does anyone know how hard it would be to write in something like chance to block and or dodge/avoid? I think it would be "simple" to add them as a resistance, but then it just means the absorb less dmg, instead of potentially missing the dmg all together.

Well, it's not to completely negate, but acts as a modifier. Thus, you have values of pierce (p), hack (h), crush (c), block (b), parry (a) and dodge (d), both for attack (A) and defense (D): pA, hA, cA, bA, aA, dA, pD, hD, cD, bD, aD, dD. For example, aA is how hard is to parry its attack, aD is how easily it parries attacks. The better for the unit the bigger the values are. As a proof of concept, a naive formula for the damage the attacker deals to a defender could be (pA/pD+hA/hD+cA/cD)(bA/bD)(aA/aD)(dA/dD), meaning that all damage, after being divided by each corresponding defender's resistance, is added up, and then multiplied by factors related to the probability (it's NOT directly a probability) of the attack being either blocked, parried or dodged (just adding them up is problematic). Here I'm showing the (rounded) results, with 10 taken as an average value, and other parameters like rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account: This means that the damage ratio for spearmen:cavalry is 3:1 (as wanted), for cavalry:archers is 6:4 (which makes sense, cavalry would get destroyed by archers if they don't close in, like in Agincourt), and for archers:spearmen is 2:5 (which makes sense, the advantage of archers being not this but keeping their distance). Remember that rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account, which would incline more the scales to what is wanted. Also, archers:archers is 4 times more destructive than cavalry:cavalry, which is twice as destructive as spearmen:spearmen, which makes sense considering how long these kind of engagements last. Would be nice to keep adding units.

The issue with building a system revolving on different archer types, is that for balancing, it would be necessary to give it to most civs. No matter what historical justifications one might find. Personally, I feel like the current system, with archers, slingers, and javelineers, isn't being used to its full potential.

I think because the bow was smaller, the draw string was tighter so it would create more force but didnt have the distance. I could totally be wrong and am willing to make any changes once I come across new evidence.

Well, no. A javelin throws javelins; a shortbow unit uses a bow and arrows.  And my guess is a Javelineer would be slower than a shortbow archer bc higher carry weight??   Answering to both of you here: Nah I didn't even check this. I was just following the logic of what Thalatta said here: But probably misunderstood the logic and he was talking about the arrow deal more/less damage depending target distance... To be honest, I’m not very interested in realism or historical accuracy, and I don’t know much about it so I leave that to those who do.  I’m more interested in gameplay. And I’d be willing to sacrifice historical accuracy to prioritize gameplay, variety, and so on. But I’m not trying to argue anything (just to be clear). In general, archers feel quite weak in the latest alphas and also lack variety, with the exception of some champion archers. So I guess my "proposal" would be that A shortbow could have higher dexterity and a faster attack speed (with less damage, based on what I now understand), while a longbow could be slower but have greater range and deal more damage.