Will you just go away?Archers are very effective IF you keep enemy cavalry and infantry away from them and allow them uninterupted line of fire at the enemy. And there is nothing OP about it. It's expected.
The point is that archers of any specific tier are much more effective at infliciting casualties on the generic enemy than any other unit type, including units of higher tier and much more expensive equipment. Much less cavalry itself. That's unbalanced even before we see any granularity in unit upkeep cost reflecting their armament quality, much less access to a mount.
We're not discussing MP. Archers overperform against AI, even before you do things like splitting them in half and positioning to ensure at least one group shoots at enemy's unshielded flanks.Now if you put your archers and archers only against combined force of the enemy that matches your in size and their, your archer army will likely get mauled. And that's not even taking in to account that AI does not use shield wall on their infantry. Archer only army against competent player is dead.
"Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced."Field battles consist of player armies full of t4-t6 units facing AI armies made mostly of t1-t2 units. Raising armor resistance would make those battles even more quick paced and one sided.
I'm done attempting to communicate with you, you live in your own reality and refuse to acknowledge anywhere outside of it.
You can see how he treats direct evidence in the other exchange we've been having. It's basically pidgeon chess.Archers will absolutely still win in this scenario. Where have you been this entire thread? People have posted VIDEOS of this happening, with no strategic trickery and on flat terrain no less. This is the entire basis of the argument that archers are overperforming.