Now with the buff of standard Genoese xbow, it is even less worthy to upgrade genoese xbow. The standard one is pretty good enough vs cavalry.
Compare the stats between xbow and GC, between arbalest and elite GC,
Standard GC has +1 base atk vs xbow while elite one has none. I think elite GC can have no improvement in bonus dmg but +2 base atk. They will be still outrange by arbalest + skirm and countered by siege. But the upgrade will be more worthy and elite become more versatile
If the base attack would be increased they would become too versatile and the Arbalester would become pretty useless.
Not really when you are fighting archers or siege. They still lack 1 range. Besides production from castle is still a big limitation as castle will be priority to be taken down. Even longbow or chu ko nu cannot completely replace arbalests.
I once made the proposal to make GC having exactly the same utility stats as xbow/arbalester.
I still think this would be the best solution for the unit, as it would allow a gradual implementation of GC into your xbow mass and even allow to try find a good “balance” between the regular xbows and GC in your archer Ball. Not only are normal archers cheaper, they also get a bonus vs Spears the GC lack, so it would be a nice synergy and a very uique playstyle only available to Italians which otherwise lack behind the top archer civs which get direct massive bonusses or eco bonusses they can use to get ahead early.
I think the last idea of devs to make GC on their own more interesting especially in the midgame were kinda wasted - and when it works GC sometimes even feel oppressive against certain civs.
I suppose they will have the same range then? If they have the same range, they need to have new weakness to balance (no longer outrange by skirm or arbalest).
I am not against +1 range if they can be easier to get surrounded by cavalry and less oppressive vs cav civs in team games. Like moving slower to get countered by siege harder and surrounded by cavalry easier. Or give them min range and then they will need to stand ground against cavalry (easily killed when surrounded by cavalry and risk onager shot while stand ground). I think devs dont want another unit that strong vs knight and xbow like old Imperial camel.
Agree. As hussar+ arbalest or hussar +GC is kinda special for Italians, changing the number depending on the halbs mass
I would just take away 1 base damage and bring back their former slower training time as compensation. That should definitely be enougjh.
At least they have 2 more LOS to run away from Siege.
I can see Chu-ku-nu. But how Longbow can’t? Is 10% accuracy really make that difference?
If you agree that chu ko nu can’t replace arbalests, why you think +2 atk elite GC can replace arbalests when both of them have range capped at 7. No one complains Viking +1 atk arbalests from archery range with 8 range and lose to FU arbalest with thumb ring. +2 GC with 7 range probably lose to FU arbalest.
If you think longbow is fine to replace arbalest, why you think elite GC is not fine to replace arbalest?
At least at early imp or when you wanna take down enemy’s castles, you will want to produce trebuchets instead of longbows. All archers need mass to be effective and longbowman is no exception. Britons arbalests comes in handy.
A lot of strawman response. I didn’t say anything about GC. My question was only about Longbow.
