I see the role of hunters as being for capturing animals. However I usually see human players just build hunters as an all purpose unit for the early-ish game. As a recon unit they have no anti-recon promotion and they are str 3 move 2 which is powerful for the early game anyway. They have access to first level anti-melee/mounted/archer promotions IIRC and also can get hill defence promotion which makes them very good defenders in cities (combined with being able to fortify and enemies have no anti-recon promotion).

IMHO Hunters should be str 2 move 2 (and of course +100% vs animals).

What do others think?

I think they just shouldn't be able to fortify. Maybe -40% city attack or something.

maybe... -40% on attack (hunters lay traps for animals, not go out and poke them with spears right away)

Make Shock be vs Melee and Recon

Make Shock be vs Melee and Recon

I agree with this, especially, when you get the Rangers and the like appearing.

i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

I agree with the -50% city strength

i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

Totally the same as my opinion.

Still think they shouldn't be allowed to fortify.

Why? Wouldn't hunters be better if defending a forest than if defending on a grassland?

I am pretty sure Recon units already have a -50 City. I could see them not be able to fortify, that would make sense.
Forests already have a fairly good sized Def. bonus.
Hunters do seem to be pretty good early units.. but then , it also depends on how you go at the tech tree. Archers can be considerably able units also, with the right promotions.

Cheers!

i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

As is, there isn't much incentive to research Tracking unless you're working toward something further down the tech tree.

Still, Hunters strike me as appropriate as frontier city defenders. Is it possible to code them such that they don't receive the cultural defense bonus or the fortification bonus?

I'd just move them to Tracking. Even as they are, the addition of bronze weapons for warriors makes them fairly well balanced.

Still think they shouldn't be allowed to fortify.
Do you mean from a flavour (e.g. hunters don't build fortifications) or gameplay (e.g. people are fortifying hunters on their improvements and they are too powerful like that) perspective?

Why? Wouldn't hunters be better if defending a forest than if defending on a grassland?
Hunters would still get the forest defence bonus even without fortifying AFAIK.



I like the -50% city strength idea for hunters too.

BlazeRedSXT hunters only have -20% city attack but no defensive penalty for being in a city. Some other recon units have both an offensive AND a defensive penalty.

Split their Offensive/Defense to 3/1?

Still I think they are (ab)used for attacking cities which I don't think they should do. -20% is not very much when you consider most hunters running around have combat V and other promotions.

I really like the 3/1 idea. They can be good atacking (-30 or -40 to cities) but not that powerfull when defending, so their combat promotions won't make them superman.

I don't think 3/1 is sensible, I fail to see why should a hunter be weaker when defending then when attacking (e.g. vs animals)
I agree with -50% city both flavourwise and gameplaywise.

I agree with the -50% city attack/defense idea. I hate going to attack a city early in the game and seeing stacks of hunters- doesn't seem realistic.

Hunters aren't too powerful. The only problem with them is that there isn't a promotion vs Recon. They don't require a resource so if the enemy has them you can have them too. They have a penalty to attack cities so they can't be unbalancing because a defending hunter will win an attacking hunter. Proposed solutions will only create unbalance:
1) hunters not being able to defend: this will give a chance to attacking hunters.
2) 3/1 and -50% to city attack. This will be 1.5 for the attacking hunter and 1 for the defending hunter. Again will create unbalance and help early attacks.
3) move them to Tracking: then I'd rather move to Bronze Working and have a unit with no penalties and that even has a chance to get strength 4. Plus, moving them so late gratly hinders their role of explorers / animal capture.

2) 3/1 and -50% to city attack. This will be 1.5 for the attacking hunter and 1 for the defending hunter. Again will create unbalance and help early attacks.


That's not what was suggested- at least not as I understood it. That is two suggestions combined in one.

