Horseman strenght should be reduced to 4 from 6
This unit is much stronger then other units player can build in this era. In reality first real threating horse units was chariots and they are much weaker then Horseman. I know that on steppes horse was used to riding before chariots but we dont have evidences that he was stronger then for example Egyptian Chariots. Horses in that times was much smaller then we know and if they was to war then maneuverability was they biggest assets. Plus fighting without any saddles or something similar can be tricky.
This suggestion does have merit I think. Perhaps not as low as 4 but maybe 5 or so would help to achieve a little better balance. Main thing is it probably won't happen until a full review process that ensures the units are balanced more thoroughly on many checkpoints including strength. Something like the Naval review is certainly pending for land units!
Arsonist strenght should be reduced to 7 or 6.\
I know they have limits (national limit 4) but I cannot image how simple arsonists can be twice stronger then band of obsidian axemans. They should be used only as early game siege units with some fighting capabilities.
I despise unit limits on units that wouldn't be all that difficult to replicate. I definitely think there's strong room to adjust and alter these units to get them to blend in with their era balance-wise without needing them to be OP countered by Unit limits. Strength, again, is only one checkpoint here. They are quite strong in many ways and it may be they should be pulled back on strength significantly. But that tugs at other units on the web of interconnectedness through upgrades and contemporary peers so again, it needs a more thorough evaluation.
Flailman - maybe we change his name to Heavy Maceman (to get same pair like Axeman-Heavy Axeman)?
I get the thinking here but I'm not in agreement with calling a flail a mace. They are clearly different weapons.
Pikeman and Heavy Pikeman - I suggest change them respectively to Heavy Spearman and Pikeman. In reality Pikemans in later eras was even less armored then pole weapon warriors from middle ages and ancient times. They used better tactics and guns to their advantage.
There is some validity to this suggestion. I'm wondering how equipment will change some of the naming on units all around. For example, the main difference for these units is Long Polearms vs Short Polearms. Long Polearms won't need to always be pikes and by the time the later versions showed up they were probably Bill Hooks or one of about a hundred types of polearms developed during that period.
IMO, the horseman unit shouldn't even exist at all.
While there is some evidence that man rode horses at the time, it appears to be the exception or daring act. The use of actual mounted troops did not occur until much later and marked the end of the chariot. Somewhere in the archives here is a long discussion about it where I also provided links supporting my position. *I just mark it up as slightly less silly than giraffe/bear/etc... riders or all the 'punk' techs*
There's also, as we showed through that discussion and research on all our behalves, the indication that there is not evidence to the contrary and there is cause to understand why such validating evidence for horseback riding before the chariot would be missing. Logic is against the presumption that the chariot preceded mounted warriors, while there is some admitted (though I believe very weak) logic that does also support the suggestion that the chariot was the first expression of the horse in use in battle. And the lack of evidence does not constitute evidence.
My point is that we don't know, and the researchers in the field agree we don't know, so we've gone on a consensus of what seems to make the most sense.
In all honesty, the one argument that seems to make sense, since I don't see early humans as being weak, fearful, and unimaginative, would be that there could've been a rather commonly held, tied to nature belief, that it was wrong to involve an innocent animal such as a horse, in a violent conflict the animal would have no personal benefit from engaging in. It may well have required a civilized and nature-disconnected mindset to have introduced this... and THOSE people I could see as being weak and fearful and perhaps imaginative enough to come up with an answer far more complicated than 'get on the thing's back and ride it'.
But assuming early man had no compunction, does it not seem infinitely more industrialized to build a cart for the horse than it does to simply figure out how to tame one by riding it long enough? As much bravery as would be required to simply survive as a hunter of mammoths, I seriously doubt the horse was as feared as we are presuming it to be by such early people. That kind of bravery requires fostering of a culture of daring within the community... at least among males.
And they were, if we take more modern examples of unindustrialized peoples, most likely fairly free to think on their own and each would've sought to bring their own unique contributions to the tribe... I think under such conditions it would be impossible to imagine horses not becoming usefully ridden by prehistoric man.
Once ridden, warfare is an immediately obvious next step... provided you didn't have an innate respect for all living things that tends to come from natural living. Warfare, as we know it, was usually what we would simply call skirmishes until we had sedentary lifestyles and began carving up land for ownership, at which point it became much more diabolical. So little evidence for horse riding in combat makes a lot of sense since we didn't have nearly the degree of combat and conflict until right around the time that the chariot would've been invented... that doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have existed however.
Plus, before this time we also:
1) Didn't have writing to record one way or another
2) Most artistic messages left behind were from regions not highly endowed with horses as a local resource
3) Didn't use tools to assist like tack and harness, even ropes, nothing to leave a trace on the dental records of horse fossils
4) Didn't leave behind massive battlefields of destruction for archeologists to find or not find any horse remains among the dead
So again, no evidence for or against mounted battle can exist pre-writing. And the Chariot most likely predates writing itself. This does not mean it had to come before mounted combat. Sedentary (city) lifestyle, organized warfare, writing, the chariot, kingship, all came about at exactly the same time in history, sprung up out of the sudden emergence of Sumeria and the city building peoples of India. It happened nearly overnight and what was taking place before that is still largely a mystery. So we're just arguing over conjectures and what logical answers we can come to in our heads without evidence to back either theory.
