No, zouaves are a bad role. A unit not countered with high attack is a bad design
3 Likes
Except Zouves are one of the most countered units in the game, especially since they are probable one of the worst units since the pop hike to 3 because someone thought the USA should get an inf +1 card of them without considering the implication in a ressource / attrition war. Making it incidentally a unit that for everyone else isn’t ever considered, which hurts f.e. the Hausa quite a bit since that would be half the reasone behind the morrocan alliance.
The only thing they do somewhat well is potentially winning a shootout with Musks due to ranged resist, which grens ATM also do, except even more so due to Area of effect damage.
Potentially because for 1 Zouve you look at 3 musks, which will win without micro. You’d still look at 2 musks against a gren that wouldn’t have Aoe anymore. Infact it would do well to bring certain grens back in line with normal muskets. Especially the humbaraci and the pavlovs.
Nvm the skirms counter them due to the HI tag afaik, which obviously needs to remain.
1 Like
They arent heavy infantry, so skirmishers are worse than Musketeers vs them
This also is an issue for civs without easy acces to infantry cointers
Other similar unit are AKs but they are slow, have penalty vs cavalry (and infantry…) and arent good at melee either.
2 Likes
that’s not really a unit role, its a skirm shoved into a musketeer role while being bad at both.
2 Likes
As super-muskets (i’m pushing the musket using ‘Line Grenadiers’ as a replacement shipment here), they would potentially inherit musketeer-style resistances and weaknesses along with a population and resource cost to make Line Grenadier armies over Musketeer armies a really inefficient use of funds that will still fall down to skirms and cannon. If the Dutch were pumping out the hypothetical Line Grenadiers, I’d know that he would not actually be able to field as many as a mass of standard Musketeers and that he’d of poured a lot of resources in for them. Then I’d tackle them with skirms/falcs.
3 Likes
I believe there is a way that we can give them a musket, but also have them keep their same role. To explain this, let’s first take a look at what their role is and what units they counter.
Siegers: This is the most straightforward–they’re good at destroying buildings, due to their high siege damage as well as their having the “siege unit” tag which makes most buildings (if not all) deal less damage to them.
Anti-Heavy Infantry: Their area damage and Ranged Resist make them quite good at countering any musketeer-type unit–they also have good hand attack which allows them to fight hand infantry pretty effectively, especially since they will have done damage to those units at range.
Anti-Light Ranged Infantry: This is an interesting vs. because they counter each other–the skirmisher units win if they utilize range (plus they have a multi), but grenadiers win if They are able to get in range–one good volley can wreck a skirmisher mass due to their siege/area damage which ignores any Ranged Resist which skirmishers heavily rely on to, well, not die.
Anti-Light Ranged Cavalry: Less well known is that grenadiers also soft counter (in mass hard counter) dragoon type units because, while they actually have a ranged negative multiplier vs. cavalry, they do a good bit of damage because they (once again) ignore Ranged Resist. They also soak up a ton of the dragoon’s damage due to their own 50% Ranged Resist.
Before I go into my grenadiers design, I want to stipulate that my basic rule is “more historical accuracy As Long as it doesn’t hurt/destroy gameplay”, so if you see a random .5x vs. heavy cavalry on their ranged attack, even though there is no historical reason for it, that is why. So here we go…
200 HP, 50% RR, 4.00 Speed, Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Grenade Trooper, Siege Trooper, (these should all be the same as they are now, but I may have missed some tags).
BIG CHANGE Ranged attack, 42, 12 range, .30x vs. Heavy Cavalry,
With this change, they will still be able to beat musketeers, because while they’ll have slightly less than double musketeers range damage, they’ll win because of their RR.
They will still do well vs. Light-Ranged Cavalry, due to their high high RR and damage, even though they won’t ignore RR or do area damage.
The vs. skirmisher match-up is a little more tricky–this change will make them no longer beat skirmishers even when they are able to get in range. But I honestly think this is okay–with this new attack grenadiers will be slightly better vs. hand cavalry and high-value targets (like War Wagons) due to being able to focus down individual units quicker. So making them weaker vs. skirmishers but slightly better against those other units is a good trade in my opinion. They’ll also still be able to destroy skirmishers in melee mode if the chance arises.
I would propose removing the grenade launchers card, but to offset this, upping their siege a bit (like 5 or something).
Hand attack will be the same; they’ll still be weak to Heavy Hand Cavalry, although slightly less bad due to focus firing. They’ll also still be good vs. everything else when in melee mode.
At its most basic what this change would do is make their scaling matter less, I.E. they’d be better in smaller fights, but worse in bigger fights then they are now.
1 Like
All the ideas being discussed are intriguing, which leads me to think that perhaps the rework of the “Line Grenadier” card should be treated as a double-edged sword.
The Line Grenadier, despite its stat boosts and fewer weaknesses against specific units, is also undergoing a significant nerf due to the limitation of its “grenade use against units” ability (with reloading and automatic use), which would reduce its damage potential against infantry. Additionally, a possible reduction in its resistance against ranged attacks (-10%) would make it more vulnerable to defensive buildings and skirmisher units. Slower speed would also impact its efficiency when besieging enemy bases, giving opponents valuable seconds to produce more units.
Furthermore, if the “Line Grenadier” card involves a resource cost, this could affect the player’s economy, especially in early game stages like Age 3 (Fortress Age). This could lead to a kind of strategic gamble, where the profitability and sacrifice of this card ultimately depend on the player’s skill and management.
Yes, sometimes I think that all units from the “Commerce Age” (I’m still getting used to this name change) should wear uniforms from the 16th and 17th centuries. The “Redcoat” can give us a hint of what that aesthetic would look like.
