thing is, HC are supposed to be an anti infantry unit in general, not just an anti high pierce armor unit.
6 Likes
Pop cap efficiency and paladin will tank. I personally think he should have switch to halb onager.
They are good against infantry but fragile. Micro or meatshield needed. For civs that donāt have arbs and need anti-infantry, itās still a viable option.
Perhaps, a small HP boost or a small reduction is cost is justifiable but this unit should be balanced with care.
1 Like
arbs are superior against most infantry units in general and are much more microable, which is the crux of the issue, why should a generalist unit be better then HC at what HC are supposed to be good at?
5 Likes
HC is good against infantry, just not better than Arb when it comes to low pierce infantry (which is most infantry). They still do great at what they were intended to do.
maybe, but shouldnāt the specialist be better then the generalist? basically unless you donāt have Arbs youāre better off using Arbs on everything except Huskarls, Eagles, and Malian Infantry basically. that is the crux of the issue for most people.
6 Likes
Ah but what is the reality? Is it what we perceive as such? Is it what we collectively decide?
I personally value more personal experience, it is the most genuine thing that we can get, to some extent is even less biased than other āmetrics measuresā that we can get.
On that I agree, but in this case personal experience can be data.
I agree on that too, but instead of more HP, since a meatshield will always be required, I would reduce their cost and TT.
More HC ā more shots ā more damage output
A increase of the infantry bonus could work as well.
1 Like
Not on what I was talking about with him, which was the historic use of Gunpowder weapons, in the Late Middle Ages.
Ah ok, then Iām sorry, I misread.
1 Like
Pike and Shotte was originally Pike and Arquebus. What you would call Cannon (ignoring that Cannon is only ONE type of Field Gun, and that the name stuck on much later than the Middle Ages) was not used in Pike and Shotte.
In fact, in the actual Middle Ages, Field Guns were a rarity. The guns that saw a lot of battlefield usage were Hand Cannons, Organ Guns, Serpentines and Arquebuses.
Serpentine[edit]
The original dry-compounded powder used in 15th-century Europe was known as āSerpentineā, either a reference to Satan[26] or to a common artillery piece that used it.[123] The ingredients were ground together with a mortar and pestle, perhaps for 24 hours,[123] resulting in a fine flour. Vibration during transportation could cause the components to separate again, requiring remixing in the field. Also if the quality of the saltpeter was low (for instance if it was contaminated with highly hygroscopic calcium nitrate), or if the powder was simply old (due to the mildly hygroscopic nature of potassium nitrate), in humid weather it would need to be re-dried. The dust from ārepairingā powder in the field was a major hazard.
Loading cannons or bombards before the powder-making advances of the Renaissance was a skilled art. Fine powder loaded haphazardly or too tightly would burn incompletely or too slowly. Typically, the breech-loading powder chamber in the rear of the piece was filled only about half full, the serpentine powder neither too compressed nor too loose, a wooden bung pounded in to seal the chamber from the barrel when assembled, and the projectile placed on. A carefully determined empty space was necessary for the charge to burn effectively. When the cannon was fired through the touchhole, turbulence from the initial surface combustion caused the rest of the powder to be rapidly exposed to the flame.[123]
The advent of much more powerful and easy to use corned powder changed this procedure, but serpentine was used with older guns into the 17th century.[124]
Wrong, the Musket was a barrage weapon, while the Arquebus was supposed to be a marksman weapon.
Training peasantry to use the Musket proved to be incredibly easy, and that si why it prevailed.
Not at all. The first Canoneers were all chemists and engineers. Bowmen were replaced by Crossbowmen in most of the world, way before the advent of the Cannoneer.
Only when Muskets arrived, did equipping an army with mass guns became viable, which is why the Pike disappeared shortly afterwards.
Renaissance was the last chapet of the Middle Ages. but even if youwould not consider it to be so, then it makes your points all the less plausible.
Guns were almost considered Magic before the Renaissance, because only very few people could create and operate them.
Jāaccuse!
Lol no!
The Musket was an Infantry weapon.
The shortenned Cavalry version was called a Carbine.
