Too many civs have access to bombard cannon

Bombard cannon is one of the most expensive unit in game but a real game changer; especially against counting sieges. BC must be a unique unit but tons of civ have access to it for no reason.

  • Liths have strong eco, strong monks, good late game tech tree and bombard cannon. Nearly fu stable units to snipe enemy sieges but still have access to bombard cannon.

  • Poles have strong late game eco, cheap knights, redemption + block printing, winged hussars + ut and still have access to bombard cannon.

  • Gunjaras have nearly fu+ discountedstable with one of the fastes unit in the game and still have access to bombard cannon.

  • Berberies, have discounted stable, faster working castles and still have access to bombard cannons and many more…


I mean I wouldn’t say those civs have it for no reason. Sure all 4 civs don’t need it and have good cavalry to snipe the siege.

Well its not and the correct term is BBC.

1 Like

That is what i say, BBC is not a RARE unit it it affect game balance.

I think siege tech tree has to be considered as well. BBC is not only used for sniping siege, but also demolish buildings. Lithuanians has one of the worst siege in the game.


I dont think destroying buildings with bbc is a comman thing, some other civs also have weak option againts building like britons, magyars etc and no bbc.

1 Like

Like defending against forward castle or castle vs castle, BBC helps a lot along with trebuchets to fight opponent’s trebuchet and castle. Cavalry are less effective here.

That is main point. BBC is excellent at sieges. Civs who dont have BBC have great disadventage so not all the civs should get it. It should be rare like paladin or siege onager. 24 civs get bbc, that is an absurd number for such unit.


Usually civs lack BBC is too OP for having it or has sth to compensate and helps to fight against castle drop.

Civs with good siege.
Civs too OP with BBC under certain scenario. (Chu ko nu+BBC or khmer post imp)
Civs with bonus for trebuchets like Britons, Japanese

Magyars spamming magyar huszar+ arbalest/Sicilian knight and bulgarian konnik to fight halbs+trebuchet.

For other three civs, it is ok. But what is the reason for Lithuanians losing BBC?

They already have strong stable to snipe trebs, strong monks to convert enemy sieges, strong trash units for late game. Just watch TTL matches and you will see why liths should lose bbc.

1 Like

Then show one where Lith BBCs were decisive and led to a win,a civ with already very weak siege units can’t lost that unit.
That and Lithuanians are in a fine spot nowdays the last civs that need a nerf somehow are Mayans and Incas.


I personally dont have any problem with BBC being available to 24 out of 43 civs.
Redemption is also a very important tech especially in Arena, and yet it has a similar level of availability.

I do not see a problem with the Berbers, Poles, Lithuanians, or Gurjaras having BBCs. And why not Franks ?

If would much rather keep the game as it is, but if I had to choose 12 civs with BBC, I’ll start with the 5+2 official gunpowder civs:

  • Turks
  • Portuguese
  • Hindustanis
  • Bohemians
  • Spanish
  • Burgundians (because gunpowder units specifically are stronger)
  • Italians (because gunpowder units specifically are cheaper)

And would fill up with civs having BBC and bad relative play rate:

  • Dravidians
  • Burmese
  • Malays
  • Koreans
  • 1 or 2 among Gurjaras, Saracens, Persians

I fully agree with the sentiment. Strong cavalry civs don’t need bombards. There might be exceptions. I don’t have a strong stance on Lithuanians, for example. But gurjaras and poles definitely needs to lose them.

Yep, franks need to lose them too. I agree with your list, except the last should be Vikings. Vikings just die to onagers in the end game.

Portuguese are also an gunpowder civ.

Beside that I am against it that civs introduced before DE lose BBC. But you can take it away from Gujaras and Poles.

1 Like

I think Mayans, Vikings, Goths, and Dravidians are the only civs without any meaningful onager counters (Redemption monks, Siege Onagers, good hussars, or britons outranging archers).

  • In my list I put Dravidians with bbc.
  • Goths and Vikings may have to use their UU. I wouldnt add bbc to Vikings because they currently dont have it.
  • For Mayans, well… Lets say it is deserved because onagers ate their only weakness besides Huskarls & Guhlams ?

It is the 2nd civ I listed as gunpowder civ.

This think this comment is for something @ElectricEye:

He wants bbc to be restructive like Siege Onagers (10 +3 without SE) or paladins (9 + 2 without BL+one_Bkacksmith_tech).

DE introduced 6 civs with BBC (gurjaras, dravidians, poles, bohemians, lituanians, burgundians). Even if we removed it from Bohemians (gunpowder civ) and Burgundians (civ eith gunpowder oriented bonus), there would still be 18 civs left. Nowhere as restrictive as OP wants.

Besides that, I am also against removing bbc from civs with the only reasons being “the unit should be more restrictive” and “the civ doesnt really need it”. I would rather the reason to be “the civ lacks weaknesses”.
But in this case, I would have absolutely no problem removing bbc from a pre-DE civ.


The problem is that BBC, as a unit, is far too strong. It only has one optional upgrade it needs, and if your opponent has BBC, it is almost impossible to siege with trebs alone, and you absolutely need cavalry support, or archers to snipe the BBC. That can be a huge problem, especially on closed maps.

I would agree. But where I have an issue is when you say that vikings shouldn’t get it. This is a clear weakness that they have, and they don’t have it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get it. A valid reason might be that it will make vikings far too strong on water maps. But I haven’t seen a good argument there.

Mayans are fine imo. Their eagles, with 100+ HP can deal with multiple onager shots. They have a weakness to goths and ghulams in the late game, but that isn’t addressed by onagers.

Not sure what the logic is, here. The things that actually matters is balance. The age of the civ is secondary, especially for a unit #### ####

Correct me if Im wrong but dont eagles have a bonus vs siege?

@filtercoffee488 Franks should have bombard cannons, they have no acces to hussar and redemption. Viking should not have access to bbc; they have strong early eco, strong water bonuses, strong sieges (only miss bbc) so giving them bcc is too much.

@Zelley00 Well you are right, 18 is still too many but a least it will be more restructive.

1 Like

Franks can just use their extra strong Knight line. They will be fine.

For Vikings, you are only accounting for arabia. Nothing you’ve said directly addresses the weakness to Onagers. What does water bonus do to a weakness to onagers on, say, black forest?

They don’t even have strong siege. The don’t have siege onagers. You are just factually wrong about them only missing BBCs. They also have no bonus for siege.

You know what’s kinda funny? The same argument you applied for justifying BBCs to Franks can be applied to vikings. If all that’s required for justifying bombard cannons is lacking hussars and redemption, that also applies to vikings. Franks also have a ton of early eco bonuses.

Franks without BBCs have more tools against Onagers than Vikings right now. You are just biased.

1 Like