UNIT - Creature Balance + Visual Changes

Abilities are a matter of taste; other players may disagree with them, but I look at the numbers and point out what's wrong with them. In version 4, you simply increased the damage of the best upgrade (alt) by 20%, replacing one good ability with another (roughly equivalent).

I disagree with the equivalence of the ability. There's a big difference between 50% + knockback and 100%, and besides the huge damage of the second ability, it's also very situational, which is a big drawback.

Not at all, the most rational means based on someone's experience (not reinventing the wheel). I've already suggested that you familiarize yourself with TE and RTA; there are descriptions of these mods (changes).

Rationality, in many senses, is a subjective term; you understand it as "following a well-trodden path," while I understand it as the simplest and most effective way to achieve a goal.

Not at all, I don't care if you accept my position or stick to your own.

Well, if that's the case, then why are you so persistently trying to prove something to me, even trying to impose it? If you don't care, why not just leave the topic?

So, be prepared to spend a couple of years on this path (with such a volume of changes).

And I didn't say that my project would be fully ready and implemented in a short period. I was prepared for all the consequences that arise from this, so their occurrence doesn't surprise me, because I knew that it couldn't be done without it.
I am also ready for criticism and understand that the mod may not appeal to everyone, because each person is an individual with their own views on balance, mechanics, tactical advantages, etc. You can't please everyone, and I'm not going to try, because that leads to complete failure; the closest example is the seventh part of Heroes.

In schemes where it is proposed to compensate for direct damage with increased damage, it is also necessary to take into account that melee damage is also increased (therefore, an increase in total damage by 1.5 times already fully compensates for direct damage). Taking into account the old armor penetration of 3, we will get approximately equality when the damage is increased by 1.4 times: from 2-8 to 6-8 (which is a lot, but on par with the imbalanced alt)

Are you serious about melee damage now?)) As someone said earlier, when a maneuver option was suggested, possibly even you: "Archers will be lucky to survive a melee attack, let alone a counterattack." So, what are we talking about? They are very fragile creatures; even with an increased hit rate, they cannot inflict serious damage in melee combat, and they don't even have an ability to remove the melee penalty.

Option 6, friendly creatures will not suffer unless they are next to the archers; moreover, this protection also applies to enemy shots from the same unit, i.e., it looks very strange.

Well, what can you do? At least here, there are clear differences between the regular upgrade and the alt upgrade, and the option makes sense.

Option 7 is good in principle, but there are objections to the logic (crossbows are usually associated with low initiative, not high). Also, instead of initiative 12, I can suggest 11 (after all, initiative is more important than damage).

I fully support such "rate of fire." Because loading a crossbow is not as fast as shooting from a bow or rifle.