Quote:
CUnknown said:
Of course, I agree. More options is always a good thing. But surely you don't mean -instead- of arbelests? Why would you want to give up the option to recruit an extremely-heavy hitting unique unit in exchange for a dime-a-dozen throw-away that you can recruit anywhere?
|
Because shortbows are more useful. This position has already been explained. They are available in indy provinces but in the early game particularly you'd be able to mass them far faster if they were recruitable at the fort, particularly given Ulm's high level of resources. Players who don't use arbalests much, particularly when it comes to expansion, would obviously benefit from them being swapped for shortbow archers.
Quote:
I wish the opposite, I'd rather have a unit that does 25 armor-negating area-effect damage, even if it caused mass friendly-fire causulties. You seem to be in a position of arguing that a unit sucks because it 'does too much damage', something that is very counter-intuitive.
|
You wish the opposite of what? Are you suggesting I'm saying arbalests would be better if they did less damage? That's odd, I could have sworn I said:
"Obviously I'm not saying arbalests would be better if their damage were reduced to crossbow levels and the fire time remained 1/3. What I'm saying is that they're worse than crossbows most of the time."
I also don't recall claiming that arbalests suck in this thread. I just said I don't use them for expansion and that crossbows and shortbows are generally better, especially for Ulm (due to friendly fire issues).
Your attempt to put words in my mouth is transparent and rude. You have no argument other than the facile "No you're wrong, arbalests do more damage/are extremely-heavy hitting/are powerful". It's true if you ignore absolutely everything else in the crossbow/shortbow/arbalest comparison but damage, they win and so do you. Congratulations.