Im so tired of tryhards with briton archers

[SirCakealot]

I know exactly what they will do every game, and there is no counter to it. Just 1 building and one unit, infinite queue answer to everything. Fix it already!

[GamerCH]

You wanted to know what beats Longbows and I am telling you the Teuton Castle will beat them. Nowhere did they say that they had Trebs. Send in your Cav and kill those trebs. Build you own Trebs.

Beating Britons is so easy just spam skirmishers until the enemy runs out of gold. Imperial skirmisher there ya go.

Pretty sure there's some cavalry that has crazy pierce armor. Italian Conditore or what he's called is fast and may close the distance before being killed.

[GamerCH]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

But either way I haven't seen any top player place them in their top 3. For Arabia at least both mbl and hera said Chinese, Aztecs, and Mayans.

This ends the argument right there. If there was any truth to Longbows being OP then top players would use them all the time.

Its kinda laughable to pretend that the longbowman isn't balanced after 20+ years of balancing.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Ivanka 46th:

You wanted to know what beats Longbows and I am telling you the Teuton Castle will beat them. Nowhere did they say that they had Trebs. Send in your Cav and kill those trebs. Build you own Trebs.

Beating Britons is so easy just spam skirmishers until the enemy runs out of gold. Imperial skirmisher there ya go.

Pretty sure there's some cavalry that has crazy pierce armor. Italian Conditore or what he's called is fast and may close the distance before being killed.

Umm, first of all Condottiero is an infantry unit, and no they don't counter archers.

Second of all, we're assuming the Briton player is not a potato. So they're gonna have halberdiers in front of their trebs, castles nearby, and if you ever play against someone good they'll just quickwall their trebs.

I think we can assume here the Britons player has trebs. Like yes, if you play against a complete moron, maybe they'll walk their longbows into castles and just let them die. I don't know why we're discussing such an opponent, they're so braindead stupid you can do anything and beat them.

Third, "just spam skirmishers". Why would you then suggest a civ that doesn't get fully upgraded skirmishers? If the counter to britons is snipe trebs with cav and kill their archers with skirmishers (btw siege ram is what I've heard from pros, not cav), then why pick a civ with slow cav, no light cav, and no bracer?

Like instead, we can take all the same points. And then just pick say Chinese. Chinese actually have full upgraded skirms. And they actually have light cav, along with husbandry. And they also get siege ram. Their eco is better. They can kill Britons in feudal age easier. And Britons aren't going to go monks, so Crenellations is basically the only thing Teutons have on them.

Originally posted by Ivanka 46th:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

But either way I haven't seen any top player place them in their top 3. For Arabia at least both mbl and hera said Chinese, Aztecs, and Mayans.

This ends the argument right there. If there was any truth to Longbows being OP then top players would use them all the time.

Its kinda laughable to pretend that the longbowman isn't balanced after 20+ years of balancing.

I agree, but you do have to consider its a different game. Specifically the melee pathing in this game makes ranged units more powerful than they were on voobly.

Also Britons actually had a lot of success at NAC3. Its not Longbow that makes them powerful though, you need like 3 castles of production or more to justify them and in a lot of games that's not feasible. Its just the cheaper tcs combined with longer range crossbow/arbalest usually that helps Britons.

But by this same argument that you just made, show me a game where a pro player has picked Teutons as a counter pick to Britons. I can find you plenty of games where longbows have success. On the other hand, I don't think you could find me a tournament game where Teutons beat Britons. I don't think they're even picked enough for that to exist, I've seen them picked exactly once on DE and it was to counter Aztecs (mbl vs Villese, he actually ended up vs Khmer but still won, but he just played it better it was definitely not a civ win).

[fmalfeas]

I suppose if you want a civ counter, that would be Slavs. Boyars to shred the longbows and trebs.

[Marva]

Originally posted by fmalfeas:

I suppose if you want a civ counter, that would be Slavs. Boyars to shred the longbows and trebs.

How are Boyars any different the Paladins? Just pick the Malians or Berbers to solve your problems.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Wall of Light:

Originally posted by fmalfeas:

I suppose if you want a civ counter, that would be Slavs. Boyars to shred the longbows and trebs.

How are Boyars any different the Paladins? Just pick the Malians or Berbers to solve your problems.

Why berbers?

Why not a civ that's, you know, good?

