cough* Rome *cough*.

I think a lot of these sorts of issues just come down to how strong emblematic units are compared to normal ones. It breeds 1 unit  type armies, just the same unit getting spammed constantly because normal units are just kinda bad. But if there was a ranged unit in the 2nd era at least that could cover up some of these issues, because a higher combat strength ranged unit could counter some of these emblematic units by virtue of outranging them.

PS - If you want to go military right now ironically, the supposedly peaceful Harappans are the kings of the ancient era warfare because of the sheer power Runners and them being free of charge upgrades to nomadic tribes. You could literally just get 15 runners instantly when you advance and overwhelm any culture you want, I killed the Green AI that likes to go Huns in the South like, 3 times already with Runners losing nobody or at most 1 or 2 runners. Usually I eliminate them because vassalage is borked atm, but feel free to get the +100 gold per turn from them if you find the game too challenging.

So, for the Nubians their emblematic unit are Tri-sety *SP my apologies my brain doesn't spell right anymore... archers - Are these upgraded to Tri-swords or even tanks in the future?  I was able to transcend the Nubian culture for 3 eras but never was able to have any other soldiers than the archers *confused emoji*

Great post OP.

I agree, for the most part, but archers inside well placed border forts are still monsters. A fort on high ground firing into river terrain gets +14 strength, making them strength 30 as defenders. This is obviously near the maximum optimal score for them, but also where I needed them to hold against equal or superior numbers, which they easily can. Meanwhile, with three armies of 4 spears, 4 archers, 4 horses (mixed of course), I had no problem protecting my archers, and was able to use them to weaken vulnerable troops and claim no loss victories.

And on those border forts, my archers quickly got veteran 1 and 2, making them strength 31 or 32 against attacking units, which (at +5 dmg dealt & -5 dmg taken at each point of difference) simply 1 shot deletes most early units. Also, by placing them behind the forts, I was able to crush Hun & Mongol horde units with 4 archers and take no losses, since horsies can't climb walls and can only fire at range 1.

So, on balance, I would enjoy an archer upgrade before crossbowman, but really, even at strength 16, they are brutal if used with well built fortifications or superior numbers. I think they are currently useful, but only in mixed formations or as castle defenders, which is as it should be.

I fear a stronger archer unit before crossbows would be too overpowered, as the current strength 16 archers can already simulate the battle of Thermopylae with garrisons on high ground over a river.

Bankipriel wrote:

Great post OP.

I agree, for the most part, but archers inside well placed border forts are still monsters. A fort on high ground firing into river terrain gets +14 strength, making them strength 30 as defenders. This is obviously near the maximum optimal score for them, but also where I needed them to hold against equal or superior numbers, which they easily can. Meanwhile, with three armies of 4 spears, 4 archers, 4 horses (mixed of course), I had no problem protecting my archers, and was able to use them to weaken vulnerable troops and claim no loss victories.

And on those border forts, my archers quickly got veteran 1 and 2, making them strength 31 or 32 against attacking units, which (at +5 dmg dealt & -5 dmg taken at each point of difference) simply 1 shot deletes most early units. Also, by placing them behind the forts, I was able to crush Hun & Mongol horde units with 4 archers and take no losses, since horsies can't climb walls and can only fire at range 1.

So, on balance, I would enjoy an archer upgrade before crossbowman, but really, even at strength 16, they are brutal if used with well built fortifications or superior numbers. I think they are currently useful, but only in mixed formations or as castle defenders, which is as it should be.

I fear a stronger archer unit before crossbows would be too overpowered, as the current strength 16 archers can already simulate the battle of Thermopylae with garrisons on high ground over a river.

Well, yes in optimal conditions you can get a lot of strength, but when do you realistically ever get optimal conditions for a battle? What are the odds that you have high ground AND a river AND a fort and your opponent attacks into it? You're kind of at the mercy of the map as well as the opponent. Now the AI is the AI so maybe they would give you a fight in optimal conditions for you, but that's not really something that you can guarantee. I mean melee units can rack up impressive amounts of combat strength with rear+high ground attacks against a river target too, but what are the odds of that happening reliably?

Good point though about the horsies. Yes, they can't attack through walls (hunnic hordes can ofc), but if you are behind walls that means you conceded your territory to the enemy in many ways. All the luxuries and strategic resources will get pillaged or the enemy might go after a different city where you don't have defenders or forts. That and forts are a bit of an investment, both in terms of just time and also industry.

Now with all that said, here's why I think an archer upgrade earlier, wouldn't break the game. They already exist. They're called Ta-Seti Archers, or Noble Javelineers. There's emblematic units that are perfectly fine in the game right now. They're strong, but not so much so that they become oppressive. Hunnic Hordes have an impressive amount of combat strength, a multi-move that works in a really weird and strong way AND no vulnerability to melee combat, so they definitely are oppressive and that's part of the design I think. I mean I want them to be strong, just not quite this strong. I do like the multi-move, it's a very rewarding skill for advanced players to make use of, with the +1 friendly unit strength bonuses, but they gotta reduce the base strength and maybe give them melee combat vulnerability.

There is already a balance feature in the game against ranged units in the terrain. Trees and other terrain features reduce the strength of ranged attacks. And archers tend to be weak to first strikes from the enemy. Chariots can 1 hit-kill archers with a decent charge, but it's not only horsies that can do a 1 turn deletion of archers. Archer vs Archer fights often depend a lot on who gets the first hit off, which is actually a problem I have with ranged combat as it is now. Since there is no retaliation, whoever goes first can often kill an enemy unit in the first round and put them at a severe disadvantage while not suffering any damage themselves.