Garja wrote:Garja wrote:
Their effectiveness vs cav is relative. As I pointed out there are situations where having a big mass of mediocre musks is better than having few good ones.
Sometimes it is just a[b] matter of critical mass after which having cheaper but weaker units is actually more effective.[/b]
It seems to me that your consideration are based on personal preference rather than objective facts. For example I prefer strelets and maces above normal skirms. Skirms have range so they allow you to make a play but strelets and maces are objectively better units when it comes to stats.
Cossack are indeed great but being "useful in pretty much every situation of the game" does seem to me a personal opinion.
In general strelets and cossack are great units because they have good stats compared to other average units (hussar and xbows) and they have several ups in colonial already (don't forget AA). As for musks they just complete the combo.lordraphael wrote:Id go for a convincing no every day . Just imagine brits with ashis or sepoys. In general its just the rule stronger units >worse units despite the former costing more obviously.
Again this is more a personal opinion imo.
i wouldnt say that they become better vs cav than normal musks ever but their weakness is certainly mitigated the bigger the mass gets. However here we already have the crucial point why you have to take into consideration the meta game, and other facts: Having a sufficent mass of musks to fend off cav with relative ease is not easily reached and if it is your opponent will most likely be in the fortress age already.
You can argue about that but unless your opponent has a mass pike or dopple combo id always like some cossacks in my comp.
Wont argue with you about the huss vs cossack simile but you should compare stre to skirm units and not to xbows because when does your opponent makes xbows ? I think out of the last 100 games ive played vs russia i have trained xbows in like 5 games at max ( not ccunting 8 bow ship ) so how is this simile relevant. Again you compare stats without taking the meta into consideration which is crucial when assesing russias strength.
When does AA ever come into play. I recently scratched it from my russia decks because i never use it.
In general I have the feeling that you tend to look at russia with long drawn out colonial fights in mind which is barely the case. I completly agree with you that in drawn out colonial games russia is a tier 1 civ most of the time, but those situations never occur is the problem.