Interesting Discussion on Longbows

For context, start at 33 minutes, if you just want the lbow discussion start at 33:50 ish. The match itself is also interesting.

The basic point raised is that longbows are extremely overrated, can't kite and get mashed in melee... which they will be caught in, because they can't kite... leading to the conclusion that Yeomen needs a buff. I mean, the card is identical to what it used to be except it now no longer grants the upgrades.

Look, I'm not very good but I don't even bother putting Yeomen in my Brit decks any more. Not even in the lulzy house/cowing one I sometimes use in AI team games (which, I kid you not, has team fast building houses). In fact, I'd go as far to say that they're a unit that's really useful only in a giant mass... which, of course, is especially vulnerable to a cav/artillery combo because you can't defend that with skirm/goon since you can only really do the goon part properly and you can't defend with musk since they're killed by the artillery too.

I get the idea of having a unit where the whole point is range and where being unable to properly kite is a design feature, but there are several reasons why longbows become obsolete historically and this is replicated in the game without their historical replacements. The implicit big pitched battle concept the design drives Brits into becoming is really weird since this entire period was dominated by British naval power and a puny land force.

I guess it seems a little irrelevant since no-one really considers Brits to have balance issues (cf Aztecs, Swedes or China) but... they should do something about this. Maybe, say, un-nerf Improved Grenades and thereby lead players to use a switch to a different unit that can't kite, gets melted by melee and which was clearly part of the original design intention, but which can melt buildings and in that way rewards the "giant mass" civ design.