In reality, yes, but not in the game. Against archers, they have a strength of 12, while the opponent is a composite archer with a strength of 5. In the forest and on the hill, this gives 7.5. Even with an increase in the number of archers per unit, it will be 9. At the same time, the probability of retreat is 30%. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, nothing prevents them from attacking with their next move. That is, archers were trained to shoot only at the enemy's line in the squares, but each thrower was trained as a sniper? Strongly. Very much. In reality, of course, the bow requires very specific training and a very specific contingent was engaged with it. These are fairly well-off and not the smallest landowners, Military servants of the nobility, its huntsmen/foresters, etc.At the same time, it is archery that is practically applicable outside of war. Throwing heavy darts at ducks was not practiced. And at the same time, because of the low requirements, the bulk of the throwers are either the ultimate proletariat or ordinary infantry. There were also professionals among the throwers, but the typical contingent was not them. At the same time, in any case, the training should reflect the progress.. The historical niche of throwers is the fight against heavy infantry. As for the archers, I suggest leaving the throwers the bonus of fighting him in the forest. So they were occasionally really used. The range of the throw is limited, with heavier darts more or less ignoring non-thick branches, foliage, etc. No, the range of differences is wider, even if you do not take very different maneuverability. 1. The infantry pike is strictly a two-handed weapon. Hence the much higher requirements for protection, or / and cover with their own arrows. Otherwise, the same throwers will torment them. 2. The spear on average is not a purely piercing weapon, cutting blows were inflicted even with cavalry Cossack "pikes". In general, in reality, the swordsmen looked even worse against the spearmen than in the video. As you might guess, we are talking about the spearman/ax-bearer and pikeman/flail pairs. Later units replace the spearman better. The swordsman is inferior to him by 33% (and as we remember, this is not for long), the arquebusier is inferior to the pikeman by the same 33%. As a result, the pikeman is relevant until the opening of the rifled weapon. The context is as follows: when storming a city with a cavalry unit in the garrison, the spearman outperforms the swordsman by 21%, the pikeman tsekpa – by 20%. That is, spearmen in Vanilla play the role of stormtroopers as well. At the same time, the first pikeman in C2C is the notorious 5%, and the heavy pikeman becomes obsolete BEFORE it appears. Rocket launcher unlocked by alchemy – 12 + anti-cavalry bonus 50%.= 18. Against 15 for a heavy pikeman. I have already mentioned the axe and the swordsman (13), which appear simultaneously with the late pikeman, but they pale against the background of the rocket twist of the balance. I didn't understand anything at all. No amount of placement on the technology tree negates the weakness of the vanilla sword. So what? It appears later and is weaker at the same time. The reference to the fact that someone CAN go the other way and open the flail earlier is not very constructive. Maybe not. What is the deep meaning of creating another decorative unit? That's exactly what we're talking about. Specifically, that you have a bunch of units in almost the same niche. Instead of the normal specialization on a wide range of issues. Reasoning on the topic "then there will be promotions and they will not be on the same person", sorry, is absurd. Why not make the differentiation obvious right away? Unless, of course, the goal is to raise the entry threshold to an outrage. At the same time, the main problem is not the axe, but the mace-bearers. For example, the chain almost duplicates the swordsmen when interacting with infantry and during the assault. But it is inexplicably 30% worse against the cavalry. It also has a very serious 1. serious training in peacetime is unrealistic, 2. by the beginning of the war, when the resistance is maximum, you can have an optimal army here now or count on a bright future. Despite the fact that in the course of training, you will lose units. The second option is bad even just economically. That is, mystical bonuses are supplemented by mystical promotions. Again, no. Flamethrowers have a strength of 24 against hand-to-hand combat, compared to 19.5 for axes. At the same time, they open up to heavy axes and the circulation of flamethrowers is not too limited – 20, as far as I understand. At the same time, this is another Wunderwaffe against archers, both in the forest and in the garrison. See above. And what prevents it from being done by the same throwers? That is, archers are only suitable for defending a limited set of cities. Another decorative unit. And the same thing happens in Vanilla. At the same time, the cities capture. With difficulty – exactly because 1. long archer is a versatile and powerful defensive unit and at the same time quite cheap. The strength in the city is 9 against 10 for the flail and knight. At the same time, the cost of two flails is almost equal to the cost of three archers. 2. The "short" archer is noticeably worse, but the gap from the attacker is still 20%, less than the strengthening bonus. And yes, it is still somewhat cheaper relative to the opponents. By the way, this is historical, garrison troops have always been cheaper than field troops. A quarter of the garrison will not replace the whole. The complex of weapons determines the interaction regardless of the culture. Because this is a banal physics, which does not depend on the number of feathers on the helmet or the pattern on the shield at all. At the same time, "cultural" features can only exaggerate the imbalance. Agricultural culture does not provide specific skills in the use of weapons, so within its framework, weapons that are difficult to master are relatively weakened. Can you guess which one? I am inclined to state the actual state of things. The only problem is that your ideas about pre-industrial war are the opposite of reality in 8 cases out of 10. You were not interested in the topic, obviously.