did i said lets make it to be able to one shot rams again ??? have u read my post rly ? Reducing BBT dmg to 30-35 from 120 what it means to you ? I mean if skirms are countering archers ‘‘allright’’ then let skirmisher to tank 9000000 arrows its ok ? or lets make skirms to kill 1 shot any archer ? or give skirms even ability to kill all archers in single shot ? its like this … hope u get my point
one more thing can pls post me a your last game where u used BBT in 1v1 ranked match ( prove me if its good to use ) then i will rethink everything i said.
1 Like
Fall of Constaniople 29th May 1453…Pls google it and see how devastating force bombard cannons were.
there is nothing to worry about…If i place 5 BBT (very expensive defance) and walled them good enough then it should be normal to block 3-4 rams to get trough.Then u need ofc more then it maybe 1-2 Trebs 5-6 rams and some more millitary support.Makes %99 sense to me.
Watching how normal watch towers are %200 more efficient against allmost anything then expensive BBT gives me pain xD i cant reason it 
1 single siege ram is capable to destroy 10 BBT thats not something my brain nor my eyes can accept 
1 Like
BBT are not very expensive. A ram costs only 25% less gold and 10 more total resources. Stone defenses in general are relatively cheap in terms of villager time for what they do. They are scarce however because of limited stone.
Also the 5 BBT aren’t in isolation. What happens if you make a few BBT next to a castle? You now need trebs or bbc or significantly more rams to take out that castle as well.
Also it’s more than 3-4 rams. Assume you sent 8 rams, you’d lose about 1.5 before they reach the wall another 1.5-2.5 before they breach the wall, then you’d lose a tower per ram approximately. So as a rough guess you’d kill all 8. And that’s siege ram which not ever civ gets. You’d probably need like 12 capped rams.
Now maybe this would be balanced but I’m a little skeptical that leaving BBT with only 1 counter for civs without BBC. Especially when it needs to be produced from a castle is a little risky.
Might be a question of individual perspective but I regard them as I do land siege units: Like trebs are gargabe against anything but buildings. Sure you can snipe bbc or mangos if opponent doesn’t micro them away just as can happen with cannon galleon. Or rams: They don’t deal any significant damage to any unit expept other siege units. I don’t think I’m opposed to small improvements like enlarging blast radius or so but also tbh I don’t think it really matters.
Well, I said these are the best in specific scenarios and not overall. Sure, overall these units are far from the best but for castle age pushes with low eco these are absolutely great (better than longbow, plumes, mangudai and so on). As you already mentioned the best way to make use of that is foward castle UU+mangonel on arena and on arabia for instance you don’t see them very often. Except for conqs of course. Still, these pushes can work and there is pro players using these strats here and there. Concerning imp: Imo it’s simply about their design, gunpowder units just aren’t effective in most scenarios when players are at pop cap. To awkward to micro, too low fire rate … I don’t think these UU need to be good in imp because all those civs have great tech trees. Spanish have paladin/hussar, skirm and halb, Turks have ca, hussar and siege, Portuguese have arb, decent stable, decent infantry. Even if you buffed the elite or made the upgrade cheaper, people probably would still prefer the cav/arb plus trash compositions.
but i still think these UU need to be good in imp also.Just have a look at Mongols and Turks …Mongols have better eco bonuses + better Cav line + 2 or 3 x Better archery range + have access to pikeman + Skirms which is awkwardly unable for turks(they dont have eskirm or pikeman just because they have usefull gold units which is another BİG issue as there is none in practice outside of fast imp arena) Also 10 times better UU that erase allmost anything + maybe 50x better siege with drill …So if its about to use Cav archer and Hussar why should i pick Turks ? İf its about Gunpowder stuff then why is it so weak in allmost every situation rather then early castle push in arena or fast imp (which is 1 trick win or lose ) i dont know …Spanish feels the same if u go for Gunpowder but feels ok if u go for trash+paladins etc. Ports may go arbalest bla bla bla…
Things comes to what i said Gunpowder units have very weak design and should be improved at aoe2 age of kings Gunpowder had a nice role to play after tons of new units and upgrades they rly fell behind of game’s era.
