Lithuanian Crossbowmen vs Lithuanian Hand Cannoneers

Lithuanian Crossbowmen are stronger than Lithuanian Hand Cannoneers.

Of course they are. They have 100% accuracy and rate of fire 1,7, when HC have 65% Acc and RoF 3,45. Not mention larger range.
Crossbow need 7 shots to kill HC, HC need 3, but they hit only 2 of 3 shots. This mean in reality they need 4 or 5 shots. More likely 5. And this is enough time for Xbow to kill HC.

Edit: Rate of Fire of Xbows.


1.7 rate of fire not 1.8 (after thumb ring)


This video is for people who don’t know Xbows are stronger than HC.

Because we all know that the proper way to determine the strength of the unit is to pitch them against each other and call it a day.

Breaking news : Turk spearman better than siege ram.


or a scout.

Jokes aside, of course crossbow wins against HC, after all they are only strong vs infantry.


Except against high pierce armor infantry, where the hand cannon does well when massed. If you make xbow vs Huskarls, Eagles, or Malian Champs you will get mopped.

sorry what is the point of this video? should i post a video of knights killing static xbows and say knights are stronger than xbows?


Well, this video is not for you, but for newbie. 위 쀠띠오가 쓀우면 꿧쮜찌 홰 찌뤌이야? 뼝쒼이. 뽁뀨 몪엉.


Ignore them. You just posted a video, claiming something and they are already assuming who knows what…


To be honest, I found hc always very underwhelming, considering how they are an imperial age unit with the most advanced weapon. Even Portuguese ones are worse then Portuguese arabalest in most situations.

They are super niche. Too much so. HC need +5HP at the very least so they can survive 1 more meele hit. Because they actually shine in close range where their accuracy matters less.

Portuguese, Italians, and turks would be thankful.


except it tells us nothing about which unit works better against infantry, against cavs, etc.

i do agree that HC need some love, but this test only proves how they do in a matchup with other archers. the HC is designed to be used best against Infantry.

1 Like

There’s much more to a unit than how it performs against its direct competition.

For example, Archers do very poorly against Knights and Skirmishers, as most of their damage is absorbed by armor. By contrast, HCs deal very high damage per shot, so most of their damage gets through.

There’s also the way their shots are fired. Archers shoot in an arc, so if their shots miss, they usually miss entirely. By contrast, Hand Cannoneers shoot in a straight line, so if they miss, there’s a good chance they’ll hit something else behind them. If they overkill something, the leftover damage continues.

For comparison, HCs do 50% more damage per second to FU Paladins, with 7 pierce armor. Elite Skirms have 8 pierce armor, and HCs do even better, 2.2x to be precise. And against Infantry, there’s no competition, due to the 10 bonus damage.


So what? If they read “Lithuanian Crossbowmen are stronger than Lithuanian Hand Cannoneers” without any further explanation they will likely take it at face value (since u know they have little experience) and will try to counter imp infantry with xbows instead of HC.

Sounds like a reasonable first step.


so i have to admit i laughed at this video when it first came out, and was like “what is the point why would you do this?”

and over time ive seen why… i cant believe how many times some random guy makes hand cannons for fighting anything except infantry… like today in a team vs mongols and cumans, my jap ally was supplementing his skirms with HCs instead of arbs, couldnt believe it…

opponents were using CA, scouts, pikes(really not that many) and siege, not masses of infantry even… nevermind ally was japanese so could use samurai(which he trained) to handle any infantry anyway… feels like its those kinds of people that need to see this video… maybe he thought HC were good vs rams…

Why do the crossbows have the chemistry upgrade?

I don’t think he was trying to show castle age vs imp age

I was thinking that the headline suggested castle age crossbows, otherwise why not use arbalesters, but I see that Lithuanians don’t have arbalesters, so I guess the idea is that each one is as upgraded as it can be for that civ.

When I tested Castle Age crossbows against HCs to see what best counters Turks Fast Imp, the crossbows did okay, so yes, if you give them Imperial upgrades they’ll dominate.

Well historically correct would be Archers win against HC (unless you put them at a close range fight).
Bow and arrow reload time is 5 to 10 times faster than a 15th century arquebus so the only chance the HCs would have would be if they had a VERY LUCKY first wave of fire against the archers with their low accuracy weapons.

A crossbow in the other hand has a reload time probably even slower than the an arquebus so I’m not sure what would happen in a Xbow vs HC fight…


A crossbow’s reload rate isn’t necessarily slower than an arquebus’, especially if you move away from just European late arbalests with absurd draw weights and miniscule draw lengths. Even the heaviest windlasses would’ve been comparable at worst and most likely fired faster anyway.