Seriously, camel archers don't counter longbow/arbalest. And they'll legitimately flood fewer knights than khmer or persians would because of the lack of an eco bonus.

What is with this obession with the idea that the counter to Britons is picking bottom tier civs?

At least we've managed one civ that's not so bad it wasn't used a single time at nac3 in malians, that's actually not a terrible choice but still just play aztecs.


Slavs spamming Boyars will get absolutely annihilated also. Aside from a unit with high melee armor not countering ranged, Boyar are pretty hard to mass produce and there's no plan there on how to survive till you get 3-4 castles required for significant boyar production. Unless its just some 1 tc boyar play? But I think even goths would easily beat that.

[Cacomistle]

I just want to stress this. If your choice of civ to counter Britons has not been seen at all in any tournament since DE came out, vs any civ at all, it probably doesn't counter Britons.

As far as I know, Britons aren't considered the best civ on any map in the map pool. Just pick the best civ. Picking a civ that's better than Britons is a lot stronger than trying to gimmick them and hoping your Briton opponent won't build champions vs huskarls, or trebuchets vs teuton castles, or just onagers vs viatnamese skirmishers (after they get a 30 vill lead on a civ with no eco bonus), or honestly I don't even get the thought process behind Berbers cause they don't even have a strong ranged counter unit.

On the other hand, if you pick a civ that's good you don't have to do some tryhard "what counters what" logic.

Just spam eagles on Aztecs or something, they're probably the best civ (or in contention at least) on all the maps Britons are actually good on. You've got plenty of pro replays to watch the matchup too because people actually pick Aztecs.

[Thermal Lance]

My favourite strategy is to ditch siege weapons and rush to castle age. I do use longbowmen but in a mixed army alongside Infantry. I destroy building using my infantry (with the skills of couse. They are not basic units) My infantry go in and focuses on buildings while my longbowmen/archers do cover fire.

So far it proven to be stupid effective against the AI on standard. I wonder if I can still do something similar with a harder AI

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Wall of Light:

How are Boyars any different the Paladins? Just pick the Malians or Berbers to solve your problems.

Why berbers?

Why not a civ that's, you know, good?

Seriously, camel archers don't counter longbow/arbalest. And they'll legitimately flood fewer knights than khmer or persians would because of the lack of an eco bonus.

What is with this obession with the idea that the counter to Britons is picking bottom tier civs?

At least we've managed one civ that's not so bad it wasn't used a single time at nac3 in malians, that's actually not a terrible choice but still just play aztecs.


Slavs spamming Boyars will get absolutely annihilated also. Aside from a unit with high melee armor not countering ranged, Boyar are pretty hard to mass produce and there's no plan there on how to survive till you get 3-4 castles required for significant boyar production. Unless its just some 1 tc boyar play? But I think even goths would easily beat that.

Berbers are an excellent counter to Britons LB spam, with Genitours (Mounted Skirmishers).
Goths (Huskarls) and Malians also beath them very easily.

To be honest, Britons are easy to beat, unless you play Turks. Elite Skirmishers,(even than Frank ones) deal extra damage vs both all Archers, and the Spearman line, without costing any gold.

If a Britons player is just spamming Longbowmwn and a screen of Halberdiers, just make a few Archery Rangs and pump out Elite Skirmishers non-stop, and you will win by default.
At that point, the Britons player will be forced to include other Gold units, like Champions or Cavaliers, if he wants to beat you, which will make the number of Longbowmen he will be able to produce go down significantly.

Capped and Siege Rams filled with Champions, or Mass Hussars going around the Halbs, also beats Longbow spamming.

[Marva]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Wall of Light:

How are Boyars any different the Paladins? Just pick the Malians or Berbers to solve your problems.

Why berbers?

Why not a civ that's, you know, good?

Seriously, camel archers don't counter longbow/arbalest. And they'll legitimately flood fewer knights than khmer or persians would because of the lack of an eco bonus.

What is with this obession with the idea that the counter to Britons is picking bottom tier civs?

At least we've managed one civ that's not so bad it wasn't used a single time at nac3 in malians, that's actually not a terrible choice but still just play aztecs.


Slavs spamming Boyars will get absolutely annihilated also. Aside from a unit with high melee armor not countering ranged, Boyar are pretty hard to mass produce and there's no plan there on how to survive till you get 3-4 castles required for significant boyar production. Unless its just some 1 tc boyar play? But I think even goths would easily beat that.

