Hi,
i had a look at the svn, and so far it looks promising and the changes are in the right direction in my opinion. So, thank you!
However, I'd like to propose a further change:
At the moment, archer gets bonus against huntsman only when attacking. But I think, the archer should get the bonus both while attacking and defending. Obviously, the archer should have the upper hand against the huntman which carries a light/no armour, which provides no protection from arrows and whose slings have less range than archers' bows. But also there is a reason in the aspect of gameplay: In the current system, an army on foot in classical ages will be attacked and defeated by an army with the same number of pure huntsman. Because there is nothing stronger than an attacking huntsman, there is also no terrain that will protect you from the huntsman. By giving the archer such bonus, the army with a bunch of archer would be protected against such an assault.
I'd argue that the huntsman is fast enough to blitz the archers and run them down on the attack, but its not really a meaningful statement since either could beat the other depending on a million scenarios. Keep that in mind when reading the rest. Civilization will never be a perfect simulation for real unit balance...
There is a big difference between light and no armor. Many modern theorists have underestimated the value of cloth armor as a legitimate protection. Since the basic archer is referring to cheap units with primitive bows, cloth armor and wicker shields would go far to protect the unit from a barrage of arrows. Across northern africa, and egypt heavy cloth robes were worn by various skirmishers and light units to protect them from stray arrows, and light shields like those wicker shields the persians used were likely used primarily as a defense against arrows, since it was found that they couldn't stand up to melee. Arrows were probably the most common and deadly threat ancient armies had to contend with. It took relatively little training to fire a primitive bow, and it allowed lesser soldiers an opportunity to kill a better-trained foe without entering melee.
Skirmishers were a different unit altogether then archers. Melee was not a foreign concept to them, and generally they likely were better equipped to enter melee then archers were. Among their greatest advantages were their speed. Since they were lightly equipped they could run down other soldiers, including archers, and they were economically effective against heavier units for a very long time frame. Even the spartans were eventually overcome by 'huntsmen'. as quoted by a quote from wiki on peltists.
"They (the Spartan hoplites) themselves were held up by the weapons shot at them from both flanks by the light troops. Though they (the hoplites) drove back the light troops at any point in which they ran in and approached too closely, they (the light troops) still fought back even in retreat, since they had no heavy equipment and could easily outdistance their pursuers over ground where, since the place had been uninhabited until then, the going was rough and difficult."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltast
continuing the quote further...
"When fighting other types of light troops, peltasts were able to close more aggressively in melee as they had the advantage of possessing shields, swords, and helmets."
Now, looking back at our huntsman, most the unit art includes shields, and some of those who don't actually should have shields like the greek peltist. Shields are a huge boon vs. arrows. These light units almost all include light armor and helmets which were likely designed primarily as a defense against arrows. As I mentioned, arrows were their primary threat, and primitive ones didn't pack a lot of oomph, though some civilizations have exceptions.
So, what I see is a unit that can't hold up to a continuous barrage of arrows, but does have shields, light armor, speed, and melee capability. All adding up to a net advantage for the huntsman when attacking an archer caught on flat ground. On the defense, the huntsman's light armor gives him a disadvantage as they will melt faster then heavier infantry.
Note. Here's an interesting defense for cloth armor. Sharpen your best knife, and place a thick cloth on a soft surface. Now, try slashing that cloth open. Its not easy. Piercing cloth is much easier, but compared to the force needed to penetrate skin, its a world of difference. Arrows will pierce cloth, but not at the range they could against an unarmored soldier, and the cloth will serve to lessen the blow. Serving to turn what would-have-been a fatal blow into a flesh wound. Even as heavier armors were pciked up, cloth armor never went away. Under chain and plate, was cloth, serving a great role in dampening otherwise fatal blows.
Heres another interesting note. Tests with the infamous bodkin arrow found that it was indeed a fantastic counter to chainmail, but it struggled against cloth. Regular arrows were actually better. Since during the time of the heavier bows, you'd find the valuable soldiers wearing composite armors, even specialized arrows were only effective en-masse, and the armor of the time periods always served to protect the user from arrows quite well. As I mentioned before, due to the price of the armor, just damaging it was a net win in the long run.
This is a long beaten debate thats always raging over historic forums, but, ultimately, if it wasn't true, why would the slow, cumbersome muskets come to replace the longbow?