I agree with keep them otherwise the same, but give them a flat 50% attack and defense penalty for cities. That would not unbalance hunter/hunter attacks on cities, the defenders would still get all defensive bonuses and should win all other things being equal. But it does allow for warriors to be effective at attacking hunter defended cities. It does not seem unreasonable that a combat unit would have a decent chance in an urban environment against a recon unit, while the recon unit would still have the better advantage out in the open.

or perhaps- hunters get -30% vs units with a higher combat promotion?
so that hunter spam becomes less useful, but with training/civics aren't totally useless

:green promotion-unit has -30% vs more experianced units (combat or level, whichever is easier)

:wild promotion- unit has +10% combat, and -30% in cities
or +15% combat, -15% in cities, and cannot fortify in cities

Hunters aren't too powerful. The only problem with them is that there isn't a promotion vs Recon. They don't require a resource so if the enemy has them you can have them too. They have a penalty to attack cities so they can't be unbalancing because a defending hunter will win an attacking hunter. Proposed solutions will only create unbalance:
1) hunters not being able to defend: this will give a chance to attacking hunters.
2) 3/1 and -50% to city attack. This will be 1.5 for the attacking hunter and 1 for the defending hunter. Again will create unbalance and help early attacks.
3) move them to Tracking: then I'd rather move to Bronze Working and have a unit with no penalties and that even has a chance to get strength 4. Plus, moving them so late gratly hinders their role of explorers / animal capture.

2) sounds like a fairly decent idea.

3) sounds way too hard! I get maybe 2 lions and a wolf at the moment! I don't need it made any harder! :p

or perhaps- hunters get -30% vs units with a higher combat promotion?
so that hunter spam becomes less useful, but with training/civics aren't totally useless

:green promotion-unit has -30% vs more experianced units (combat or level, whichever is easier)

:wild promotion- unit has +10% combat, and -30% in cities
or +15% combat, -15% in cities, and cannot fortify in cities

The wild promotion would then be much, much worse than a regular combat promotion however.

That's not what was suggested- at least not as I understood it. That is two suggestions combined in one.

even not combined the end result is the opposite of what is intended.

I agree with keep them otherwise the same, but give them a flat 50% attack and defense penalty for cities. That would not unbalance hunter/hunter attacks on cities, the defenders would still get all defensive bonuses and should win all other things being equal. But it does allow for warriors to be effective at attacking hunter defended cities. It does not seem unreasonable that a combat unit would have a decent chance in an urban environment against a recon unit, while the recon unit would still have the better advantage out in the open.

You reason in term of realism, but this is a game and a strategic game too. You should think first in terms of balance, and only after in terms of realism. I don't think that a very cheap unit that you can build strait from start (read: more chances of promotions than a hunter when Hunting is researched) and without any requirement should be given the chance to kill a unit defending a city which is much more costly, needs a structure built before it and needs 2 techs researched, just for the sake of realism. A promotion vs Recon should suffice IMO. Melee could have access to vs Recon I and mounted could have access to vs Recon I and II. A warrior defending a city vs a hunter already has fair chances of victory. +25% from city defense, and a reasonable +25% fortification means strength 3, while the hunter has a slight penalty on city attack I think (-20% ?). This without counting culture, walls and hill boni. Again a simple vs recon (+40%) promotion would consolidate city defense of a warrior vs a hunter to a point where victory should be quite consistent.

I get the impression that Kael and co. designed recon deliberately to have no anti-recon promotion. Therefore I think other suggestions might be more likely to influence Kael.

actually there isn't a vs recon promotion even in the original Civ. I don't see any other valid suggestion, for now.

actually there isn't a vs recon promotion even in the original Civ. I don't see any other valid suggestion, for now.

You don't think hunters with -50% city strength is a valid suggestion?

The wild promotion would then be much, much worse than a regular combat promotion however.

calculated all out, the 2nd version only makes them -5% weaker in cities
"assuming" that thier counterpart would have the time to foritfy, and 5% stronger out in the open
(verses the first version one)

I agree with Hunters as being a bit too good.

They already have a -20% bonus when attacking cities, but that is easily countered with a few combat promotions. They also have two movement and so can be shuffled around to where you need them with ease. They also can easily gain experience by tromping around the wild for a bit. That is thier intent, but, after getting so many promotions in the wild they are already elite warriors before a war has even begun. Finally they completely negate Larry Curly a Moe with their animal attack bonus.

I see the -50% city bonus for hunters as a good idea, with a few problems. First, it would allow hunters to be in their element in the wild and they would have to be used to stop the enemy from ever reaching a city. They would also be forced to attack out from a city at an approaching enemy to make sure they wouldn't be stuck within city walls. This should balance out their offensive capabilities while still keeping them extremely useful.

