Ideas for buffing the Elite Genoese Crossbowman

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

GC should be weak vs other archer in my opinion, since Italians arbs with pavise are among the strongest “stat-wise” (they can beat etiopians ones) and with FU skirms and cheap BBC they don’t need any more help against archers.

On mass yes, but they need a castle, and it’s not easy to mass castles fast with italians eco. That’s why most of the times you go for arbs, and switch into GC way into imp.

It’s not impossible to mass GC in castle age, but it’s RISKY and expensive on wood, especially if you lose the castles. And going for both xbows and GC is difficult, so I wouldn’t nerf them overall.

It’s not necessary in my opinion. The GC is a specialized unit, and it shouldn’t be simply the better answer to everything.

If you give them +1 range (even adjusting the bonus damage) with their *“tankiness” (more MA and HP) they automatically become the best choice in the late game, even if they have 1 less range.

Basically, you make the GC into a weaker CKN, that is always preferred to the arb.

This is the more balanced option in my opinion. The elite GC in the end gives +5HP, +2 bonus damage and -2 seconds of TT. 900f and 750g is a bit overpriced for that, especially when you compare the elite CKN (which both the upgrade and the unit cost less).

Anyway, while the elite upgrade is overpriced, it’s not expensive as say the cataprhacts elite upgrade, I mean it’s not unachievable in a normal game.

Condos aren’t that good for this situation. Sure if you lack any other solution you can spam them as an emergency unit, but just to by time for something else.

In fact the +1 attack it’s not necessary. GC do great against cav, fine against infantry, and bad against archers. But most archer civs have terrible cav, so you don’t need GC in that context (maybe just against viets BE, but every civ have a strong counter…).

The GC is to use against cav civs, the arbs against archers civs, and since both do their respective jobs perfectly fine, there is no need to make the GC more generalized.

No, that was changed with the release of DE, they now have the same RoF.

1 Like
22

Not sure actually, arbalests have still the advantage of being trained in archery ranges. Note, that the almost all the other archer UUs get +1 range.

If this is not implemented, then I expect the +1 range. Now it is simply a too expensive upgrade. Cost reduction is actually needed unless the +1 range is given, as for mayans, Vietnamese, and britons

1 Like
23

If the cost is not reduced and the +1 range is not given, then another possibile thing is to drammatically reduce the TT.

I agree with this actually

1 Like
24

Well, a CKN takes 9s in post imp, which is the faster training foot archer UU. The GC takes 10s, so there isn’t much room to work with…

25

Are you talking about the damage buff, and accidentally range slipped out?

I already listed the Range as something I would not consider improving for all these reasons. I don’t think E. Genoese becomes the go-to best in some clear situations if you bump it’s base damage a bit, the Genoese isn’t an all-purpose unit that holds up against the spread like the CKN does. I think all the situations where it would be made into the clearly better option, it already is the better option.

I think you’re largely right, but that begs the question, if we want to improve the EGC upgrade without reducing the cost (actually buffing the upgrade effects) what would you do? I think we’re all on board with the idea of the cost reduction, but could we not improve the unit meaningfully in a way that wouldn’t relegate the Arbalest to irrelevance while also justifying the cost?

1 Like
26

Yeah sorry, I was confused. I meant damage.

GC isn’t the better option as it is now. Against arbs is more expensive (on wood) and dies to the arbs range and “spammingness”. If you increase the damage though, it may become a pop efficient and cost effective unit.

Try it in the editor, patrol a group of arbs and a group of GC, then repeat it and give the GC a +1 damage with a trigger, let’s see who wins.

Reduce the cost… or leave it as it is…

I know that it’s not what you want to hear but in my opinion GC are fine now. The elite cost reduction is also actually what could help Italians more, since the eco is their biggest weakness, so if they can save resources it’s a better buff than +1 damage or +1 range.

Anyway, improving their BBC through a discounted SE would be better, since archers and siege are the main weakness of the GC and arbs.

