Here I bring a little analysis that gathers what is commented in this thread. As I mentioned earlier I believe that in the Native there is redundancy of troops and I truly believe that there is an undefined system of strengths and weaknesses for each faction. In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. Imo, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three units.
In the regular troop tree each of the units should be well defined and framed within their role by function. In my view, only the noble troops should have "versatile" functions, which as I said, I would reduce to three.
At this point, a number of questions arise... For example:
Can (light-heavy) infantry be equipped with missiles? - throwable as pila or other type of spears when they do not exceed the pair of them, yes. Equipping an infantry unit with one or two bags of javelins would already be framing it in a role of which it does not belong; we would be turning it into a skirmisher.
What defines heavy cavalry in general lines? -essentially the horse's bard (and the type of horse) and the rider's panoply.
Should a ranged troop have high melee skills? The high tier would, however, never be more efficient than an average infantry tier; their function is what it is, role function ranged.
Can a shock troop have throwables? My answer is no because it would be performing a skirmisher function indirectly. This is where I put the focus on Fiann's units. High level ranged units which perform shock functions with high levels of efficiency in both melee and athletics; in my opinion they are a nonsense.
Do you see where I'm going?
So, here is a reformulation of the troop trees with defined function roles.
(Native troops - Native function - Function proposal)
Cavalry push. Function role lines defined in a missiles-infantry-cavalry balance. Weaknesses, they don't have skirmishers. The noble troops would be framed within the role of Cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Sturgia: Pure muscle structure. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of pure infantry. Weaknesses, low level of ranged troops. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry being complemented with a performance in good melee.
Khuzait: Mounted archers. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of mounted archers, pure steppe tactics. Weaknesses; they have neither shock nor skirmishers. Noble troops would frame them within the role of mounted archers with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply).
Empire: All in one. All types of function roles are part of the tree in a balance of missiles-infantry-cavalry. Weaknesses; it has none, it is the Empire. The noble troops would frame them within the role of heavy cavalry complementing itself with a good performance in melee.
Battania: Hit and run. Role lines of function that tend towards the branch of infantry and missiles. Weaknesses: No heavy cavalry. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry complementing itself with a high performance in melee.
Aserai: Mobile force. Lines of role of function that tend towards the branch of skirmishers and missiles. Weaknesses; little presence of pure infantry or shock. The noble troops would frame them within the role of skirmishing cavalry with the equipment of the heavy cavalry (bard+panoply). With this restructuring there would be room for light cavalry camel units.
----
Edit: I have slightly modified the line of Sturgia because there was a rounding (+ 1 light cavalry unit); I suppose that so much time in front of the coloured squares has caused me a small lapsus.
It's all a matter of opinion.
