Hand Cannoneers bad state confirmed

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
475

They are usable. And the most important: very achievable.

You want HC to perform as good as archers? then archers civs will be indirectly nerfed, because, why choosing an archer civ? better choose franks with strongest paladins and with HC (Which replace arbalest)

NO
HC ar NOT supposed to “Replace in some way” arbalest. HC are not even supposed to be good. They help to counter infantry (they are very achievable, almost no need to upgrade) and they do pretty well (don’t compare it to an arbalest)

You buff HC and you directly nerf many actual underused units (Like samurai, teutonic knight, shotelai, etc). And indirectly nerf Archer civs, becouse Knight civs’ Hand cannoneers would be able to do almost the same job of archers from an archer civ.

HC are OK. PLEASE don’t buff them or you KILL the game.

476

I never said Hand Cannoneers “need to perform as good as archers”. Go scroll up and you will find that I never said that. All I have been saying, is that Hand Cannoneers need to be improved so that they are more viable in the anti-infantry role.
Nor have I ever advocated for Hand Cannoneers to “replace Arbalesters”. You claim that I said that, which I never did say.

1 Like
477

All other gunpowder units are amazing so maybe it’s okay the Hand Cannoneer is a little underpowered.
And it’s better to think of the Hand Cannoneer as more of a novelty unit, besides the Slinger is the best anti-infantry unit.

1 Like
478

Have someone tested the new accuracy? Did the bugfix affect arquebus as well?

479

I tested organ guns and filled a new bug report. Oftentimes the extra bullet hits but still don’t aplly damage. Thought this is a old bug ever since de released.

480

That’s a fact. ESkirms with ballistics and all the upgrades are way way better against pikemen.
But not against eagles or berserks, for example.

Maybe a good way to buff HC is by giving them more bonus damage against eagles… But then again, champions would make almost no sence in the game if so… What you guys think about that.

(HC were very comon in mirror persian wars, before trashbows existed. They are currently very comon in arena fast imps)

481

The reason I bring in the Heavy Scorpion in is because the HS and HC share a niche in anti-infantry.

If you want to know why HCs suck:

Compare the videos. The Heavy Scorpions, for the same cost, outperform the HC in almost every situation.

Only drawback of HS vs HC is that HS are about 50% slower than HC. Of course, Mongol Drill, so…

1 Like
482

I understand u guys want HC to be more used. That’s noble. But… at what cost? :worried:

I think that, while I have always wanted the game have more variety of units, in this particular case I don’t agree.

Buffing HC would completely nerf infantry units like champion, berserk etc etc…
Is that really what we want?
We have to decide whether you prefer 6/7 diferent infantry units usable or 1 gunpowered unit.

Decide whether infantry or HC. It can’t be both, I am afraid…

And if you ask me, I stay with infantry. Game itself already has few infantry units in use. I would never agree on nerfing infantry units now.

Now, Inst0…
Scorpions get countered by eagles while HC do counters eagles (don’t they?) but scorpions counter archers while HC don’t. So, scorpions and HC are different units. They don’t counter excactly the same things.

HC are faster and easier to upgrade but weaker than scorps. Both have it’s pros and cons, and have different uses.

1 Like
483

HC aren’t what’s keeping infantry unusable. More and better infantry buffs (should Arson be stronger?) would help them see more use in a meta dominated by archers and cavalry.

There’s nothing stopping people from buffing both HC and infantry at the same time.

2 Likes
484

Even if Hand Cannoneers are buffed further, they still will be hard to justify using because they are NOT a trash unit, and are ONLY available in the Imperial Age. The Archer line are not only better in the anti-infantry role than Hand Cannoneers are, but by the time you reach Imperial Age, you have likely been already massing up a leftover army of Archers and Crossbowmen from the Feudal Age and Castle Age mid-game period, and then finally turning them into Arbalesters.

Now…I am NOT advocating for Hand Cannoneers to replace the Arbalesters. But what I am staying is that the Hand Cannoneer should be buffed so that civs that LACK the Arbalester upgrade and/or lack Bracer, should have the Hand Cannoneer as a handy option if that civ needs to create anti-infantry forces.

Teutons definitely benefit from this, because that civ gets Ring Archer Armor, but no Bracer or Arbalest upgrade. And unless as a Teuton player, you are willing to make mediocre Bodkin Arrow Crossbowmen, you would be wiser going with the Hand Cannoneer, to be a ranged anti-infantry option.
What if you are facing a horde of Gothic Huskarls? Crossbows and Arbalesters fail miserable against Huskarls…but Hand Cannoneers do well. Not even Heavy Scorpions can defeat Huskarls easily.

Franks, while yes, their Throwing Axemen are a god counter to enemy infantry, you could be in a situation where all your castles are destroyed, and you cannot build any new ones. But Archery Ranges are cheaper to build, and faster to mass up. So as Franks, Hand Cannoneers are a good option, as again, that civ has no Arbalester nor Bracer.

The Burgundians in particular can make good use of Hand Cannoneers due to their gunpowder bonus. So if you are Burgundians and are massing Paladins/Hussars but are facing enemy Halberdiers, you can train Hand Cannoneers to protect your cavalry from those nasty pointy weapons (not to mention, also against enemy Burgundian players who create Flemish Militia).

Persians, as @francisco2002 has mentioned, used to go with Hand Cannoneers in their strategy due to the fact that Persians lack Bracer and Arbalester. Only now, with the Trash Crossbowmen unique tech, the Persians are better off ignoring Hand Cannoneers and just sticking with the wood-cost archers…despite not being the most upgrade of archers.

2 Likes
485

When I say “support unit that thin out”, i’m looking for “maximum damage in a small window of time with a limited amount of units”, which is what the HC are for. ESkirms may have bonus damage against Halbs, but you need a lot more to be effective.

1 Like
486

They are still very nice in a supportive role when they are protected by heavy cavalry.

image
image1478×889 589 KB

1 Like
487

In my opinion, HCs should get 5 more hp, so they at least have the same hp as arbalests.

6 Likes
488

With the new patch, there you all got your desired HC buff 111

+125 atack 111

7 Likes
489

Hand cannons op state confirmed for burgundians.

5 Likes
490

A dramatic first in AoE2, Hand cannons and OP mentioned in same sentence

3 Likes
491

Lol i wanted a buff, but now it seems they are using WWI rifles

3 Likes
492

when protected by heavy cav still Arbalests (even generic ones) have 2 or 3 times better role then Hc.

2 Likes
493

Well, an army of Arbalests and Hand Cannons are absolute infantry murderers, since the Hand Cannons can give the infantry army a deadly blast while the Arbalests protect the Hand Cannons while they reload. I made a combo of crossbows and Hand Cannons as Goths in battle royale and they absolutely rekt the Gaia Legionaries.

494

Also heavy cavs + HC? how much gold do you have?

Actually a good buff would be to change only their cost. 50G for that unit is too much, change it to something like 60F 35G.

They are quite powefull in large numbers, at least for civs with some gunpowder bonus. but they are more vulnerable than arbs to the same counters, so i don’t think it would be to broken a big gold discount,

4 Likes