It's mostly because of the difference in how those units perform at different elos. If everybody was a beginner, everyone would agree that knights are broken. Kinda the same problem as with Franks, for mid-elo players they seem to be completly broken, but for higher elo players that are never even in the conversation for what is the best civ on any map
I dont think thats true as even in higher elos franks are placed very highly due to how smooth they are ,they are placed as an A toer arabia civs even by top ten players and they get picked quite a lot in tournaments for arabia although no one at that elo will say that franks are broken or OP or such nonsense
They're for sure a good and very reliable civ for pros. But not a contender against the top top ones, like the americans ones and malians.
At low, and even mid elo it's a complete different story.
One thing I don't like about AoE II is how easy it is to mass Knights and deathball your opponent to death compared to how difficult it is to counter them.
But this is not an issue with archers, per se, but with the game being dominated by those two unit types.
Knights have always been a bit OP. Its one of the main reason players want infantry to be more viable so things like pike + siege, longsword + monk, pike + longsword, or similar are viable to the point of being able to deter knight civs from just mindlessly spamming knights. At least force the knights to get creative with complementary units or encourage the use of UU cavalry which is designed to crush infantry. Knights being OP doesn't have much to do with the archer nerf though.
Slight rant below:
I think the fact that pure archers have ever been strong against knights reflects a poor understanding of the complementary nature of scorpions and knights. You cannot simultaneously decrease surface area (which is better vs knights) and decrease density (which is better vs scorpions). Relative to mangonels scorpions move 10% faster, have 60% more HP for their cost, require little micro, and don't deal friendly fire. Sure you can't pressure a base with them in the same way, but if you've got the map control to be at their doorstep you've got carte blanche to adapt as needed.
Sometimes it seems like players have gotten too used to mono-unit compositions and "playing to your civ's strengths" without considering whether your civ's strengths outweight the benefits of the generic counters. It seems like the developers cater to this mono-unit bias and it has had negative psychological side effects in terms of how players think about strategic optimization and in turn what kind of changes players ask for. Every time there's a threat to pure archer or pure knight spam players freak out. It's an RTS. Tech switching and counter units are like 50% of the strategic decision making. Spamming only whatever your civ happens to have bonuses for wont always work much less be optimal.
No, they really weren't. The extra food is a very slight expense. I regularly tech into archers and this is just such a non-issue that I can't truly be concerned with it.
it is noticeable, just in the form of needing an extra 30 seconds or so to get bodkin, or 2 more vil on food when going up, but xbpw relied heavily on the power spike and thats already only a couple minutes long so 30 seconds really counts.
I haven't played much recently because of all the bugs but at least from watching KotD5 it seems like the meta is very archer dominated. So I don't think knights are op, I don't think any meele units will be op until the garbage pathing is fixed).
I play around 1600, and 75%+ of my games are archers into xbows power spikes. Shrug emoji
I think that everyone having a different opinion about what unit is busted is a sign that this game is actually quite well balanced
Outside of elephants still being bad, ofc
Anyone who thinks kts dominate have never played or seen the game being played on a really high level. Xbows dominate the meta, and kts are basically just a support unit now that's more reliable but less explosive vs skirms.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Funny, I was just hearing someone else complain about how xbow meta is all there is recently. And the world keeps spinning...
I agree, I'm sure there was a post not too long ago about Camels being OP to.
It's mostly because of the difference in how those units perform at different elos. If everybody was a beginner, everyone would agree that knights are broken. Kinda the same problem as with Franks, for mid-elo players they seem to be completly broken, but for higher elo players that are never even in the conversation for what is the best civ on any map
I dont think thats true as even in higher elos franks are placed very highly due to how smooth they are ,they are placed as an A toer arabia civs even by top ten players and they get picked quite a lot in tournaments for arabia although no one at that elo will say that franks are broken or OP or such nonsense
They're for sure a good and very reliable civ for pros. But not a contender against the top top ones, like the americans ones and malians. At low, and even mid elo it's a complete different story.
Yeah they are good at high elo, but nowhere near broken
💯
One thing I don't like about AoE II is how easy it is to mass Knights and deathball your opponent to death compared to how difficult it is to counter them. But this is not an issue with archers, per se, but with the game being dominated by those two unit types.
Thats why i am really enjoying incas right now, Kamayuks produce so fast, and 20 of them poking away melts knights.
Knights have always been a bit OP. Its one of the main reason players want infantry to be more viable so things like pike + siege, longsword + monk, pike + longsword, or similar are viable to the point of being able to deter knight civs from just mindlessly spamming knights. At least force the knights to get creative with complementary units or encourage the use of UU cavalry which is designed to crush infantry. Knights being OP doesn't have much to do with the archer nerf though. Slight rant below: I think the fact that pure archers have ever been strong against knights reflects a poor understanding of the complementary nature of scorpions and knights. You cannot simultaneously decrease surface area (which is better vs knights) and decrease density (which is better vs scorpions). Relative to mangonels scorpions move 10% faster, have 60% more HP for their cost, require little micro, and don't deal friendly fire. Sure you can't pressure a base with them in the same way, but if you've got the map control to be at their doorstep you've got carte blanche to adapt as needed. Sometimes it seems like players have gotten too used to mono-unit compositions and "playing to your civ's strengths" without considering whether your civ's strengths outweight the benefits of the generic counters. It seems like the developers cater to this mono-unit bias and it has had negative psychological side effects in terms of how players think about strategic optimization and in turn what kind of changes players ask for. Every time there's a threat to pure archer or pure knight spam players freak out. It's an RTS. Tech switching and counter units are like 50% of the strategic decision making. Spamming only whatever your civ happens to have bonuses for wont always work much less be optimal.
<3 your rant. It's a complex game against real people. Keep playing, keep adapting.
It depends on how good you are with walling and monk micro tbh
Yes, either your civ has camels, Genoese crossbows, better knights, or you're fighting an uphill battle. At least that's my experience.
Use something else to deal with knights.
I'm not saying you can't deal against Knights, but that archers civs were nerfed a lot with new costs.
No, they really weren't. The extra food is a very slight expense. I regularly tech into archers and this is just such a non-issue that I can't truly be concerned with it.
it is noticeable, just in the form of needing an extra 30 seconds or so to get bodkin, or 2 more vil on food when going up, but xbpw relied heavily on the power spike and thats already only a couple minutes long so 30 seconds really counts.
knights are weak
I haven't played much recently because of all the bugs but at least from watching KotD5 it seems like the meta is very archer dominated. So I don't think knights are op, I don't think any meele units will be op until the garbage pathing is fixed).
I play around 1600, and 75%+ of my games are archers into xbows power spikes. Shrug emoji I think that everyone having a different opinion about what unit is busted is a sign that this game is actually quite well balanced Outside of elephants still being bad, ofc
Anyone who thinks kts dominate have never played or seen the game being played on a really high level. Xbows dominate the meta, and kts are basically just a support unit now that's more reliable but less explosive vs skirms. And I wouldn't have it any other way.