Hand Cannoneers bad state confirmed

And what does this have to do with hand cannonners not designed by choice and balance to counter all and every infantry?

it means that just because a unit hasn’t been changed doesn’t mean it can’t be changed. they recently buffed the elephant archer did they not?
how many times have camels and pikes been buffed?


The issue is that they were designed to counter all and every Infantry, except Condotierri, which were designed to counter them.

1 Like

And as you could see, there is written barracks units. Nowhere castle infantry units or All and every infantry so the video that starts this thread is already bogus.

I want to see archers keeping at bay cavalier (to some extent), huskarls, eagle scouts, champs with bonus pierces, tarkans etc…

Well, yes if you have them in mass they are better and they are supposed to be better.

If you throw them in no attack stance vs enemy, yes they are weak vs everything

I mean El dorado needs a nerf. And no, despite conqs nerf people still go them as they are still a very powerful units for raiding.

Yet the bonus damage says (Infantry units) not Barracks units.
Seeing as Huskarls and Eagles are technically Barracks units, yet are not efficiently countered by HCs, tghen we can surmize they desperately need a buff.


And? Those units still are fit inside their role. They were patched because they didn’t.

‘buffed’ elephant archer. And now it counters skirms too?

Because there doesn’ exist a ‘barrack’ armor type. To balance for castle infantry units their other stats aren’t good. If they were designed to counter other infantry, they would have lower reload, more hp etc etc


They don’t counter eldorado eagles and they aren’t supposed to hard counter other eagles as they are like mesos cavs. I told you this was written before conqs with the introduction of eagle warriors.

i’m sorry, does 25% extra dps and reduced gold cost not count as a buff now?


That thread just circle around.

The funny thing is, HC were actually buffed in HD, from the original AoE2. Also, if for some reason one didn’t invest in archers early on, the are cheaper to upgrade. They are also costing only 5 more gold than Arbalest, so they are cost-efficient in term of damage output.

hand cannons haven’t been buffed since age of conquerors.


Oh there you go jon, with the introduction of eagles, they buffed a bit hand cannons.

“only” 5 more gold, also 45 food compared to 25 wood of arbs and takes almost half a minute of training time, compared to arbs which can be trained from feudal but also have a lowered TT


In Imp Age food and wood are not really a concern, unlike gold which is limited. Also population cap is another concern, so units that are both population efficient and gold efficient are better.
Moreover, if for some reason one didn’t invest in archers early on, then HC are cheaper and faster to transition into, since they require way less upgrades than Arbalests.

You are just going around the issue, instead of addressing it. The bonus damage says Infantry, not Barracks, so they, by logic, should be good against Infantry UUs.

Even by your own Barracks standards, they do not counter Eagle Warriors. A Barracks unit!

Did not buff enough.


Its still not free, 45 food isn’t small because you need to produce meatshield too. And you need most of archer upgrades for stuff like castles anyway


I told you it is because there doesn’t exists a barrack armor type. And it was too complicated back then making a new armor type as camles had ship armor. And i also wrote that because they aren’t suppose to counter other infantry, they have bad stats.

And again i told you they aren’t suppose to hard counter them as they are mesos cavs but they still counter them with something in between, like scouts.

Not to mention that “meatshield” units also cost Food, so Hcs are always cost-inneficient.

Then you prove my point for me.
Good against Barracks units but cannot beat ANY of the 3 Eagle variants? Inefficient and needs a buff.

Scouts also do not counter Eagles, and all Cav are hard-countered by Halbs, so let us give Halbs +24 damage against Eagles too, since they are:


That’s kind of pointless to base your argument around Eagle Warriors… Arbalests only deal 2 dmg to an EW, while the HC deal 19 dmg, so while they both don’t counter the EW 1on 1, the HC still performs better.

I think you are kinda hard in understanding.

For that reason, militia line counters eagle with +4 bonus, even halbs have bonus vs eagles. Everything except el dorado eagle.

After your last replies I have assumed that you are just a wall and nothing will change your mind. Yet I will do a simple math test for you.

Arbalest vs azt eagle = 30 hits to kill it
arbalest vs inca eagle = 60 hits to kill it
arbalest vs mayan eagle = 50 hits to kill it
arbalest vs elite huskarl = 70 hits to kill it

hc vs azt eagle = 4 hits to kill it
hc vs inca eagle = 4 hits to kill it
hc vs mayan eagle = 6 hits to kill it
hc vs huskarls = 5 hits to kill it

I’m glad HC will never receive a buff because they are perfect the way they are. A powerful quick-answer to infantry units (and they even kill knights if you micro them properly). And a scary unit when you go for fast imperial with turks :slight_smile:



What’s wrong with you guys that you need to get personally offensive to make your arguments??

Obviously, they perform better than arbs against elite eagles and huskarls. But nothing about them is quick: requires chemistry, fires extremely slow, has huge frame delay, is more expensive, trains slower. That’s why, on open maps, they seldom work, atm. If you play vs eagles/huskarls, by the time you have a good number of hc your base will be full of your opponent’s infantry and you can’t micro against that swarm.

But this scenario only happens when you play arena fast imp vs castle age knights. Here, they are indeed good as long as the knights aren’t massed. However, hc always lose against cavalier.