At the end of the day, this is still the crux of our disagreement: Yeah. So make their damage pitifully low. Don't force them to compete with archers. If we make them compete with archers on RCS in open terrain then best-case scenario is that we have 2 interchangeable archers Archers already have a weaker movement system. If you make skirmisher movement weaker, you make them closer to archers. So if you want archers and skirmishers to be distinct from each other, strengthen the skirmisher's movement system Why? As I have stated before, archers on hills can shoot through rough. The reason why skirmishers were useless for more than a month was because they consumed 3/4 moves in 1 rough tile and couldn't retreat after firing, so they got massacred on the following turn. In other words, archers could reach units that skirmishers couldn't. Not without getting themselves killed, at least. As I have said before, we just aren't going to agree, ever, because you have decided that skirmishers shooting/retreating in rough is completely unacceptable while I have decided that retreating in ALL terrains is the only thing that is worthwhile about this unit type. We're never going to see eye to eye on this, so the disagreement between us should have ended on page 3 edit: the 3rd option, as @Stalker0 has stated, is some other mechanic, either support, or damage mechanic, that skirmishers could employ. If you and I can agree one 1 thing, @CrazyG, it’s our reluctance to go that route. Between interactions with UUs and UAs, it would be a nightmare to get right, and that is before you consider how well the AI can employ this unnamed ability.