The one problem is the AI. It would probably not realize that it should never have a hunter stuck in a city to defend against warriors.

So, as big an unbalance as they might be now, changing them would just give the human another tool with which to flatten the AI.

even not combined the end result is the opposite of what is intended.



You reason in term of realism, but this is a game and a strategic game too. You should think first in terms of balance, and only after in terms of realism. I don't think that a very cheap unit that you can build strait from start (read: more chances of promotions than a hunter when Hunting is researched) and without any requirement should be given the chance to kill a unit defending a city which is much more costly, needs a structure built before it and needs 2 techs researched, just for the sake of realism. A promotion vs Recon should suffice IMO. Melee could have access to vs Recon I and mounted could have access to vs Recon I and II. A warrior defending a city vs a hunter already has fair chances of victory. +25% from city defense, and a reasonable +25% fortification means strength 3, while the hunter has a slight penalty on city attack I think (-20% ?). This without counting culture, walls and hill boni. Again a simple vs recon (+40%) promotion would consolidate city defense of a warrior vs a hunter to a point where victory should be quite consistent.

The problem isn't that hunters are unbalancing in terms of contest between two players. Rather, it is that hunters are much easier to get in terms of power to cost than all other tier 1 units, and so there really isn't any reason to produce any other kind of unit. This makes games quite bland.

Also, hunters can accumulate experience more easily than warriors, due to their insane bonus against animals and higher starting strength.

You don't think hunters with -50% city strength is a valid suggestion?

no, they already have -20% which is enough to give a defending warrior good chances.

The problem isn't that hunters are unbalancing in terms of contest between two players. Rather, it is that hunters are much easier to get in terms of power to cost than all other tier 1 units, and so there really isn't any reason to produce any other kind of unit. This makes games quite bland.

Also, hunters can accumulate experience more easily than warriors, due to their insane bonus against animals and higher starting strength.

I disagree about both points. Hunters need a building and cost much more than warriors, and they make less experience killing orcs and goblins than warriors do. They aren't an absolutely best strategy for taking cities in the short and long run. They are also on the lowest priority research branch for my personal strategies, since it gives almost nothing except for units. They are good units, yeah. But unbalanced to the point of halving their strength attacking a city ? A bit too exaggerated...

I've never seen anything but hunter spam during early game in the multiplayer matches i've played. Hunter spam, followed by catapult spam, followed by Ring of Fire spam is the usual pattern. It's not a major issue but I do think they need a little bit of nerfing. Ring of Fire and Catapults have both been nerfed, hunters just haven't been yet.

no, they already have -20% which is enough to give a defending warrior good chances.



I disagree about both points. Hunters need a building and cost much more than warriors, and they make less experience killing orcs and goblins than warriors do. They aren't an absolutely best strategy for taking cities in the short and long run. They are also on the lowest priority research branch for my personal strategies, since it gives almost nothing except for units. They are good units, yeah. But unbalanced to the point of halving their strength attacking a city ? A bit too exaggerated...

Maybe 50% is a bit too much. Perhaps -30% city attack and city defense. Right now, even the AI spams hunters as city defenders- which WAS the original point of this thread. I don't think it is unreasonable or unbalancing to "force" scout units out of cities for the most effective strategy for use. As a bonus, it just happens to fit with the "recon" theme.

no, they already have -20% which is enough to give a defending warrior good chances.

That just isn't true... A hunter coming back from the wilds will most likely have combat V (among other things) meaning that the warrior needs a 140%
strength increase just to get to even. If there was a -50% city attack for hunters a warrior would only need a 50% strength increase.

onedreamer, even though you can build two warriors for every hunter and another four warriors while the lodge is being built, it just doesn't matter. One hunter can run circles around and destroy two warriors easy. And, after a hunter kills one warrior it gains experience so it can kill the second one even easier. I would much rather have one 5000 hammer Mithril Golem then 200 25 hammer warriors just as much as I would rather have one 60 hammer hunter to two 25 hammer warriors.

Hunters are just too good right now. In every game I've played hunters were the primary unit of choice, for attacking, defending, and the rest. They can be good in one thing, but to be good in everything is just too much.

