The fact is that by default infantry in aoe2 is worse than cavalry and archers.
For the examples you made, huskarls need to be easy to mass because otherwise they would be useless even if they use a similar gimmick to GC as you pointed out. Similar case for condottieri.
For cataphracts instead it gets closer to GC case cause indeed they’re a pretty strong and expensive units, part of it because it’s cavalry, same for GC being archers. So in these cases the counter is way more relevant than the counter of huskarls and condottiero.
But if what you propose is to make them less hard countering to make them cheaper and so more viable (getting them closer to huskarls for example), I see what you mean, it’s just that I don’t know if it’s possible to do it with archers or cavs without breaking the balance (again infantry is different because they’re worse than cav and archers). Imagining cataphracts or GC being easy to mass but being less hard countering… I mean maybe it could work, given it achieves what it wants (to feel more unique), but I probably wouldn’t go as far since goths having strength in numbers make sense historically, don’t know about Italian CGs or byzantine cataphracts which were more elite troops I guess. But anyway if you somehow link it to the civ identity and show that is not broken, you could prove your point.
So as long as they don’t completely eat Cav in comparably low numbers for an archer mass, I don’t think there is much risk it woudl break the game.
It’s btw different with all the new “counter resistant cavalry” we recently added.
Leitis, Coustillier, Konnik (and sometimes keshik) + ratha all have the potential to completely dominate games on their own, as at some point they can just use the already gained numbers advantage to overwhalm any camel/halbs the opponent can still produce.
The GC in it’s current design has the potential, especially when paired with the discounted Italian Gunpowder. But I don’t see that risk when the Bonus damage or cost are adjsuted accordingly.
Cause as mentioned, there are still some widely available units that counter them.
I don’t think it would ruin the GC.
The exact numbers are hard to get perfectly atm anyways, i just listed where I think would be the lower end of the “viable spectrum”.
The whole topic is about making the GC more close to the xbow. That’s what it is about.
It’s intended to be closer to the common line so it’s sutiable to “mix” them. So what are we actually talking about here? Ofc you could also make GC evne more destinct. But this would then even more lead to the “on/off” effect when you actually can justify to go for the GC and when not.
And the idea of this thread was exactly the opposite.
Which is again associated with the afformentioned on/off effect.BTW some of Goths bigest counters are actualy archer civs aswell.
But for the Italians it’s a bit different, as the GC often on the generally open maps (where you also see more cavalry use btw) they often jsut can’t afford that transiotin. Especially against the top cavalry civs with their better timimngs.
I think it would in genearl make Italians way more attractice and interesting if the utilization of GCs would be more viable for their general gameplan.Like mentioned Goths and Byzantines, the unit has the same theoretical potential for the civ to be designed around it’s utilization.
But the circumstances are just different for an archer unit than for cavalry and infantry. And imo the best way to achieve this is to make it so bound to the common xbow line, that it just becomes an easy addtition to the (normally already built-up) xbow mass.
On the wide picture, you are buffing Italians imperial age, which is already very strong and very good, so that alone is a flaw in this design to consider. And we are talking of a whopping 1650 resources discount for a civ that already saves a ton of resources on imp (no, reducing the age ups and uni discounts would just make the civ worse in every other scenario, so don’t go down that road…).
Second, you say that the idea is to mix in xbows and GC in castle age, and not having problems to afford both upgrades, but why? You don’t need both.
You can start with xbows and slowly transition into GC by adding that to your army, but then just keep going for the GC, the unit I’d designed to be your late game transition, as it cost less gold and have an higher survivability (seriously, people always focus on the anti cav bonus and forget about all other perks…). Or you keep going for the arbs and add just a handful of generic GC for scaring off small groups of cavalry (or you can even just go for one or the other…).
Third, people told you that the hard part is getting there, what such bonus do of it comes into play once you are already in imp?
This whole thread is about making it more achievable to et at least some GC out.
But there is seemingly no willingness to acknowlede this.