" A carbine (/ĖkÉĖrbiĖn/ or /ĖkÉĖrbaÉŖn/)[1] is a long gun firearm but instead with a shorter barrel rather than a standard rifle or musket.[2]"
" The carbine was originally developed for cavalry.
The start of early modern warfare about the 16th century had infantry armed with firearms, prompting cavalry to do the same, even though reloading muzzle loading firearms while moving mounted was highly impractical. Some cavalry, such as the German Reiters, added one or more pistols, while other cavalry, such as harquebusiers, tried various shorter, lightened versions of the infantry arquebus weapons ā the first carbines. But these weapons were still difficult to reload while mounted, and the saber often remained main weapon of such cavalry. Dragoons and other mounted infantry that dismounted for battles usually adopted standard infantry firearms, though some favored versions that were less encumbering when riding ā something that could be arranged to hang clear of the riderās elbows and horseās legs.
While more portable, carbines had the general disadvantages of less accuracy and power than the longer guns of the infantry. During Napoleonic warfare, pistol and carbine-armed cavalry generally transitioned into traditional melee cavalry or dragoons.
Carbines found increased use outside of standard cavalry and infantry, such as support and artillery troops, who might need to defend themselves from attack but would be hindered by keeping full-sized weapons with them continuously; a common title for many short rifles in the late 19th century was artillery carbine ."
And both came way after the Middle Ages.
You really do not take losing well, do you?
Says the guy who brought up Napoleanic Cavalry o make a point about the Middle Ages.
I am sorry, you cannot even link data to back your points.
Because we both know the historical info would expose you.
1 Like
Guys, the discussion is getting a bit off topic, and for sure too much aggressiveā¦
Letās instead get back on a constructive discussion about how to fix the HC.
8 Likes
It is called āignoratio elenchiā.
He sure did take it that wayā¦
1 Like
So letās stay with historical correct things.
Actually, hand cannons were first slow, but then had effectively even a higher fire-rate than crossbows.
They were very effective against infantry, not so much against cavalry.
They were effectively cheaper than arbalests or crossbowman because of the reduced training needen, but also more vulnerable. Most archer types had usually some kind of sword and armour to be able to fight a bit in close combat, which was often given up in favor of the better offensive value hand cannons could give.
So, actually - there are many ways hand cannons could be fit better historically. Increase fire rate, higher bonus against infantry, lower cost, higher range. I also think the accuraccy might even a bit overwhelming. Gunpowder was very inaccurate at this time.
This could make HC more effective in bigger battles rather than skirmishes, which is actually also historical fitting.
So for example: -7 atk, +33% rof, +4 (additional) atk vs inf, -30 % cost, -15 % acc, -5 hp, + 2 range
this would be historical fitting.
Of course the mentioned heavier, mounted Arquebus could also be implemented in the game, which was able to penetrate armour. As a late-game counter to heavy armoured units, if well protected. Instead of scorpions which filled this role in antique but were rarely seen in medieval because actually heavy armor was rare. I know there is this image of the medieval plated knight, which was actually almost never seen in battles. Itās just like ever: because it was so rare, it was reported every time it appeared. Like shark attacks. I like to see in aoe2, that really heavy armour is so rare: only TK and boyars have it. Yes in late Medieval and rennaissance it was seen more often, but not before.
1 Like
The problem is that AoE always put balance and functionality before historic accuracy, and redesign the unit that heavily isnāt only a bad idea, but also very improbable.
Why they needed less training than a crossbow?
Easier to manufacture maybe yes, but to use than an already easy and common weapon?
This was actually why hc replaced most archery types, because they needed much less traing. It was compared to them very easy to use. Archery needed often years of training. Almost everybody could use hand cannons effectively, whilst crossbows need intense training and fitness to be useful in combat.
Of course later on, muskets became superior in almost every aspect, but at first, it was just easier and cheaper to employ hand cannoneers. I actually wonder why these are more expensive in the game and need longer to train, itās just the opposite it was in reality.
Maybe it shall just compensate the less cost to tech into hc.
