You did. The only Gunpowder unit that is undeerperforming, is the Hnad Cannoneer, and only because it uis too frail and misses too many shots.
By giving it 15 more HP, and giving it a tech for more Accuracy, you could essentially make it a specialized, anti-Infantry Arbalest counterpart, which is especially necessary because many civs that have HCs, do not have Arbalests (Turks, Spanish, Franks, Teutons…).
Fast Infantry absolutely demolishes Arbalests, but it should be countered by HCs. However, HCs are too fragile, and miss too many shots to do it, as they currently are.
Why would you lock a rarely used unit behind a technology?
I can’t speak for everyone, but it would certainly make me experiment with them less. Only when people actually want to use a unit does it make sense to lock it behind a tech.
Imo, we should buff HC slightly, something like +5% accuracy and +5hp and, like Jon Oli said, add a tech (or an elite upgrade) which further boosts them. You can then choose which civs get that upgrade, so we avoid the issue that all civs with HC get suddenly too strong due to a big unit buff.
The unit is already behind Chemistry, I did not propose adding another tech to obtain the HC, only to improve it.
The reaso why, is because some civs do not actually need their HCs to be accurate, like Franks (because of Throwing Axemen), Teutons (because of better Melee Armour on Infantry and Cavalry) or Italians (because they are cheap).
Only the civs taht are expected to make heavy use of HCs, would actually need them to be more accurate, like Ports, Turks or Spanish.
HC is very underused and available in imp only. It also requires a tech to be trained. I would not add other requirements for having a decent one. Franks and Teutons will go HCs only if fighting some very specific strategies (I can imagine a teuton mirror, or franks vs Kamayuks). The alternative options you mention are just better since they tech in infantry because of the tech tree they have. Italians are a gunpowder civ so it makes sense to have a decent HC, as for all the others gunpowder civ.
The point is that if HC is so bad that even gunpowder civs do not use it, there is no need to introduce a further upgrade. Just a buff may work…
If you give tehm +15HP, they already become decent as it is.
Not all civs would require a tech for accuracy, however.
Goths could use the extra HP, but not more Accuracy. If Goths become good at killing Champions with their accurate HCs, then they become counterless for a lot of civs, for example.
Italian HCs can already be easily massed as it is, so they should also not be more accurate.
Franks, Japanese, Saracens and Teutons have alternative ways to deal with Mass Infantry as it stands too, and would not need their HCs to be more accurate either.
All in all, I think that more accuracy for HCs, should be locked behind a tech, and only a few Gunpowder civs should have it too, because they are dependant on HCs.
There are 2 huge advantages for giving them a direct buff instead of lokcing it begind a tech:
-They will be rarely played by civs that have no bonuses for gunpowder
-Gunpowder civs can actually make a strong fast imperial push instead of a weak
I don’t understand why it would be better to lock it behind a tech it simply hasn’t got any advantages
I propose giving them one direct buff, and lock the Accuracy behind a tech.
Otherwise, some civs that are already powerful, will only get unevenly stronger due to expanded possibilities.
If they have stronger options then that is negligible and the advantages of not locking it behind a tech greatly outweights it. Mongols got access to the steppe lancer but that nearly doesn’t count anything because they always had stronger options and overall they were nerfed because the hunting decrease
To be honest, we could also just increase the anti-infantry bonus damage to make them stronger against infantry and just leave it at that. That’s what they were designed for after all.
Right HC are not as effective as you would expect from stats against infantry. Sure, they have high base damage (+ bonus), but they miss a lot and fire really slowly. Moreover, they are really squishy and get easily overwhelmed by high numbers of infantry, especially without any kind of meatshield in front.
It would make them auto-win against Aztecs, just like they do against Mayans.
I disagree. I just do not want a unit to be overbuffed, only to need severe Steppe Lancer-like nerfs later on, and end up being worse than what it is now.
No, it is the best SL, specially in the Castle Age, which is when you actually see SLs, because you have no Hussars.