Should Arson be an instant tech in Castle Age?

Much like Tracking in Feudal Age, should Arson be an instant research for every civ once arriving in Castle Age? I could imagine this buffing infantry play in Castle Age by reducing the total amount of technologies to fully upgrade infantry. It could be pecieved as a small nerf or equalizer for Goths, as they technically have this as a civ bonus as of right now.
What do you think? Yes to less infantry upgrades or keep it as more of a commitment?

1 Like

Please no, as not only will unecessarily nerf Goths a little, but also just erase even more items from trhe Barracks, which is already the most empty Military Building.


Range has xbow, arb, eskirm, thumb ring as most common techs

CA and HC are much less or never seen

Rax has maa, LS, 2HS, champ,pike,halb,supplies, squires, arson

More civs lack arb than champ. Tons of civs lack thumb ring nevermind considering CA or HC. 8 to 10 tech vs 4 to 6 max

Im not saying this to change your mind (which is literally impossible) im saying this to support OP

Yes to making arson automatic. No to goffs needing a castle age nerf, if anything the poor guys need something to keep them alive until they get going (example free eskirm tech)

Why? You are still never going to use ESkirms as Goths, you have Huskarls, and the rest of your Archery Range is pretty dead (no Arbalest, no Thumb Ring, no Parthian Tactics).

I would like to see arson moved down to feudal age. Granted, you are not going to research it that often in feudal, but it could be very helpful against extreme cases of opponent turtling. I don’t think it should be instant or free however.


I think this should be civ bonus like how Teutons get free murder-holes, I’d give it to either Japanese (Go Japs!) or Britons (Go Britons! :partying_face:).

Hand Canonners are anti-infantry specialists and they can take care of infantry much better than Arbalesters, plus they look really cool. The Cavalry Archer could benefit from a reduction in frame delay.

This is wrong. Hand Cannoneers are far worse at taking out Infantry, than Arbalests are.
They are one of the worst performing units in the game, along with Siege Towers.

SotL made a video about Hand Cannons and confirmed they aren’t terrible. And siege towers are useful on Arena, especially for Teutons.

Arbalests need to reach a critical mass to be effective but Hand Cannons don’t.

yes, they do, because a lot of their shots miss. heck even in the video you linked the hand cannons had less numbers then the arbs in the opening shot…and the arbs did better. furthermore arbs mass up faster and are available faster. so saying they need to reach a critical mass is a moot point.

the one advantage hand cannons truly have is that they don’t need as much tech, which makes them a solid option for a non archer civ like Lithuanians or Goths, provided they were actually a decent unit.


he doesnt factor movement, which is a HUGE factor. practically no one stands around for you to shoot them…

1 Like

I dont see any harm in moving it to feudal, but im wondering in what case it would actually help in feudal?

On easily wallable maps, where sometimes people try to push for a fast castle without making any military. Due to how easy it is to wall on those kind of maps, they can often get way with it. If the higher damage output could force the opponent to make some towers or produce archers, it would already be an improvement imo.

Of course, on maps like arabia it probably won’t change a single thing,

1 Like

The AI does in case you didn’t know.

Just realised it could have a bit more potential. It allows you to tech it while aging up. Instead of having to go LS and arson both upon reaching castle. If that’s the route you’re going… It would certainly help with all ins… I literally just won with a trush and m@a all in. Arson would have helped a fair amount…

Was Bulgarians on steppes though which is food rich so conducive for that type of thing

Good to hear that. Tbh, I think only bulgarians or malians would invest into maa beyond the initial push, but it’s nice to have options. It also makes it a bit more worthwhile to invest in longswords later on…just a little bit. I would certainly welcome some buff to longswords.

Me too, longswords are a pretty terrible option in the castle age and they really need a buff. A similar costing army of knights can beat longswords easily and they are weak to archers too unlike the knight.

well yeah, LS is literally intended to lose to Knights and Archers. the Militia line literally receives no bonus damage form any trash unit, trains very fast compared to knights and archers, and is very cheap on the gold end.

could longswords use a buff? absolutely. but they aren’t supposed to compete with knights and crossbows.


Longswords are pretty useless against trash too that’s why the Champion is commonly referred to as Anti-Trash. Go, Champs! :partying_face:
La Hire and William Wallace are champs too.