I know my excursion about the ārealā hc will not find much love, I think the suggested additional bonus damage against infantry would do fine. But i also think, infantry, beside the well known infantry civs, is in a weak spot already - so if hc counter infantry (esp. halbs) even better, infantry need to be more pop efficient in late game. Thatās also one of the things why hc have this bad state. They counter units which are a threat much earlier in the game in the lategameā¦ OK, against goth imp spam they can be useful, but itās actually better to not let goths come to this state.
Also in the persepect of balancing it would be not beneficial for the game to make hc just better arbalests. Than everybody would just go fast imp to chevalier+hc and destroy everything. The more specialised role is fine, if the units they counter would just be a bit more late-game threat in general. Once more: i donāt talk about the infantry powerhouses, they are fine. But infantry in general.
What? Are you serious?
They used levers, they didnāt have to pull the xbow directly themselves.
However, this is becoming pointless, letās agree to disagree.
If you wish to make the HC a unit that represents a soldier easy to train why donāt decrease the cost and TT, to make the HC more spammable.
3 Likes
Yes Iām serious. I agree crossbow was usable to almost everybody in comparison to longbows, but need still a lot of training to be effective in battlefield. You need to be quite fast to use terrain advantages and be able to escape eventual infantry charges. You need to be trained in close combat aswell. But most important, you need to be trained in accuracy and have experiance to shot the backlines of charged enemy armies without damaging your own men.
Hand cannons till 17th canture could only be used as a (very effective) support weapon. They were very inaccurate, which couldnāt be improved by training. Because of this, they were only capable as front-line weapon, which limited their use. But of course, with pike+shot this weakness was compensated.
Actually the weapon which was completely removed from battlefield because of the developement of hand cannons was the halberd. Halberdiers were the most elite infantry unit which could beat almost every other units at their time. But they need so long to train and were paid so well, when pike and shot (which were both cheap) killed them much too easy, they very soon disappeared. But several elite guards still wear them. And itās actually no joke, they were the superior weaponry till gunpowder. They were so destructive in combat, they wanted even to ban them from battlefield. They were the abc weapon of that time.
And I checked this. Actually pike+shot was developed to beat halberds, not cavalry. Of course it could be effective against cavalry, too, but halberds were actually the biggest threat at this time. Pike+shot actually saved cavalry from extinction because it was so effective against halberds (and other infantry), whilst cavalry was always able to attack the flank of a pike+shot formation due to its high mobility.
So i like the HC damage bonus against infantry, it could even be higher. But I think the high effectiveness of halberds should actually be integrated in the game, too. Every Civ should be able to hire āLandsknechtsā as a very expensive elite Infantry unit in the imperial age with high life, good armour and very high attack and even a bonus against cavalry. As freelancers, they donāt receive a civ specific bonus. Pikes+ Halberds get a big damage bonus against the āLandsknechtsā and HC get +17 bonus damage against infantry instead of +10.
I think this would be the easiest way to balance this and would also fit well historically.
There would be a late-game pop efficient infantry threat which could be countered by hc + pikes.
Iām only a bit concerned about the combo cav+hc being almost unbeatable then. So no civ with a eco bonus should get both. Yeah, iām speaking of teutons + franks, e.g.
Because HC shall not single-handly replace archery. They had different roles which should actually be reflected in the game. Also the game benefits from a more specific role of the hc. If we would be historical correct hc should deal friendly fire. This would make them unusable in aoe.
Because arrows and xbows bolts in the past miraculously avoid hitting friendly soldiers, like scorpion bolts that pass through allied lines without harming the allied.
It a game inspired by history, not hysterically accurate.
Because those are things that a hand cannoneer or a general that guides them shouldnāt however know?
The point was that for a soldier learning how to use an xbow or a hand cannon was both simple and didnāt require too much physical prowess.
Now since in the game there isnāt a difference between the bow and the xbows, the HC could represent that kind of unit.
However, I still donāt understand you suggestion for the unit, what would you change?
Your discussion really makes me wanna create a pike shot scneario with mass hand cannons and pikemen and some medium cav lancers.