Looking at those stats they are kinda like the maltese sentinels which will probably still put them in the useless camp
The big difference here is the siege, 47 siege for a 2 pop musk is terrible.
1 Like
that doesnt really matter as much as the range of the siege since you are just firing at buildings from a safe distance most of the time and a group of 20 already 2 shot most buildilngs, not to mention the siege animation itself is already much superior with it being a fire animation and not using the torches.
increasing the siege just makes them more able to cut through buildings but their combat capabilities will still be shit
1 Like
It really does matter…I’d much rather have a 1 pop musk with 50 siege although not from range, then a 2 pop musk with 47 siege but attack from range.
Yea, increasing the siege makes them more able to cut through buildings, that’s kinda the point. But no, their combat abilities won’t be terrible, they shouldn’t win the 1v2s, but they will do well with sneak attacks and flanks.
1 Like
sure but that aint happening alot, the lategame performace of sentinels attest to this, they are not considered good, even if for a 2 pop unit their numbers are somewhat decent.
sneaks and flanks are rare in the lategame, by that point map vision should be compete and both side are just angling for a fight. if you are spliting off the grens to try and flank that just means the opponent can defeat you in detail. They are also 4 speed, they aint sneaking up on anyone
if their job is to cut through buildlings, then even the current gren does that job better. Having a unit that kinda splits the difference just makes it worse.
edit: the soldado is considered good because it just has so much more HP and also it has that splash damage on its range attack
2 Likes
Their numbers really aren’t decent for a 2 pop unit–Redcoats have 59 ranged attack and almost 400 hp, the bad siege just makes sentinels pretty much unusable.
Sneaks and flanks are not rare in the late-game, either you’re playing the lategame wrong or you’re playing treaty on maps like Andes.
P.S. by sneaks I mean things like sending a few to attack their base.
Changing the gren won’t really make them worse than the ones we have now, it will just change what units they’ll counter, while also making them more historically accurate.
1 Like
right if we are talking about that then it does happen, but the normal grens are better for that job.
reducing their effective siege and changing what units counters them are kinda important if you want them to perform that role
1 Like
Yes they’ll have slightly lower siege, but, making them not weak to cav and instead making them bad vs skrim will increase their siege effectiveness, mostly because of snaring. They’ll also be fairly good at raiding then too.
P.S. I don’t mean they’ll be more effective than the ones we have now, but for their damage they’ll be better then if a gren we have now had that siege. You’d just have to find the balance. Basically making them worse vs skirm but good vs cav will make it less necessary to have higher siege.
1 Like
A Grenadier with a musket should have less musket attack than Musketeer. Essentially they should be a lesser Giant Grenadier in their ranged attack compared against a lesser Highlander (musketer).
1 Like
If needed to you could give them the Cuirassier treatment. Lower their stats and grant them Veteran.
By doing that it would grant them the same difference between a Grenadier to Giant Grenadier as a Musketeer to a Highlander.
In my eyes the purpose is cost efficiency in both resources and pop. You will have half the pop and less food and gold if you are only building Grenadiers. Another concept while building them was a halberdier with a range attack.
1 Like
Then, why should I train grenadiers?? This thread propousal doesnt make sense
1 Like
I like that. Might would raise the siege a bit tho, and perhaps the hand attack.
The idea of good hand attack is important—they should, if the moment arises, be able to dive and destroy most anything they touch.
1 Like
Actually, the hand attack is plenty. They have HR like this.
'cos regardless of cost and pop resource, Grenadiers will always be much better than Musketeers at siege.
The proposal is really to give Grenadiers a better, more useful role and prominent role without overstepping another unit’s role.
Keep them in the Artillery Foundry (or with the effort of a spare shipment to allow Barracks training) just means we carry on with the weird, under-used siege trooper normally sits in the corner twiddling its thumbs whilst it’s full-Siege Unit tagged brethren do a far better job.
However if we change them and their optics by making them more akin to their Mercenary, Giant superiors with a musket attack, plus allow them to be trained via the Barracks from the get-go… we now have a unit we are more likely to throw in with our Muskets/Skirms rather than used rarely in comparison.
Having them armed with a musket will not step on the toes of a musketeer as their damage will alway pale in comparison - it really just give them a little more utility and a tiny bit more threat, that they can attack from range. It certainly like for like with musketeer damage. Besides real Grenadiers were known for the up close toughness for assaults.
A mass of Musketeers will still be far more useful if their use is of general unit - a little attacking/defending/dealing with cav, however a Grenadier’s use will the guys you stick on the front of that Musketeer mass should you wish to storm the walls and not have a great deal of arty. Those guys will have the much bigger siege damage, pool of HP and more relevant Resists for that specific role.
3 Likes
Plus it’s fun to roleplay with epic units.
1 Like
The other point of this is that if the unit isn’t strong enough to get where it is needed, and is killed along the way then it lowers its value as a unit. We have units like the petard that have no combat strength but it makes up for that in its damage.
1 Like
Although, looking at the stats now they look a lot like those Sentinels
1 Like
Much higher siege then sentinels. Plus 1 area on hand attack is really good–don’t overlook that.
2 Likes
I’m really impressed with the models, not only for their historical accuracy but also because they look different from the musketeers at first glance. It might even be feasible for the grenadier skins to have backpacks and grenade pouches while the musketeers don’t use backpacks (this is for the purpose of better differentiation).
The 30% resistance against melee sounds good, could resistance against ranged attacks also be added?
The sapper is great, although as a suggestion, could he be equipped with an axe?
Thank you for this great contribution! 
Thanks for those comments, as I’ve mentioned before: I appreciate people who think differently from me. Now, I’m going to explain, in my opinion, the hypothetical differences between musketeers and grenadiers:
1) Musketeers:
- Musketeers are numerous and affordable units; they are the only “heavy ranged infantry” in the game, allowing them to overwhelm the enemy in pitched battles.
- Their versatility makes them comparable to “Marines in Starcraft” since they can successfully engage most units.
- They primarily excel in offenses and pitched battles and can execute “hit and run” tactics, though not as effectively as skirmishers.
- Their weaknesses lie in specific units like skirmishers and siege weapons.
2) Grenadiers:
- Grenadiers are presented as a costly elite unit that consumes 2 population.
- They possess greater strength and endurance compared to musketeers, making them ideal for defensive actions. Throwing grenades makes them effective against early enemy rushes (such as early attacks from pikemen, rodeleros, Rajput, etc.), and their area melee attack makes them effective against melee cavalry raids.
- They shine in defensive roles and siege attacks, thanks to their ability to deal damage to structures. They are slower and less versatile than halberdiers.
- They share the same weaknesses as musketeers, such as skirmishers and artillery, although grenadiers will be considerably more resilient and won’t be blown away after the first salvo of falconets.
In conclusion:
The choice between musketeers and grenadiers would be “two sides of the same coin,” allowing players to opt for an offensive or defensive role according to their strategy. Two musketeers would cost more food but less gold than one grenadier, but musketeers could overwhelm with their numbers.
Now, where did I get this idea? From the years of trial and error that Blizzard has already conducted with marines and marauders.
Sometimes, I believe that information is out there, ready to be collected 
1 Like
He does use the strelet axe when attacking in melee. I gave him the shovel so he wouldn´t look like a combat unit.
By how much? I almost feel that adding range resist would be too much and my thought is that they should be a defense versus charges.
1 Like