Anyway, the GC is in a good spot right now, so even if they aren’t perfect, personally I wouldn’t mind.

27

You are correct, and not because I oppose it. In fact, it’s what I expect to happen (if anything is to happen) but I do still want to collect ideas and evaluate them. I’m a huge fan of the unit as is, and I don’t want to see it turned into something absurd, but the Elite upgrade is a feel-bad upgrade. Reducing the upgrade’s cost isn’t going to change that, it’s just going to make it feel less bad when you get it.

I’m not high on the idea of making the EGC a generalist unit. Through all the threads about the elite upgrade before that last buff to TT, I was distinctly and unmistakably opposed to range because I felt it’d make the EGC way too good against all it’s most effective counters, not just that it’d completely outshine the Arbalest.

What say you to leaving it as is, but having the elite upgrade reduce the cost of the Genoese? The cost would be justified in long-term savings, and it’d help with the long term-cost of needing a non-trash counter to cavalry.

Edit: I’ve decided I distinctly dislike this approach.

28
  1. Bonus damage against Siege units
  2. Bonus armor vs offensive buildings (towers, town centers, castles, etc.)
  3. Bonus Attack vs offensive buildings
  4. Bonus damage against Docks and dock units.

Some ideas.

29

Pretty sure they have bonus damage against ships already.

edit: Upon review, yes, 4 (5 elite) against ships and fishing ships

You’d have to give Docks a new armor type to give Genoese a bonus against it without it applying to all buildings universally.

1 Like
30

I do not understand too much this. Rattans, longbowman, plumes, these UUs are always better than arbalests if you have a decent amount of castles.

+1 range EGC would be better than arbs in general, but arbalests would be better in these scenarios:

  • during all the early stages. You mass xbow in castle and then in early imp you go arbalests
  • if you do not have a castle, or just one
  • if you have limited wood access
  • vs infantry, especially spears and samurais.

Notice that these holds also for the other archer UUs. But still arbalests are extremely common for Britons and Vietnamese. Less common with Mayans, but still used…

Even Chinese move to ckns in the later stages only…

Still I would give Italians SE instead of other things. But coming back to the question, I think that if you do not act on the +1 range, then you really need to make the upgrade cheaper

31

I guess the question has to be asked: how cheap? It currently costs 900f, 750g

Are we talking Chu Ko Nu levels? 760f 760g

Or even further like Mameluke levels? 600f 500g

32

I explained it better, why this is a problem, in a later post.

The main problem with giving it range is that with one more range it’ll have the same range as generic FU archers, plus an extra pierce armor from Pavise, making opposing Arbalests a cut-and-dry losing matchup. Right now it’s a mixed bag. Further, the GC handles cavalry, which means if they can also handle archers and infantry (which they could) it becomes a mono-unit composition to be supported by Hussars, and that’s way too good.

The fact that it makes Arbalest irrelevant is a problem because it’s a unit that counters one of the normal counters to arbalest and instead of mixing archers/skirms in to support the GC, you just wouldn’t, because you wouldn’t need to. Rattans, Longbows, Plumes, none of these units make having halbs a waste, and allow you to support with siege/cav to handle everything. They’re a more expensive option to do the same job with upside and the GC does not do the same job.

As such, if you buff them to equal range with the Arbalest, you’re going to overshadow the Arbalest, and even the skirm in every way, and that will lead to the Italian mono-composition of E-genoese, which handles everything except siege, which you will splash in bombards and/or Hussar to counter. This is an unkillable, impossibly efficient force.

33

Not completely true:

  • plumes are a different unit, more similar to a CA than an arb.
  • rattans are better, but also are extremely expensive to get going. Both for the unit cost and for the elite upgrade
  • LB are actually always better, but the Britons arbs are at least different by having their standard archers trained and upgraded faster, which differentiate the 2 units.

You give +1 range to GC and what you get? The meta will probably evolve into, going xbows *(since you need castles and a lot of wood for GCs)*in early castle age, and switching always into GC in late caste age, since it would be the best unit *(even against other arbs, with more HP, armor and attack they could beat them).