It would be simplest just to create an anti-recon promotion. I think the only reason for its absence in vanilla is that recon units could not attack. I think it would be cooler to call it anti-espionage, and make it especially useful against Assassins and Shadows. Perhaps this promotion, or its second level, should make units with the marksman promotion attack the unit before weaker ones.

It would be simplest just to create an anti-recon promotion. I think the only reason for its absence in vanilla is that recon units could not attack. I think it would be cooler to call it anti-espionage, and make it especially useful against Assassins and Shadows. Perhaps this promotion, or its second level, should make units with the marksman promotion attack the unit before weaker ones.

I think we are looking at this the wrong way. Yes hunters are powerful in the wild, and I see noting wrong with this. I also see nothing wrong with a hunter being able to take down a warrior unit, both in game terms and realism.
This is as the hunters will never face a warrior unit in a head-on fight, but will sneak around, lay traps, poision wells, shoot and run, all different tactiks which work.
The problem is in a head-on fight, and in these cases hunters should never be able to beat a warriorm and never in a city fight, but I think this is true for all recon units, so maybe it's the Recon unit which we should change.

So, how about:
Recon unit city/wildness effect.
City effect (when within a city): -30%
Normal (Within country borders): -10%
Wilderness effect (outside any borders): +20%

So, this would mean that all recon units are better in the wilderness when they can use their own strenghts, not as good in settled areas and usless within a city. We could also then make all animal units as recon units

Hunters are intended to have their moment of glory. When viewed as an entire progression hunters are the high point of the cost/effect curve as compared to the melee units which begin to beat out the recon line in t3 and spellcasters which come in heavy in t4.

I am going to increase the cost of the hutning teck from 250 to 400 in the next patch. It was to much lower than the other t2 techs.

But I did want people to know that I do want players to think about "should i go for hunters now for an early advantage, or start down the melee/spellcasting/religion line for a later game effect." All paths are valid for different reasons, and although I know that hunters are tempting, I want them to be.

Also I dont think we will ever have a anti-recon promotion, one of the things that sets that makes that design different is that there is no big bonus against them. Which I think is cool, and I dislike patterns so that will probably stay.

The big problem I have is if hunters become to effective at taking cities. Right now Im pretty happy with their handicap in this area, but if anything I would reduce their city attack and city defence stats further.

I hope that makes sense. I dont post this to stop you guys from talking abotu it and suggesting ideas, I've read the thread and thought about what you guys are saying, I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.

Hunters are intended to have their moment of glory. When viewed as an entire progression hunters are the high point of the cost/effect curve as compared to the melee units which begin to beat out the recon line in t3 and spellcasters which come in heavy in t4.

I am going to increase the cost of the hutning teck from 250 to 400 in the next patch. It was to much lower than the other t2 techs.

But I did want people to know that I do want players to think about "should i go for hunters now for an early advantage, or start down the melee/spellcasting/religion line for a later game effect." All paths are valid for different reasons, and although I know that hunters are tempting, I want them to be.

Also I dont think we will ever have a anti-recon promotion, one of the things that sets that makes that design different is that there is no big bonus against them. Which I think is cool, and I dislike patterns so that will probably stay.

The big problem I have is if hunters become to effective at taking cities. Right now Im pretty happy with their handicap in this area, but if anything I would reduce their city attack and city defence stats further.

I hope that makes sense. I dont post this to stop you guys from talking abotu it and suggesting ideas, I've read the thread and thought about what you guys are saying, I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.
"why do hunters have to be a full tech earlier than any other tier 2 unit?"
you should also realize, that adding beaker costs to that tech also directly affects the archer that follows it,in the rare case one might want to skip hunters

hutning? is that like lightning or huts? or like some unholy combination of the two...

Good point. Archery could be lowered corespondingly to compensate.

Making hunters more of a choice by raising their tech cost sounds like it'll make things much more balanced, right now hunting is pretty cheap to get.

Hunters are intended to have their moment of glory. When viewed as an entire progression hunters are the high point of the cost/effect curve as compared to the melee units which begin to beat out the recon line in t3 and spellcasters which come in heavy in t4.

