What do Age of Empires players think about swapping the stats of the Abus Gunners with those of the Cannoneer, while keeping their costs and age upgrades intact?
This implies that for the new Abus Guns, their final statistics would be, without shipments:
These changes are suggested as the Abus Gun in terms of resource equality is the most overpowered guerrilla in the game (videos exemplify this). Thus, its damage would be reduced by 20%, making it slightly easier to handle in early ages and supremacy matches (without losing its advantage), while also providing players in Treaty with a better unit in terms of population.
Honestly, 1 pop abus seems like a thing of nightmares. Ottomans don’t need late game buffs imo. I actually made a thread somewhat recently where I pointed out that the historical weaknesses of the civ (one of which was always late game) have basically all been removed.
I think most of the nerfs Ottomans need are just to Azaps and their late game. Ottomans always were on a clock to kill their enemy or lose. That’s no longer the case.
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/ottoman-s-historic-weaknesses-have-all-been-removed/248447
1 Like
unpopular opinion. change abus damage to ranged type and removed the dozen penalties the unit has to make siege damage nullified against most things.
5 Likes
If we change only the damage stats yeah, sure, if we are gonna change pop stat too then hell no! Abus need nerfs not buffs ffs
Agree. Abus should stay 2 pop. And just reduce the damage. Their damage is too high for what they cost. And although their hp is on the fragile side but doesn’t compensate for the super high damage. They are a long range unit so they usually has a high hp buffer in front so their high damage outweigh the low hp by too much. Reducing damage to 28 would be good but I think 25 would be more appropriate.
I think the way you voted contradicts what you said in your comment. The suggestion which “yes” is connected to is reduced pop cost and damage. “No” would be don’t make the changes suggested by the creator of the poll.
I get that it makes the tags convoluted but I think it’s appropriate for guys with a freaking bazooka to do siege damage. It’s really weird that units like Zamburaks are a weak Dragoon when they have a cannon strapped to their back.
Instead of making them another boring skirm maybe the whole role could be revaluated. What if they went with the Aztec treatment and made Abus Gunners heavy infantry? They already don’t really fit the light infantry role very well because they don’t have a bonus against light cav. Making them heavy infantry like Grenadiers would at least give them a weakness to light infantry. It would make things worse for some Asian cav, but that’s already an issue with Grenadiers.
I really dont think the siege damage makes it uniquely strong tbh, it just does more damage then skirms even as a 2 pop unit. The siege damage does make it so that it effectively becomes a counter-skirm but that isnt because of any multipliers.
like it has a vil penalty even though vils have melee resist and not siege resist. That just has to do more with that its damage is so high that 5 abus can one shot vils without it.
If the design of 2 pop ver of existing units has been any indication, they should not have more than x2 the stat of the 1 pop ver. The abus right now has the stats damage of a jaeger if it also had a 1.71multiplier against skrim, which is just way too much
If it did like 25 siege damage instead, it might actually be reasonable for a 2 pop unit
that’s kind of what I’m implying. It overperforms against skirms but especially high rr skirms like cassadores. That’s an inherent issue with dealing siege damage. Plus there’s like a dozen penalties so it doesnt rip through cav and artillery. Making it more skirm-like would streamline the unit dramatically
sure but on the penalties its going to have atleast 4 multipliers since thats just the number that skirms have anyway so those dont really bother me (like skirms have negative multi against cav as well). the other multipliers are there to me more as a function of their raw damage rather then the fact that its siege.
they still also trade reasonably well against cav (even though I think per pop they deal the same dmg as skirm even taking into account that skirm deals range damage) so to me its just the raw base stats they have allowing them to one shot more easily.
if it had range damage but like 50 atk (to lets say keep net damage vs skirms the same) it would be just as unreasoanble
funnily enough I do think if we change its resists to melee (maybe to like 10) it probably would be balanced against skirms but thats another problem I would think
