But isnt it the case already? Knight < Pike
Warrior> Sword fighter
You just proved my theory to be right if anything else.
I have already done 40 knights before peace time, it sacrificed all my other troops, so basically thats all i had right after pt, and it was done through a crazy abuse of market, and it wasnt so effective as even when we won the first blow, the enemy very quickyl switched to pike which totally countered my knights.
after peace time production sucks as I am producing even more knights but at a very slow rate, and basically thats all im producing.
But that is not the problem here..
Knight, the most expensive unit has a very strong counter, Why shouldnt the sword fighter have one too?
Pike is cheaper than a knight and yet is a very effective counter, So IMO adding another unit shouldnt be a problem at all.
Sword fighter already has a strong counter as we all know (knight). Making 40 knights only is a bad idea. Making only sword fighters is also a bad idea. Why? Because they can be countered. But knights aren't only a counter to sword fighters, you can scout with them as well, raid villages faster, flank ranged units or armies, all this thanks to their speed. A unit that dies as easily as a lance carrier won't make much difference against sword fighters if there are ranged units around. And how will it have an attack powerful enough to kill sword fighters in such a rate that they are 'a counter', but not so powerful that they slaughter knights as well?
No its not, there is logic behind it dying faster by bowmen than xbow, read my post once again, and if you would like me to explain as to why im proposing this from a different prespective , I can explain it to you in detail.
I wasn't referring to a difference between crossbowmen and archers, I was just saying that this unit will die quickly by ranged units.
so basically you say that the pikemen should be more expensive? since it is a cheap unit that counters the strongest unit?
No, that's not what I said. As I stated above, the knight has many other functionalities why I consider it 'the strongest unit'.
and to mass knights you need a lot of stables and grain, it will not be effective since you are better off producing axefighters next to swordfighters. and sure if i make mass axefighters a few bowmen and mass xbows i am not going to mass knights, the game is over before you can get even 8 horses the normal way. mounted units main purpose for my army composition is harrassing and picking of enemy ranged or weaker units. you just cannot mass mounted units, and even if you do it is easy to counter it because of a cheap unit, the pikeman or lanser.
I've seen Mully having >15 horses with one stable. Massing crossbowmen doesn't work, massing pikemen doesn't work, massing knights doesn't work, massing lance carriers doesn't work, massing axe fighters doesn't work, massing archers doesn't work, massing sword fighters doesn't work either, and I highly doubt that massing militia would work. One unit type won't bring you victory in an equal match, because an army consisting of one unit type can be countered most easily. If you have knights and your enemy has pikemen, your knights can still be useful because they can flank archers and crossbowmen. But yea, if you only have knights, that won't work obviously.
So basically there shall never be a balance in your opinion. And the way it is now everyone is forced to use swordfighters or else they cannot keep up. and although i know leather should not be more powerfull then iron, it is hardly being used because you will have the disadvantage. Iron is the only way to go at the moment, and i personally think that just iron rush alone is not really a variety, just like in early releases militia + xbows was the only strategy
Once again, no, that's not what I said. What I wanted to say is that I don't think adding a new unit will bring balance. It might seem so, but eventually it will cause new problems.