Talk:Elephant Archer (Age of Empires II)/@comment-2003:DB:F3D6:1BD2:CC3E:B6B3:89AD:4CD4-20190728155600

Here's what should be done (if I could edit my "a fandom user"-comments, I'd do that instead), in a more neat point-by-point format.


 * give the Elephant Archer more HP; maybe close to the war-elephant (don't be a nay-sayer, read further before objecting)


 * ... a good deal of higher attack


 * ...and less accuracy; considerably less! (think "Tanky, slow moving Arambai"!)


 * drop the "frame delay" (it's only good to balance hit-and-run tactics with archers and cav-archers. This unit does not behave like a cav-archer for the most part, and it's abysmally slow to begin with, so why "balance" their weakness by making it even weaker? - "because: reasons!")


 * classify it as "Siege" weapon (for many, interconnected reasons, see above and below); the bonus-damage it already does carry for stone-defense would thus seem more plausible, anyway


 * rearrange it's armor; rather than 0+3 let it be 3+0, or something like that


 * let it be boarded by archers/skirmishers, adding extra-arrows to the unit. It would thus function like a ram being boosted by infantry; or like a [walking] tower with the obligatory extra-arrows via garrisoned units.


 * rearrange some of the bonus-damage it receives from counter-units. E.g. drop the anti-cav-bonusses to "+5" (or rather some elephant-bonus damage decrease?), even add a "+5" to the siege-armor-class collumn. This unit still is in need in some outside-the-box thinking all around, when it comes to bonus damage dealt and received, to make them more of an interesting option for the player (and fun-challenge to be plaid against)


 * rebalance the rest (like cost, range, and if they still benefit from tradition archer-upgrades) accordingly to that purpose (explained underneath)

... the major flaw with this unit is that it has an identity-crisis, and those changes are supposed to fix it. It is not an archer; or not a good one at that. It does nothing better in that regard in game (but has a ludicrous price-tag attached to that. The meager 330HP does squat to offset that, considering many and large forms of bonus damage it receives; it's an outright waste of resources under most circumstances), nor ist it historically accurate to portray them as such. Elephant Archers weren't "cavalry-archers" (a unit for hit and run tactics; keeping the enemy at bay, and stricking them at the right opportunity, where it hurts); they were ELEPHANTS -- with archers ADDED to that; a broadsword more so than a sophisticated, far-reaching, it's-chance-biding tool. They were mostly there for trampling down enemy formations (="melee damage") and reaking havoc, esp. against undisciplined targets; the archers were just an extra, serving as a means to pick up the leftovers, and deal with some specific threats, like being sorrounded by long spears (keep in mind, that the archers in that bucket could fire at any time (read: "while moving"; like on a chariot (which also was a "melee-unit" first, and an archer-unit second)), even before the invention of the stirup allowed that same feature for cav-archers; therefore they were pretty inaccurate while on the move, but with an hight-advantage). But in game the unit doesn't do any trample damage whatsoever; it doesn't do any meele damage to begin with! (so you take away it's biggest strength (while slashing the HP in half), and pay a premium for that? - ludicrous!) - and I am not sure if the engine could handle the idea of being a two-prongued attack, of being an elephant that hits close-quarter units (and be it just as much as the average trample-damage) like any other elephant, while dishing out arrows on top of that, and dishing out arrows still on a possible retreat (shooting while moving - also impossible with the given engine, if I am not mistaken), to actually give this pseudo-cav-archer some actual raiding potential. (you know... that thing that cav-archers have going for them, being balanced by their frame-delay and bonus-damage-received; EA as of now shares in all their weaknesses but none of their strengths; for an extra juicy price!)

What these changes would aim for, would be a unit, that would have a hard time hitting targets at a distance, but being much better equipped to pick off spearman as they close in. Making them much more durable, also via their higher melee armor and HP. - and thus bringing them more in line with the core-usage of elephants.

In contrast it would have weaknesses against many Siege units (counter them with rams or mangonels, for instance! - both carrying good extra damage! - a lot of gold-heavy units, that would allow an indian player who's build up the resources to pump out these costly walking towers/slow tanks; would make for a fun exchange and a proper way to put some economic-advantage to good use.)

... and being slightly more vulnerable to ranged attacks as well (but balanced via higher HP, to hold up against some pesky skirmishers for longer), thanks to the lower pierce-armor and their very weak accuracy. Again, this, along with those other characteristics, would bring them more in line with the close-quarter threat that elephants are supposed to be. (how well exactly did elephants fare, traditionally, against arrows aimed at their eyes?)

It also puts an end to the flimsy idea, that they'd be a replacement for the knight-line; they never were, the developers never put any effort into making that a reality, and they were allaround useless for that identity-crisis. If you are at the point where you could pump out these costly glass-tanks, you were better off swarming your enemy with a more sensible unit-composition. Maybe most players (the ones defending this abysmal unit concept) do not notice, as, for their "Late game power-punch" sort of use, their economy was overpowered to the point where it did not matter all that much, how much of a waste these luxuary units actually are... I bet a good chunk of indian-victories are decided without any actual EA involvment to speak of. (actual statistics would really be nice to have for that sort of speculation)

The transport/boarding/garrisoning of archers also would make for some fun-shenanigans; some real tactical decisions to make, for archers - now suddenly a viable option for indians (or make that skirmishers, for some more tactical options against enemies relying heavily on archers) - to be on the ground for maximum anti-unit effect, but boarding them, when the going gets tough/when you want to close in to the thick of the enemy base.

... and the thing with no-frame-delay, higher damage (+ extra arrows from extra archers) and bad accuracy also could serve as a means to make the little space that needs to be bridged (for enemy spearmen and such) more meaningful (and raiding a bit more of a viable option); where cav-archers have their speed [for hit and run], these units have an effective damage-increase as enemy-units close in (because more arrows will suddenly start to actually hit the target), serving as a deterrant to unorganized enemy rushes, making for a more interesting tactical challenge (for both sides). It's as if space was warped around them, game-mechanics-wise.

... all in all a neat complementary piece to a civ that does not seem underpowered by any stretch, and would probably need rebalancing for this matter; but atleast the unit would suddenly fill an actual role, to round out their roster.

ALl in all I just hate it when special units are this useless (as the EA with all it's weaknesses and it's cost and it's meaker strongpoints currently is); they are supposed to be a selling point to the game, and what makes different civs stand out to one another, as general unit-design usually does eff-all for that matter. If, when playing a specific civilization, their unique unit never really feels like a viable option, it may not even be there to begin with, and be replaced, instead, with a more useful one. Like a gunpowder-camal (basically an indian version of the conquistador), or a cataphract-camel (no bonus damage against infantry, but the same bonus-armor that the byzanteens get) or a bombard-canon elephant. As it stands it feels like the EA is just in the game to be in the game, with no real thought put into the question what it's place (usage) should be. That's just bad game design, and you know it!