As I said the main issue is casue they still have the different utility and distinct upgrades, it’s too much of a stretch for italians in the midame to make that transition to GC. And I fix that by making the GC so you don’t have to make a hard switch anymore.
Instead you just can mix them in to your standard xbow mass whenever you have a castle to produce.
Like 100% of the units in the game? Do you prefer to have 2 units that are identical and fill the same role without any reward for the decision-making?
If you do it’s fine, but then maybe aoe it’s not for you.
How it is a stretch? You stop or slow training xbows and start training GC, seems simple to me.
Unless you are making the switch after imp and after already grab the arb upgrade, but that’s on you for just choosing to go for one unit instead of the other, and for choosing wrong.
But again, we are talking about post imp, and people argued that it’s hard to even get to castle, so I don’t see how this change help us there.
And again, why buffing italians imp that it’s arguably one of the best imperial age of the game.
And I tell you to stop attempting to make this Thread a personal.
Cause you clearly just try to get anything what you can blame on me instead of participating on anything relevant for this thread.
But, you still do? You’re just removing the Elite upgrade, which is relatively minor. You still need Castles to train them. They’re still bottlenecked by that.
I think the problem with GC not being made is also just that… they have one less range. So they’ll end up at the front and die to enemy army. You already can just mix them in.
This thread is just confusing in its goals and argumentation.
You just make them from the Castles you occasionally built somewhere. Is that so hard to get?
The idea is that you don’t built the castles you would need for the hard switch as you do currently. But instead you just mix them in.
Ofc the idea of the addition of some GC into your xbow mass can make the castle placement more attractive. But the whole concept is that the unit just becomes an addition to your xbow line for the most part.
Ofc you can still make the hard transition. Nobody hinders you from that, but opposed to now, you can just use the castles as an additional production building for a more specialised xbow with that bonus against cavalry.
i now get the vibe that these kind of “questions” are intended to make me repeat myself over and over again. It’s really not that hard to understand.
It is hard to understand, because you’re still not making sense.
Yes? You can do that already? How is removing Elite upgrade changing that?
Again - I surmised that perhaps the one less range is why players aren’t doing that, but we don’t really know until we ask the pros why they don’t just mix the units in. Then again, I haven’t seen pros play Italians recently so they may do this already anyway.
Making the GC more generic/like Crossbows achieves… what, exactly? That you just get a weaker UU but still have to make Castles to make them? Why even bother making Genbows? You’re not changing their range, health, whatever and just some of the bonus damage. So how are your suggested changes solving anything you’re trying to argue for?
You want to change their attack delay/frame delay? Can you just stop being vague and be clear for once in your own thread? Instead, you make some weird snide comments about someone else saying that Longbows are the same as Arbs and your point continues getting lost. 11
Genoese Crossbows are…basically xbows with some bonus against Cavalry.
I literally say exactly that I want it basically just be an xbow with that bonus damage.
What doesn’t make sense? It’s exaclty what I say, make them so simlar to xbows that you can easily mix them. And that mixing is exactly the goal.
There is literally no place for any inconsistancy there. It’s not possible, cause I directly make exactly that what is needed so you can just mix them as they are basically the same, just with the different bonus damages.
What doesn’t make sense is to claim that it woudln’t make sense, cause there is NO room for any inconsistancy.
And how in your eyes can you NOT do that already???
You cry about repetition but it seems like I’m arguing with a wall.
I’ve already asked if you wanted to change their frame/attack delay and you still have no answer. What else needs to be changed that isn’t ‘just be an xbow’ already?
Genoese Crossbows are crossbows with bonus damage against Cavalry.
If you really want players to mix GC with arbs, at least the range (elite) should be the same and the transition will be easier. But then it will be too oppressive in team games and cav civs without good siege should have sth and hence at least a chance to fight against GC. The counter to GC is skirmisher and siege. Then GC will need to have big negative archer armor class (like die with 3-4 shots of skirmisher).