So making melee stronger than the rest is a conscious design decision?? I don't see the fun in that to be honest. :confused: While the choice whether to b-line to the recon line or melee line may be an interesting strategic decision, after gaining Iron Working sooner or later and especially after Mithril building Macemen then becomes a no-brainer, removing most strategy. Making rangers, macemen, pikemen, crossbowmen... have different functions and specialities while no unit overall being better than the other seems more fun to me.

So making melee stronger than the rest is a conscious design decision?? I don't see the fun in that to be honest. :confused: While the choice whether to b-line to the recon line or melee line may be an interesting strategic decision, after gaining Iron Working sooner or later and especially after Mithril building Macemen then becomes a no-brainer, removing most strategy. Making rangers, macemen, pikemen, crossbowmen... have different functions and specialities while no unit overall being better than the other seems more fun to me.

meelee is only better if you got the rescources...

So making melee stronger than the rest is a conscious design decision?? I don't see the fun in that to be honest. :confused: While the choice whether to b-line to the recon line or melee line may be an interesting strategic decision, after gaining Iron Working sooner or later and especially after Mithril building Macemen then becomes a no-brainer, removing most strategy. Making rangers, macemen, pikemen, crossbowmen... have different functions and specialities while no unit overall being better than the other seems more fun to me.

Recon units generally see farther and move faster. If they can also stand toe to toe with melee units, how is that any more fun? Melee should (in general) be the toughest best fighters, while other lines have other advantages. That's part of the reason why I don't like seeing stacks of hunters defending cities- they should be at their best out scouting the countryside, not sitting behind walls because they are the best city defenders too.

Yup, had the same problem. Althou they were all FoL cities so it might be not that fluff bad the cities in my game were packed with stacks of ~30 rangers. The AI builded only them and adepts/priests. Fluff wise it was not so bad for elfs to run mostly recon units but we are talking here about an empire that should at least have some archers, macemen, etc. The teh lvl of all civs was high enough to have the proper tehs.

Hunters are intended to have their moment of glory. When viewed as an entire progression hunters are the high point of the cost/effect curve as compared to the melee units which begin to beat out the recon line in t3 and spellcasters which come in heavy in t4.

I am going to increase the cost of the hutning teck from 250 to 400 in the next patch. It was to much lower than the other t2 techs.

But I did want people to know that I do want players to think about "should i go for hunters now for an early advantage, or start down the melee/spellcasting/religion line for a later game effect." All paths are valid for different reasons, and although I know that hunters are tempting, I want them to be.

Also I dont think we will ever have a anti-recon promotion, one of the things that sets that makes that design different is that there is no big bonus against them. Which I think is cool, and I dislike patterns so that will probably stay.

The big problem I have is if hunters become to effective at taking cities. Right now Im pretty happy with their handicap in this area, but if anything I would reduce their city attack and city defence stats further.

I hope that makes sense. I dont post this to stop you guys from talking abotu it and suggesting ideas, I've read the thread and thought about what you guys are saying, I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.

The research cost increase is all they needed IMO. Balanced now :)

I've never seen anything but hunter spam during early game in the multiplayer matches i've played. Hunter spam, followed by catapult spam, followed by Ring of Fire spam is the usual pattern. It's not a major issue but I do think they need a little bit of nerfing. Ring of Fire and Catapults have both been nerfed, hunters just haven't been yet.

That's the same as saying that people nowadays are close minded and "sheeps". We already knew that. There are counters to hunters and there are counters to RoF... the real problem are (or were ? not sure yet, at least in SP) catapults. The best thing, especially in MP, is to not have a single strategy and most of all to not have a strategy that everyone can predict. Like I said before (and Kael seems to have confirmed it) Hunters are good units but the research path toward them is not very profitable compared to others, military wise but especially not.

The balance in multiplayer is probably way different than in single player. In my single games once I get my defenses up I can generally take my time, research when I want and choose my attacks.

it's not like "multiplayer" is a magical word that changes the game. First of all, what decides most strategies are the game settings. After that, multiplayer or singleplayer can be a concern. But with many MP settings you are in no way forced to a predetermined path like the one quoted above.

