Disclaimer
The reson why I make this topic is a long-time observation that ranged unit types aren’t beginner-friendly in aoe2. This has many reasons, but here I want to focus on the most obvious one.
They are just too fragile. They die like flies if you just look away a few seconds in critical moments.
And that’s what I want to tackle here.
Note it’s a hypothetical concept. It’s not final values. It’s just there to give a conceptional idea what could be done to the ranged units, not that it must be done or even in that fashion.
There are 2 common themes I will follow in most of the adjustments. First is a cost adjustment of the units so their cost and gold ratio fits their role in the game better. Second is usually an increasement of HP, but a reduction of sheer DPS of the units, at least when factoring in the cost. It’s an attempted tweak to make the units a bit more “forgiving” for small mistakes but also less snowbally than currently.
The target is to make them more appealing for beginners but not buffing them for the top players. Potetnially even slightly nerf them at the highest level of play.
I only look at the current common ranged units (except EA). The UUs I don’t touch. Probably some of the UUs might benefit from a similar adjustment, but imo most of them are in a decent spot and those who aren’t probably need a buff anyways independently from this concept.
Archers
Archers just get a little bit more expensive but get a bit more HP in the exchange. Their higher cost is also reflected in a slightly higher training time. The bonus against Spearmen is reduced. To give spearmen a bit more chance to be useful against the famous archer + scout combo.
Archers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Training Time | 35 s | => | 40 s | |
Cost | 45 G, 25 W | => | 50 G,25 W | |
HP | 30 HP | => | 40 HP | |
Bonus against Spearmen | 3 | => | 1 |
Xbows | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Training Time | 27 s | => | 35 s | |
Cost | 45 G, 25 W | => | 50 G,25 W | |
HP | 35 HP | => | 50 HP | |
Bonus against Spearmen | 3 | => | 1 |
Arbs | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Training Time | 27 s | => | 30 s | |
Cost | 45 G, 25 W | => | 50 G,25 W | |
HP | 40 HP | => | 60 HP | |
Bonus against Spearmen | 3 | => | 2 | |
Bonus against Cavalry Archers | - | => | 2 |
The Arbs now get an extra bonus against Cavalry archers that negates the Parthian Tactics armor effect. To make CA less dominant against the standard archer line in the very lategame. Cav Archers + Light Cav should still stay the best lategame army comp. But now Arbs can at least do some work against the CA if you micro them well.
Cavalry Archers
Currently CA have a kinda hard time. Imo this comes mostly because of the very low base accuracy before Thumb Ring is in. This is tackled by my proposed change. At the same time they become more expensive (especially in terms of gold) and get some extra HP which allows them to take a bit of damage even before Bloodlines is in. Heavy CA now get even more base accuracy so they become an option for Thumbring missing Civs in the lategame.
Cavalry Archer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Accuracy | 50% | => | 75% | |
Cost | 60 G, 40 W | => | 75 G,35 W | |
HP | 50 HP | => | 70 HP | |
Bonus against Spearmen | 2 | => | 1 |
Heavy Cavalry Archer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Accuracy | 50% | => | 85% | |
Cost | 60 G, 40 W | => | 75 G,35 W | |
HP | 60 HP | => | 80 HP | |
Bonus against Spearmen | 4 | => | 3 |
Hand Cannoneer
Hand Cannoneers are a bit tricky. As they are mostly only a ranged option in the lategame for many Cavalry Civs. They are fairly cheap to tech in and still have quite high damage output. Especially, they work often better against heavily armored units than arbs there. At the same time the high gold cost of the HC makes the transition sometimes really awkward as Heavy Cavalry also burns very fast through your gold.
The idea is to take away a bit of this armor breaking damage in exchange for reducing the Gold cost. This should make the HC again a bit worse against heavily armored units such as Cavalry in comparison to the Archer line. The strength against Infantry is maintained for the most part, but the Bonus damage is more split between all infantry and spearmen to at least give some other Infantry like eagles or the milita line a small chance to overcome the HC threat with sheer numbers again. The reduction in accuracy is again to make HCs less effective in a micro battle against Arbs which should win this because of their higher Gold ratio.
Hand Cannoneer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | 50 G, 45 F | => | 35 G,45 F | |
Attack | 17 | => | 13 | |
Bonus Damage against Infantry | 10 | => | 5 | |
Bonus Damage against Spearmen | 1 | => | 6 | |
ROF | 3.45 | => | 3 | |
HP | 40 HP | => | 50 HP | |
Accuracy | 75% | => | 50% |
Skirmishers
Lastly from the Archery Range we also come to the ranged counter in the Skirmisher. The Skirmisher losses some of his armor in exchange for more bonus damage. This is intentional to make the ranged unit powerspikes less oppressive. Atm Xbows counter feulals skimrs and Arbs counter castle age Elite Skirms. This is intended to end this nonsense and keep the skirms from one age below at least partially suitable to deal with the ranged units from one age above. The archer line powerspikes have recently already lead to oppressive and very snowbally games and this is one way to adress the issue.