I just like to use Berbers, friend. It means you don't need to be psychic during civ selection. You can just choose Berbers, and then you have your answer to Britons right there. Obviously, I'm not proposing that you should send Camel Archers out against Longbows. That's not how you use the unit. The Genitour is a very capable trash unit, and the reduced cost for stables units allows you to get cavalry out a bit more easily in general. Camel archers are basically all-round archers with advantages in mobility and tenacity.

[RoofKorea=BestKorea]

have you tried like...
building knights or skirms or rams?
you arent even ranked, why do you think you have the insight to make balance decisions?

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Wall of Light:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Why berbers?

Why not a civ that's, you know, good?

Seriously, camel archers don't counter longbow/arbalest. And they'll legitimately flood fewer knights than khmer or persians would because of the lack of an eco bonus.

What is with this obession with the idea that the counter to Britons is picking bottom tier civs?

At least we've managed one civ that's not so bad it wasn't used a single time at nac3 in malians, that's actually not a terrible choice but still just play aztecs.


Slavs spamming Boyars will get absolutely annihilated also. Aside from a unit with high melee armor not countering ranged, Boyar are pretty hard to mass produce and there's no plan there on how to survive till you get 3-4 castles required for significant boyar production. Unless its just some 1 tc boyar play? But I think even goths would easily beat that.

I just like to use Berbers, friend. It means you don't need to be psychic during civ selection. You can just choose Berbers, and then you have your answer to Britons right there. Obviously, I'm not proposing that you should send Camel Archers out against Longbows. That's not how you use the unit. The Genitour is a very capable trash unit, and the reduced cost for stables units allows you to get cavalry out a bit more easily in general. Camel archers are basically all-round archers with advantages in mobility and tenacity.

Camel Archers could generally get a small nerf, and they would still be great. Extra damage vs Infantry and Cavalry, on a high HP (for an Archer) body, at an average range?
No reason to even train Cavalry Archers at that point!

Not to mention that Berbers have good Stables, good Archery Range, and good Docks. It is like a less specialized Franks, that is super pushed towards competitive play. No civ in their expansion is nearly as good, not even the Malians.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by ThunderclesTheBrass:

have you tried like...
building knights or skirms or rams?
you arent even ranked, why do you think you have the insight to make balance decisions?

Knights/Cavaliers/Paladins are a bad counter to Longbowmen + Pikemen/Halberdiers, as they will lose in Gold value, even if they somehow win the fight.

Skirmishers or Rams are the way to go.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Wall of Light:

I just like to use Berbers, friend. It means you don't need to be psychic during civ selection. You can just choose Berbers, and then you have your answer to Britons right there. Obviously, I'm not proposing that you should send Camel Archers out against Longbows. That's not how you use the unit. The Genitour is a very capable trash unit, and the reduced cost for stables units allows you to get cavalry out a bit more easily in general. Camel archers are basically all-round archers with advantages in mobility and tenacity.

Camel Archers could generally get a small nerf, and they would still be great. Extra damage vs Infantry and Cavalry, on a high HP (for an Archer) body, at an average range?
No reason to even train Cavalry Archers at that point!

Not to mention that Berbers have good Stables, good Archery Range, and good Docks. It is like a less specialized Franks, that is super pushed towards competitive play. No civ in their expansion is nearly as good, not even the Malians.

Show me Berbers being picked even once in tournament play on DE.

They suck. Camel archers and cheaper knights don't compensate for the complete lack of an eco bonus. Perdians and Khmer could both produce almost as much while having other powerful options available.

Franks suck too btw, also not picked in competitive. Melee pathing really negatively impacted them.

[GamerCH]

Ya know one of my biggest issues with AoE is that people often wait until they're imperial age and have everything before they start to go to war.

If you let a Briton player go all the way and research everything and have great gold also with trade and have a huge army of longbows, then you let him get there.

A good point that SpiritoftheLaw made was that Castle units are made in a castle and you can only build one or two of those while you can build like 5 archery ranges to keep pumping out those trash units like Skirmishers.

You should be able to throw at least 3 skrimishers at every longbowman that the enemy has, when you can do that, I don't see how they are a problem and as far as I know everyone has skrimishers and some have really good ones.

Choosing Britons dooms you because they know exactly that you're gonna go for mass longbows.