I just had a really good early game skirmish which showcased the new archer/warrior/horseman paradigm, so here are my notes: 1) The new warrior is a beast. He does big damage to the archer, but honestly what really makes him good is he is incredibly tanky. My archers are doing 15ish damage to an AI warrior now (aka with their early promotions). So even if the warriors aren't "killing" me per say....its very hard to move ground on them, especially if they are camping in their territory and healing. 2) My skirmish was against a satellite city, which had an 8 CS with its warrior garrison, and a 5 RCS. What let me start to make ground was the introduction of a horseman. My horse made mincemeat of the archer and let me finally tank and kill the warriors well enough to push forward. 3) After a lot of fighting I finally got my 4 archers on the city. During this siege I saw 3 CS levels: a) 8 with the warrior. b) 12 once the warrior upgraded to a spearman. c) 10 once the spearman died but walls got finished right on time. (the city was at half health at this point). Ultimately....the CS numbers didn't stop my archers. It took longer than it once did but I had no trouble bringing the city down. So ultimately my attack was effective....but much more difficult than would have been before. It took a lot more time and effort, and without the horseman I might have stalled out. So in general, I like where the numbers have come out, with the exception of the 4 CS for the archer. I agree with PAD that this makes the archer too vulnerable to horseman and barb horseman....and I don't think its needed. Even with a 5 CS, my warriors would do plenty of damage, and more importantly....still tank those archer hits like champs. And then god help the archer once the spearman is on the field. I'll see if my opinion changes after some more battles, but other than the CS change, I'm liking what I'm seeing.