The more the game goes on, and the less wood is a problem, so it wouldn’t stand as an argument in favor for arbs over GC.
And both arbs and GC can micro down any infantry (even samurai), a +1/2 doesn’t make that much difference.

Ok but do you like a civ that have an option that is always better than the other? At that point let’s remove the arb and consistently buff the GC, because if the GC becomes the better unit that’s what happens.

The LB in fact in my opinion is a bit of a boring unit, basically a replacement for the arbs in the late game, but at least they are different from the arbs thanks to a civ bonus.

This way at least you have to make a choice, to decide if going for standard arbs or GC, and when to make the transition. Those small decisions are what makes the game interesting, not having a unit that you will almost always transition into it.

The food cost should be around 750f, the gold cost around 700g. You don’t even have to change both to have a decent effect.

34

Why? I mean what makes them boring specifically?

35

Maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant that the fact that THE britons arbs and the LB are so similar, and the second one is basically a “super late game upgrade” for the first.

Don’t get me wrong, I like LB, and I wouldn’t change a thing of britons, but I wouldn’t like either more civs that work that way.

Italians arbs and GC instead are basically on the same level, they just fit into different situations, which brings you to have to make a decision, that’s what I like.

1 Like
36

I partially disagree, plumes are always better in practice, and rattans cost just +5g, so the main difference in price is wood. LBs are always better yeah.

I am saying that it is not a problem a GC with +1 range, it would simply substitute the arbalest in the late game. This happens with all the other archer UUs (including ckns, but that’s just because they are OP 11) except in some scenarios.

Said that, I would be in favor of a huge cut of the upgrade cost, Italians need other things. At least SE to complete their theme…

37

That’s an interesting point of view, thanks. I don’t mind this mechanic, because it at least makes the UU viable, and I like it when the UU of a civ actually manages to get some spotlight. There’s not much point in having 37 civs if you only need arb and paladin for play :smiley: So actually onto to GC…

I personally don’t mind how the Elite GC is right now as a unit, but the Elite Upgrade is definitely too expensive for what it’s worth. A cheaper Elite upgrade could at least mean that you can pretty much guarantee your EGC upgrade before the enemy cav upgrades come in, and make it really a scary hard counter for cav.

1 Like
38

I agree with @DoctBaghi and the OP, it’s more interesting for Italians to have a UU that’s not just ‘‘better arbalests’’. To me Vietnamese, Britons & Chinese already have such UU, and diversity is more interesting.

As an idea, could the EGC upgrade cost be justified if it came with a drastically decreased TT? How much shorter would the EGC TT have to be compared to the normal EGC TT for that to justify the cost? It would be quite different from other Elite upgrades, which is why I’m suggesting it.

BTW I also agree with you, the simplest solution is to just decrease the EGC upgrade cost.

2 Likes
39

This is the only other real option I see. And it synergies well with the concept of counter unit, that the GC should have.

I would say that such expensive upgrade should make the GC faster to train than a CKN, which takes 9 seconds. Somehow, the GC should become the faster archer to train.

40

With the current effects elite is indeed too expansive but I don’t like just reducing the upgrade cost as imo there should be some consistency. Elite upgrades are usually expansive but also give great reward. If that doesn’t apply to castle age pushing units like conqs or jannis that’s fine but it should for units that you plan to use in imp.

One option would be to increase hp and/or melee armor. Another one would be to increase speed a bit. Although speed usually doesn’t change from generic to elite with other units it would make sense here. Actually the worst part about gc isn’t there stats or performance when fighting but the position it gets you in. The way they are designed is as your main gold unit to fight along with bbc. But since they are both your offensive army backbone and also your counter to cav, on open maps you oftentimes end up in the dilemma of needing them both for defensive or offense (which works for units such as halbs but not for archers that need to be grouped up). As of now, they are pretty good unit for maps such as arena or hideout but rather bad on arabia. Alternative would be to just give Italians halbs, ofc.

1 Like