Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It would replace Armoured swordsmen and Feudal Knights.
They're basically made to lock enemy in one place with their high defense and good shield, so other units would outflank enemy.
Scotland has good light cavalry and infantry, and Highlander Nobles do this work good as well.
I'd prefer noble swordsmen to be replaced, since Scotland's known for their pikes and all that.
Nah, I think Scotland should have some kind of weakness. Having good light cavalry, spear- pike units and missiles would be overkill, TBH.
And besides, Highlander archer nobles are decent.
They're actually quite pathethic in comparison to some units from the Eastern factions. Heck, Egyptian Desert Archers deal more missile damage than the Highlander Archer Nobles.
I was talking about their overall usability.
I remember them holding well against Chivalric Knights on melee in multiplayer battle.
They even won Noble Knights all by themselves one time.
Face, they're the elite archers from Scotland and they're outclassed by tier 2 archers from other nations.
You got me.