Skirmisher | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pierce Armor | 3 PA | => | 2 PA | |
Bonus against Archers | 3 | => | 6 | |
Bonus against Cavalry Archers | 0 | => | 3 | |
Bonus Against Spearmen | 3 | => | 4 | |
HP | 30 HP | => | 40 HP |
Elite Skirmisher | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pierce Armor | 4 PA | => | 3 PA | |
Bonus against Archers | 4 | => | 7 | |
Bonus against Cavalry Archers | 2 | => | 4 | |
Bonus Against Spearmen | 3 | => | 5 | |
HP | 35 HP | => | 50 HP |
Imperial Skirmisher | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pierce Armor | 5 PA | => | 3 PA | |
Bonus against Archers | 5 | => | 8 | |
Bonus against Cavalry Archers | 3 | => | 5 | |
Bonus Against Spearmen | 3 | => | 5 | |
HP | 35 HP | => | 60 HP |
Unfortunately it’s not enough to only adjust the Range units. One big issue is their vulnerability to siege. At the highest level people can dodge the mangonel shots quite well, but that’s rarely the case for lower ranked players. The idea is to give the siege more reliable damage output but less ability to vipe out entire armies in only one single hit. It’s basically the same formula as with the Range units. Increasing the Health but reducing the damage output.
Mangonel
The Mangonels become a bit cheaper on the wood side. This is mainly a tweak to increase the Gold ratio and reduce the pop efficiency at the same time. Mangonels have always been the highest profile siege unit in castle age and therefore should have this reflected in their Gold ratio. The damage of an individual Mangonel hit is reduced by a lot. But at the same time the Blast Radius is increased by a lot, too. Making it way harder to evade all of that mangonel damage. It’s still a very revarding Skill, but less snowbally as it used to be.
If this is enough to make the ranged units more viable at lower levels needs to be tested. In theory it should help as the xbow armies would survive 2 direct hits in most cases. But ofc it’s hard to estimate wether this is enough time for lower ranked players to get their units out of the danger zone.
Mangonel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HP | 50 HP | => | 60 HP | |
Cost | 135 G, 160 W | => | 135 G, 120 W | |
Damage | 40 | => | 15 | |
Bonus against Archers | 0 | => | 7 | |
Bonus against Siege | 12 | => | 8 | |
Bonus against Buildings | 35 | => | 30 | |
Bonus against Hussite Wagons | 40 | => | 25 | |
Blast Radius | 1 | => | 1.75 | |
Training Time | 46 s | => | 40 s |
Onager | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HP | 60 HP | => | 80 HP | |
Cost | 135 G, 160 W | => | 135 G, 120 W | |
Damage | 50 | => | 20 | |
Bonus against Archers | 0 | => | 8 | |
Bonus against Siege | 12 | => | 10 | |
Bonus against Buildings | 40 | => | 35 | |
Bonus against Hussite Wagons | 50 | => | 30 | |
Blast Radius | 1.25 | => | 2 | |
Training Time | 46 s | => | 40 s |
Siege Onager | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HP | 70 HP | => | 90 HP | |
Cost | 135 G, 160 W | => | 135 G, 120 W | |
Damage | 75 | => | 25 | |
Bonus against Archers | 0 | => | 8 | |
Bonus against Siege | 12 | => | 10 | |
Bonus against Buildings | 60 | => | 50 | |
Bonus against Hussite Wagons | 75 | => | 40 | |
Blast Radius | 1.5 | => | 2.25 | |
Training Time | 46 s | => | 40 s |
The lower pop efficiency of the Mangonel line is also crucial cause with the higher blast radius it makes them even more of a “snowball” unit which is partially compensated by the lower pop efficiency.
Scorpions
Like Mangonels, scorpions can be devastating against certain unit types, especially when massed. The issue of the Scorpion was most of the time it’s clunkyness paired with the weakness against the Mangonels. Both is adressed here with higher speed and HP. Also scorpions, as they are quite bad against Buiildings, now receive a bit of Siege Class Armor, so they can deal a bit better with siege counter units like the mangudai or magyar huszar.
The scorpions now receive a bonus damage against cavalry, to make them less oppressive against archers and infantry but more viable against cavalry which has usually way higher HP. Scorpions would also be affected by Ballistics.
Scorpion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HP | 40 HP | => | 50 HP | |
Cost | 75 G, 75 W | => | 60 G, 75 W | |
Damage | 12 | => | 9 | |
Bonus against Cavalry | 0 | => | 5 | |
Bonus against Elephants | 6 | => | 2 | |
Siege Armor | 0 | => | 2 | |
Speed | 0.65 | => | 0.75 | |
Training Time | 30 s | => | 27 s |
Heavy Scorpion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HP | 50 HP | => | 60 HP | |
Cost | 75 G, 75 W | => | 60 G, 75 W | |
Damage | 16 | => | 11 | |
Bonus against Cavalry | 0 | => | 7 | |
Bonus against Elephants | 8 | => | 3 | |
Siege Armor | 0 | => | 3 | |
Speed | 0.65 | => | 0.75 | |
Training Time | 30 s | => | 27 s | |
Pierce Armor | 8 | => | 9 |
This would make Scorpions more of an option against Cavalry Archers for a lot of civs that currently struggle agianst them especially in the lategame.At keast that’s one intention behind it.
One final note: I intenionally didn’t touch stuff like ROF (for the most units) and frame delay. As the topic isn’t about changing how the units feel when handling but indeed just about some raw interactions. I don’t want to bring more topic crossover with this than neccesary. Maybe it would even be easier to adjust with changing these values. But the idea of this thread is to adjust it without touching how the units generally “behave”.