I dont want much just bit improvement (like farster rof or +1 range or bit more armor etc)maybe increasing the units costs to sake of balance and we may have some tech for gunpowder units as well then we will have better game play and more strategies.Then we will hear the thunder of cannons even more at least when we play or play against Spanish/Port/Turks/italians.Especially turks need them as they are (gunpowder civ)
As a conclusion im saying gunpowder units are rare in usage generally they are so bad and it feels broken for civ that are reliant on them.So these units need to be improved. (poor design)
Then u are saying yes they are rare in use because its their design.( i want this design to be improved) Which means we dont have any place where we may agree together
2 Likes
By design I don’t really mean particular stats but rather what the unit is designed to achieve. Hc are designed to counter infantry. If you improve their stats you’d need to reduce the bonus damage. That surely would be possible but then where is the difference to archers? Btw I’m not opposed to small buffs or adding additional techs.
Imo Mongols are still the better civ for open maps but actually your quite wrong on some stuff. Turks have better cavalry, Turks Hussar are better than Mongols and Turk cav archers actually beat mangudai (at least in late game when micro isn’t that important anymore). Mangudai may be the better unit still but that’s because of anti siege, better performance vs cav and so on. Turks imp unit composition is actually insanely good until good runs out. So there is reasons to play Turks. Like I would always prefer Turks on arena (and no I’m not talking fast imp or stuff like that). It’s simply the better civ here (irrespective of strategy).
2 Likes
i agreed.
nope.İts not.no paladin no onager no arbalest nothing special only generic units or worse generic units as gunpowder units sucks so hard. Only tanky Cav archer which can’t do anything against mass Heavy cavarly or Elephants. Their imperial army worse then most of civs.SO even if they have gold they dont have anything better.A civ without paladin siege onager some speacial bonuses for other generic units dont have any better option with gold either. Teutons or Franks or Saracens or Persians or allmost all other civs have far more stronger Gold units while they had trash options too.This is just because gunpowder units have scarce role so turks have great strugles as ports and spanish do so.But turks position is worst i believe as they dont have other good options.Hussar Cav archer is only thing which is ez to counter with mass heavy cav or just halbard+skirm spam (cost no gold at all)
Cav archers (with a nice bonus), hussar (free upgrades and one pierce armor for free = probably the best hussar in the game), camels (FU), bombard cannon (without need for chemistry) and siege ram. This compositions basically beats everything. Sure no strong eco bonus to back that up but still just in terms of the composition this is really strong.
And elephants? Indeed on paper you might think that this struggles vs elephants but this unit is soo slow and expensive that people actually don’t use that often. If so, simply make monks.
SO? Who cares about SO outside of arena? On this map Turks are among the best anyways, so even less reason to care.
Your opponent makes cav? You make camels (or just stick to heavy ca).
Your opponent makes halb/skirm? You make champs.
As long as there is gold, Turks have all the answers. What sets them behind on open maps is there lack of a strong eco bonus and the lack of good trash. Also maybe that your standard knight/xbow units don’t scale all that well in imp. So they are a bit weird to play but their units comps are pretty good.
A few mknths back I made a post topic to suggest a matchlock tech for gunpowder units organs, handcannons janossary and conqs that would work Somiliar to thumb ring, more accuracy and attackspeed.
This way by allowing some civ acres and some not gunpowder civ can be balanced mich more precise. Also it doesn’t directly increase fast imp power spikes since uni stats aren’t immidielty improved.
They could just reuse the old handcannons unlocking technology from age of Kings
1 Like
i would prefer +1 range and attack +20 hp dont means a lot this units never play tank role and yet with that +20 HP it still cant play that role as they take tons of bonus dmg from halbs/skirms/camels/onagers etc.
yea its very nice bonuses yet not the best by far Tatars and magyars*** had 2 times better hussar.
