1. No, even an early archer on a hill with a forest or jungle is stronger than a swordsman: 6/6+ first strike. After full strengthening, another +25%. If they are completely fortified on the treeless hills, they are not an easy opponent for swordsmen 3+75% = 5.25+ first strike against 6. At the same time, there are also Babylonian archers with a bonus against melee. 2. This is not so important, because longbows are balanced against opponents in a completely different way. This is more than a combat-ready field unit on rough terrain, as it was in reality. The direct heirs of the swordsmen in vanilla are the mace-bearers. Attack on the hill with the archers who just occupied it - 8/9 plus the first strike in favor of the archers without strengthening. The knights ' penalty on the hills gives approximately the same result - 7.5/9. And this is, in general, the right approach. In fact, no city can withstand an endless siege , and the economy - constantly ruining the countryside In fact, the main striking force in medieval assaults is just dismounted cavalry. At the same time, in the street battles, it too fought. There were also intra-city clashes-in the style of "the urban establishment in the equestrian formation attacks the rebellious masses of the people". How they maneuvered on the streets of that time – I'm afraid to even think. During the Renaissance and later – this is not so obvious in the mass of infantry; hired cavalry, etc., could be strongly opposed. But, in general, the cavalry went to the assaults dismounted and sometimes took the city in proud solitude.