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but after many more games I still think that Hunters are too good at defending cities. An early, str 3 defender with no promotion against it is by far the best defender. Warriors with bronze weapons? Archers? Shock I/II and Cover I/II easily overcome the strength and city defense bonuses. Hunters, on the other hand, can only be overcome with significantly stronger forces or City Raider III, which doesn't come early. I think applying the city attack penalty to city defense would be enough to give attacking units an edge.

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but after many more games I still think that Hunters are too good at defending cities. An early, str 3 defender with no promotion against it is by far the best defender. Warriors with bronze weapons? Archers? Shock I/II and Cover I/II easily overcome the strength and city defense bonuses. Hunters, on the other hand, can only be overcome with significantly stronger forces or City Raider III, which doesn't come early. I think applying the city attack penalty to city defense would be enough to give attacking units an edge.

I'm confused as to what the problem is. Even ignoring the building cost, or the fact that once you get Copper, your Warriors will all gain Bronze Weapons for free (and thus be roughly as powerful as a hunter, for no additional cost), Warriors typically cost 25 hammers, whereas Hunters typically cost 60. In other words, for each produced Hunter, you could have produced roughly 2.4 Warriors.

Frankly, I think that the city defense problem in the early game (and, heck, the late game) should be solved by dramatically reducing defense from culture (and, possibly, increasing the amount obtainable via Walls/Castle).

The problem with comparing hunters to warriors is promotions:
Combat II adds +40%, Combat I and Shock I +60% vs warriors - not too much of a difference, yet, but...
Combat III and Shock II adds a massive +180% strength against warriors, while the equivalent Combat 5 adds only +100% vs hunters.

At even higher levels, Combat 5 and Shock II brings the anti-warriors up to +220%, while the anti-hunters are still stuck at +100%, and will stay there until warfare and city attack.

I'm confused as to what the problem is. Even ignoring the building cost, or the fact that once you get Copper, your Warriors will all gain Bronze Weapons for free (and thus be roughly as powerful as a hunter, for no additional cost), Warriors typically cost 25 hammers, whereas Hunters typically cost 60. In other words, for each produced Hunter, you could have produced roughly 2.4 Warriors.

Frankly, I think that the city defense problem in the early game (and, heck, the late game) should be solved by dramatically reducing defense from culture (and, possibly, increasing the amount obtainable via Walls/Castle).
1) Shock and Shock II favor Hunters.
2) Bronze Working adds 300 beakers over Hunting (725 vs. 425).
3) You need a resource for this to work.
4) Culture defense climbs too fast.
5) Hunters can get very high XP quickly and easily through animals.

I guess warriors with bronze weapons are much better than axeman (which I was trying to use), but I still don't see why Hunters should be such amazing city defenders. Maybe just fixing the culture defense would be enough, but there just seems to be too many benefits to Hunters over other T2 units.

Just keep in mind that recon units can't get Shock II.

I'm confused as to what the problem is. Even ignoring the building cost, or the fact that once you get Copper, your Warriors will all gain Bronze Weapons for free (and thus be roughly as powerful as a hunter, for no additional cost), Warriors typically cost 25 hammers, whereas Hunters typically cost 60. In other words, for each produced Hunter, you could have produced roughly 2.4 Warriors.

Frankly, I think that the city defense problem in the early game (and, heck, the late game) should be solved by dramatically reducing defense from culture (and, possibly, increasing the amount obtainable via Walls/Castle).

You're forgetting that we're talking of early game, so wars are fought on long distances. You may have produced 2.4 warriors for each hunter Katika produced, but you'd probably be researching at a quite inferior rate, since 1 warrior and 1 hunter cost exactly the same in maintenance.

1) Shock and Shock II favor Hunters.
2) Bronze Working adds 300 beakers over Hunting (725 vs. 425).
3) You need a resource for this to work.
4) Culture defense climbs too fast.
5) Hunters can get very high XP quickly and easily through animals.

I guess warriors with bronze weapons are much better than axeman (which I was trying to use), but I still don't see why Hunters should be such amazing city defenders. Maybe just fixing the culture defense would be enough, but there just seems to be too many benefits to Hunters over other T2 units.

6) you also need a building (forge)

why not gove hunters -50% city strength? its been suggested before and it will keep them away from cities