Dutch Grenadier circa 1630
I’m content with just adding a bandolier to the musketeers’ skin
My only issue with them just being a more “good all around” unit is that those are almost always either op or weak.
1 Like
What if age 2 all grens were the same but replacing all the grenade launchers card was a unique card for each civ that made their gren unique? If only just slightly? More hand attack, more ranged attack, ect.
1 Like
there isn’t really a spot for the grenadier in the counter system and because its a shared unit there’s too much baggage in moving them into a specific role. And there will always be overlap, unless they were put into some odd new role like a siege heavy azap (heavy infantry good against ranged cavalry) or like a rifle rider (good against cav and muskets but weak to goons and skirms).
1 Like
Can their role not be an anti-Heavy Infantry anti-Light Ranged Cavalry unit? Yes, skirm do that, but what’s different is that (at least the unit I propose) would be weak to skrim, but to offset that they have good siege.
1 Like
If you turn them into something like Soldados then they’ll compete with Musketeers. Either they’ll be worse and Grenadiers won’t get used or they’ll be better and Musketeers won’t get used. Neither option is good.
The issue is how the role of Grenadiers evolved over time from just a guy that lobbed grenades to elite heavy infantry shock troops. The depiction of Grenadiers is as the former, but they have the heavy infantry tag as if they were the latter. So they end up defying all the other roles of heavy infantry by being effective against light infantry and weak against cavalry.
What I think needs to be done is to drop the heavy infantry tag and add a new “siege infantry” tag for all infantry currently tagged as siege units.
Siege infantry would occupy a role that falls somewhere between infantry and artillery. Essential, siege infantry would be artillery what shock infantry is to cavalry. All siege infantry would share high ranged resistance, reduced damage from building fire, high siege attack, and a weakness to cavalry. They could have varied specializations just like artillery.
Siege Infantry
- Siege infantry does x0.75 vs cavalry
- Buildings do x0.5 vs siege infantry
- Artillery does x0.75 vs siege infantry (except culvs)
- Culverins do x3 vs siege infantry
- Light cavalry does x1.5 vs siege infantry at range
Anti-Infantry (like Falconets)
The grenadier units could have their base attack toned down a little and have a multiplier vs infantry to compensate.
- Grenadier
- Fire Thrower
- Chakram Thrower
- Flamethrower
Anti-Artillery (like Culverins)
- Huaraca
- Arrow Knight
- Humbaraci
Anti-Building (like Mortars)
- Ram
- Petard
Generalist
- Mantlet
- Huron Mantlet
To represent the shifting role of Grenadiers over time, the Line Grenadiers card could transform them into something more like Soldados or Giant Grenadiers and give them the heavy infantry tag. This could be limited to only select civs to prevent civs without Musketeers from getting an equivalent.
4 Likes
Your contributions are interesting, although it’s true that in addition to the concept of “creating a new unit called Line Grenadier”, it’s also necessary to categorize the original Grenadier properly.
While a more coherent idea is to rework the “Line Grenadier” card, I thought there might be another alternative:
What do you think of the idea that when advancing from Age 2 (Commerce Age) to Age 3 (Fortress Age), players could choose a new Politician?
A new Politician (available to all European civilizations) called “Army Reformer” who, besides having a higher cost, would have the option to create and transform Grenadiers into Line Grenadiers (in the barracks), but in exchange, no longer allow the creation of melee infantry (pikemen, halberdiers or Doppelsoldners)
1 Like
I’m not sure about adding a politician just to change one unit. Such a unit would have to be really good for it to be worth grabbing, which would really mess up late-game-type games. I’m also not sure about just changing their tag–maybe you have but I haven’t actually met someone who was confused about what grenediers are good against due to their tag. What you seem to be advocating for is basically turning, the base ones at least, into cannons who walk–but I’m not sure what such a unit’s use would be…unless…
You could make them where age 2 they take essentially the role of a cannon, good vs. infantry and buildings, bad vs. all cav. But perhaps age 3, when real cannons come in, their role could switch up some.
1 Like
That’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure if it would be feasible given the roles of the units. You’d basically be giving up two units at a time. For Line Grenadiers to adequately replace melee infantry, they’d have to have their stats radically changed from standard Grenadiers.
1 Like
That idea sounds interesting, it could be a rework of “The War Minister”, for example, in a similar way to “The Papal Guard” or “The Logistician”, It could replace archaic units with modern ones, or some other military reform, and this bonus can be available to more civs and depend on each civ, etc.
1 Like
I agree it’s pretty clear what the role of Grenadiers is. The problem is that their tags work against that role. They sort of counter rifle infantry, but also get walloped right back by anything affected by CIR. All the Asian style cavalry underperforms against them because their infantry bonus is cancelled out against heavy infantry. Other similar units like Fire Throwers don’t have the heavy infantry tag and are much more consistent in their function.
Adding in a new tag also makes a lot of units more functional and intuitive. There are other siege units that are extremely confusing. Flamethrowers look a lot like artillery so most people would assume Culverins counter them. But they are actually infantry, so Falconets are the real counter.
Units like Huaracas and Arrow Knights are supposed to counter artillery, but being regular infantry makes them a bit too squishy against artillery.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. But the role switching should be locked behind a card so that civs that don’t have Musketeers wouldn’t have an easy equivalent.
4 Likes
Grenadiers should be light infantry like Maltese Fire Throwers, give them 16 range with grenade launchers (make grenade launchers a tech) adjust their stats accordingly and we finally have a unit that isn’t another musketeer and is actually usable.
1 Like
Nah keep fire throwers unique. +light infantry is just completely wrong.
2 Likes
if malta weren’t so meh, firethrowers 100 % would be a massive problem unit preciscly because they are “light infantry”.
2 Likes