Ports organ guns and 2 organ gun shipment is underwhelming

When we consider the fact that sweden has 2 leather cannons which is equal to 800 res in age2, or other civs that get 2 falconets upon age3 which is 1.000 res worth, 2 Organ gun shipment is underwhelming for ports, it’s just 800 resources shipment and one of the worst artillery unit to use in age3, they only do acceptable engagement against land units and thats all, other than that they are just underperforming against most other units. To balance this issue, organs should have a better shooting animation for artillery wars or they could recieve a bonus damage something like 1.25 against artillery because they are far from being competitive in artillery wars. And the 2 organ shipment also requires a buff, it’s underwhelming currently. Best solution would be having 3 organ gun shipment in age3 for 250 coin. That way the shipment would become more competitive.

Organ Guns also miss the “lock fire” mechanic unlike falconets have, so that organ fire can be dodged while falconet fire can’t, which also is another disadvantage for Organ Guns

2 Likes

the problem is the leather canon shipment, not the organ gun shipment. I think organ gun fit in their niche, doing better vs infantry but worse vs the rest.

3 Likes

Organ Guns are not better against Infantry, than Falconets.
In every regard, they are worse than Falcs, a true downgrade.

Perhaps they should be available in the Colonial Age, like Leather Cannons.

3 Likes

Just to help clarify, there has always been such a rumor that claims organs to perform better than falconets, in fact they never did. Falconets are better than Organ guns in both against land units and in artillery wars, it’s not even close.

3 Likes

Damage wise they are around equal to falconets, when dealing with infantry masses. They are also more mobile (unpacking/packing faster and higher movement speed) and cost one less pop.
So they are not worse in all situation, altough i have to agree that falcs are generally better units (especially in Age 3). Organ guns in colonial would be straight up broken, because the only thing that holds them down is their weakness to art & goons.

Hard to put into numbers, because they act different. Would ofc need to test it out, but just from feeling i do prefer to have 3 organ guns > horse arty in some situations, just because the organ guns clean up infantry faster and are more mobile ( in lategame horse arty is also the better falconet)

I can understand the feeling you can get but it’s mostly because of the animation organ gun has, but when we compare the overall effect, falconets are better against both artillery and land units. That’s clear

2 Likes

No, Falconets deal all their damage at once, which is better against massed Infantry, than what Organ Guns do.

1 Like

Portuguese have other strengths though, I dont think they need anymore buffs as they already quite competitive.

2 Likes

What kind of strenghts and what is quite competitive? Because Cassadors still are one of the worst skirm of age3 before the upgrades, they have low hp and hard to get strong trades with them. The nerfs to goon ranged resistance and mameluke shipments were quite impactful for ports that we can’t really say ports are buffed at all, rather we can say they are adjusted. And organs are still one of the worst artillery, hopefully they will become more competitive unit in the next updates

Ports is the best civ on water maps, maybe except for inca now.
They have a good xp curve due to the tc buff and cassadors are actually quite good units. 4.5 speed, high attack and actually on skirm wars they do have the edge.
And they can pretty much take the trade rout on a lot of the competitive maps.

1 Like

I don’t see how cassador’s are weaker…I mean, they cost less(it costs food which is the fastest gathering resource instead of more gold) have more RR, speed…I honestly think they are at least as good as skirmishers in cost-efficiency.

3 Likes

That is inaccurate, India/Inca/China/Otto/Hauden/Aztecs perform slightly better than ports on water. And on skirm fights they don’t have any edge, it’s even, you can test it. Other than that, cassadors are slightly weaker against cav and melee units which makes them totally useless, and in fact, any port player would rather having skirms over cassadors, that’s enough to say.

They are much worse than skirmishers overall, and they do even in skirm fights, so I don’t get the point of cassadors being better, especially with nerfs to goon ranged resistance, it’s much harder to protect cassadors with goons now, because you can’t protect your army cost effectively, the goon RR nerf was quise significant nerf for ports and it still effects the way the civ is played.

I agree with inca performing better than ports on water, but the rest of the civs you mentioned dont, specially china or hauds.
Ports are the only civ that can get a tc right near the shore which can shut down any enemy warships.
And caçadores have 50% range resist which really compensates for their lower hp.

Both china and hauds perform better than ports on water, that’s widely tested in many competitive games and accepted by most competitive water players, I can atleast say, in competitive level, things work as mentioned. Cassadors dont have %50 RR, they have %45, and any player would prefer having Skirmishers instead of Cassadors in any situation, because of cassadors low hp, it’s hard to protect them especially with nerfed goons.

If they had to nerf caçador range resist that says something.
Even at 45% range resist that unit does really well on skirm wars.
They die quicker to cav but you get a good mass of dragoons to compensate.
If your micro is good you shouldn’t be loosing them so easily.
The range resist nerf to dragoons was something necessary as their multiplier vs ranged cav also stacks with the negative multiplier they have vs all cav.

The thing is that cassadors don’t actually do very well on skirm wars, it’s even currently, and they perform much worse against cav/melee units, even veteran pikemen has chance to kill a cassa because of it’s low hp, how can that be considered as an advantage? It is generally not possible to have cost effective trades with the combination of cassador and goons in most of the Matchups. Having more hp instead of high RR is defenitely more preferable option for a skirm unit since RR only applies to ranged fight while hp applies to all. And the unit overall is clearly worse than skirmisher.

How come even pikeman can kill cass?
The unit still has 4.5 speed which is crazy good for a 20 range unit, I would rather have that, specially vs japan or sweden which have faster musks than other civs which means they can actually kite them.
That makes them exceptional at counter heavy infantry, specially vs civs that go heavy on musk, and they can always retreat in good time to avoid a bad fight.
And again you shouldn’t be getting caught by cavalry so easily.
Their dragoons maybe have been nerfed but are still have more upgrades and are better than other civs that also have dragoons

This come from their damage. Despite skirmisher have 15 damage and cassa 18, skirmisher get veteran upgrade in age 3 and boost their damage to 18 while cassa not. In age 4 with guard upgrade will cassa have 1 more damage than skirmisher, except for german and french royal skirmisher, which both have same damage. So with their damage arguably the same, the striking bonus that cassa have is their 0.5 more speed for a unique unit.

The hp and ranged resist also in favor of skirmisher. In age3, vet skirmisher will have 120 hp + 20% bonus and 30% rr, this means their effective hp vs ranged damage is 182.7. Cassa have 110 hp and 45% rr, this means they have an effective hp of 159.5.

In short the cassa unit description as Skirmisher with low hitpoints, but a strong attack. Good against infantry. Is only true on age 4 and 5 where they have extra 1 and 2 damage than a regular skirmisher.

6 Likes