Only against Paladins and they are not hard counter no player in pro games would go full paladin when they see u cameling arround they would add some other support units halbs/arbalester etc. then u will die.
agreed
without siege engineers ? no thanks.
nope basicly counters allmost nothing in open maps.
Eleps wreck turks %100 they do
in long turn champs dont help rly
What if you need also research Keep, if you want to have Bombard Towers with this new balance idea? Although I must mention this will make Bombard Towers very similar to AoE1 Ballista Towers.
1 Like
i would fix gunpowder as follow：
-
HC, Jans, organs, conqs bullet speed increase to same as arrows or atleast faster than now
-
Elite HC, elite jans, elite orans and elite conqs missed shots do full damage instead of halved
-
bbt and elite cannon aglleons bullet speed almost as fast as bbc but signifcatlz faster than now, bbt not affected by ballistic anymore. Besides balanc,e water ballon cannon balls just suck
-
bbt receive +10 anti ram bonus damage (note that this is reduced by the anti ram bonus damage armor that rams have)
Now the next idea would be more work for devs and would require more reworks to fit in the game so maybe not:
5. if possible introduce matchlock tech at archery range, that increases accuarcy by 10% and attackrate by 10% similiar to thumb ring.
1 Like
If Jannissaries bullet speed (now 5.5 and archers 7) is faster than arrow like 10-15 and missing shot do full damage, jans will destroy archers. Gunpowder units need rework though. They must resemble historical version. They need to be 25% cheaper ( Hand Cannoneer: 35f 35g and Jannnisary: 45f 40g), created 100% faster, 9 second reload time (only start filling when they stand still and do nothing) like Coustilliers, gain bayonet with upgrade (after shot, they gain 8 melee damage +8 vs cavalry), +10 bonus damage to cavalries not infantries, projectile speed = 12, accuracy 50%, affected by ballistics. Hand cannoneer also gain arquebusier upgrade which give +1 damage, +1 range, +2 cav bonus damage, 10% accuracy and +5 projectile speed.
They do suck, yes. Nobody really uses them.
Bajonett? Hand csnnkners aren’t musketeer thought.
Also decreasing cost? Medieval gunpowder was Stil expensive. Only in napoleon times guns become easily masls produced
Gunpowder unit was cheap since they invented. Only cannons are very expensive all the times but rifles are always cheap. For instance, one chinese document claim one rifle cost is so cheap that it is equal to 3 salary of soldier. Rifles are always cheaper than bows and easy-to-produce and easy to train.
Bayonet is 17th century weapon therefore it can be a bit late for AOE2 but musketeers used other weapon before bayonets but also hussars are very late unit which is firstly seen in 15th century and commonly used 16-18th century.
Hand Cannon was cheaper and faster to make than Bow or Crossbow, yes.
But gunpowder wasnt as cheap as arrows. There also werent fascilities to make it in large amounts. Untill late 16th Century crossbow rulled in Europe as ranged weapon, not gunpowder.
Not mention Rifle (gun with rifled barrel) is 18th Century invention.
I am sorry but your historical knowledge is totally wrong. Even in early 16th century, gunpowder weapons dominate warfare. Bows and crossbows are lastly used as important weapon in 15th century. In late 15th century (1473 Battle of Otlukbeli won by Ottomans due to handguns and cannons), firearms become main weapon of armies. Some underdeveloped countries continue to use bows only because they can’t obtain firearm technology.
By the way, I don’t research how much expensive is gunpowder but I am pretty sure it is cheaper than arrow because one arrow need a lot of woodwork and blacksmithing and in a battle one archer shoot dozens of arrows (one English Longbowmen carry 48 arrow).
You could simply give Bombard Towers +20 Bonus damage against siege. The exact bonus damage number is up for debate.
Would be super easy to implement and should be balanced. That way they would at least put out “some” damage against siege.