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 #### ####
Major characteristics of a civ should only be changed as long as the civs are rather new. And the new civs tend to have too much.
But long established characteristics of old civs should not be changed.
Light Cavalry of the Franks are weaker than fully upgraded generic Hussars. However, the access of artillery by the Franks has an obvious historical reference, namely Jean Bureau and his artillery. The campaign emphasizes the excellent artillery of the Franks, which makes it a bit of a shame if they canât train Bombard Cannons.
The Vikings probably need the Siege Onager more than need the Bombard Cannons. One of the reasons they donât have Bombard Cannons might be that they are set to have a weaker Imperial Age.
The Japanese would be more accurate and useful to access Bombard Cannons than to have stonger Trebuchets which they barely use in history.
I fully agree with sentiment. Late game good units/tech should be more exclusive to make each civ different.
Especially, I think Poles/Gurjaras easier to balance without BBC. Like remove Poles BBC and give back full 10% folwalk bonus. Then they become similar to Khmer. Super strong eco but having weakness against seige in late game.
For Gurjaras, they can get back 50% more bonus damage thing after removing BBC. Lacking BBC and compensate by super strong seige elephant is more fun and unique.
For Lith, I am not sure. Maybe giving them Blast Furnace again but then Winged Hussar become too strong.
I am thinking of keeping Berbers BBC as all other Middle East civ ( Saracens, Turks, Persians) also having access to BBC.
Well, knight line cost 75 gold, trying to kill a BBC will cost at least 3-4 knights so sniping BBC with knights is not worth.
Civ balance depending on all map performances. Franks are top lvl civ only at open map but viking good at both open maps and water maps so giving them some weakness is a must. Also missing siege onager does not mean vikings have weak sieges. SO is a not comman unit in 1v1. Nearly at none of the games SO uses therefore lacking SO is not a valid argument to say vikings have weak sieges.
I did not meantioned in first comment but sarances should not have BBC, they have counterweights+ strong monks+ strong early game so bcc is too much for sarances too.
The devs donât agree with this. Janissary recently got a nerf, and turks are an OG, OG civ. They are going to change Persians soon, Organ Guns were changed recently, conqs lost 1 pierce armour. There are too many examples to even list.
Iâm, sorry, this doesnât matter. Chinese doesnât get gunpowder and they were the ones who came up with the stuff. Again, too many examples of historical inaccuracies.
However, Saracens should keep BBC by obvious historical reason. I am not history expert but Ain-Jalut battle of Mameluke against Mongols referee as one of first time of usage of cannon.
I am also not a fan of changing AOC/AOK civs drastically. Also Saracens only good at early game and they donât have passive long term eco bonus.
I mention that to show that the Bombard Cannons of the Franks are not without references, and in particular the references are even emphasized in the Joan of Arc campaign. To designing a civilization, historical references are not absolutely important, but they are not totally unimportant either. The Bombard Cannons deserve to be kept rather than removed for the Franks, and there are reasons anyway.
As far as I know, most cases of Chinese dynasties using cannons were for defensive purposes and naval warfare. This is reflected in the fact that they still hold Cannon Galleons and Bombard Towers. Since the Chinese donât have Hussars and Redemptions, I personally have no particular objection to giving them Bombard Cannons (and Hand Cannoneers), maybe they can also get +4 (and +2 attack respectively) from Rocketry as well. Itâs not necessary, but it would be pleasing as long as it wouldnât affect the balance too much.
Honestly, I know youâre talking about balance, but to me it kinda sounds like youâre saying âtoo many civs have access to villagersâ. 
well, only 43 civ have access to villager but 24 civs have access to bbc 111111
The devs donât agree with this. Janissary recently got a nerf, and turks are an OG, OG civ. They are going to change Persians soon, Organ Guns were changed recently, conqs lost 1 pierce armour. There are too many examples to even list.
These are number changes, but not removals of units from a civ. I donât know what will happen to the Persians, but if they lose the War Elephant this would be very wrong obviously. Then there are changes like Goth getting Dromons instead of Cannon Galleons. But it is more of a refinement. But it would be wrong if Goths just lose Bombard Cannon or Hand Cannoniers. Same for Franks.
Okay, wait. You donât actually care about this. If I show that there were actual removal of units, will you be like, âokay, franks can lose BBC, thenâ?
If you want to argue for Franks keeping BBC, argue for that. Not this design philosophy thing.
Then give the balance reasons. Franks are OP even now. They have insane win rate and pick rate at all Elos (except the very top).
Okay, wait. You donât actually care about this. If I show that there were actual removal of units, will you be like, âokay, franks can lose BBC, thenâ?
If you want to argue for Franks keeping BBC, argue for that. Not this design philosophy thing.
I care about the design philosophy. I donât want it to be an option to take units, especially entire unit classes away from a established civ. I want to play the famous game AoE2, and not an always alternated descendant of it.
Balance changes are for a balance and not for playstyle and identity changes of civs.
I disagree. I think franks without bombard cannons will still be AoE2. There are iconic units you canât remove, like the longbows, huskarls, etc. But those are special because they are what makes the civ.
Also, AoE2 DE is an âaltered descendantâ to being with. This version is only like 5 years old. Go play HD if you want the authentic experience.
It looks like weâve hit an impasse, then.
I disagree. I think franks without bombard cannons will still be AoE2. There are iconic units you canât remove, like the longbows, huskarls, etc. But those are special because they are what makes the civ.
Also, AoE2 DE is an âaltered descendantâ to being with. This version is only like 5 years old. Go play HD if you want the authentic experience.It looks like weâve hit an impasse, then.
Iâm not against balance changes in general. Initially Huskarls had only 4 pierce armor for example. I think the updated 6 pierce armor helps more to realize the intention of the unit.
Regardings Franks and bombard canons, I donât see it as a senseful change to remove it. It has synergy with their castle bonus, as bombard cannons counter trebs which counter their castles. So it makes sense that they have it. HC makes less sense because it overlaps in functionality with the unique unit.
I disagree with this statement:
Strong cavalry civs donât need bombards.
I am against forcing âcavalry civsâ into cavalry. The civs have different possible playstyles and one interpretation of a civ should not be taken as a basis to remove other aspects of a civ. This would streamline civs and is a terrible practise of bad games imo. This is also a reason why old civs need to be respected as they are. They can always be balanced by tuning the number of their bonuses.
Hand Cannons do play an important role in some alternate Frank builds. The Franks are not a one trick pony.
They being OP has nothing to do with Bombard Cannons in my opinion. What you need is to do something to Chivalry, their cavalry health or economy bonuses instead. Removing Bombard Cannons wouldnât change much, but lose some historical flavor.
I disagree with BBC being a unique unit because historically, It wasnât. I do agree with some civs shouldnât have BBC or at the very least not BBC with siege engineer like Pole.
Yeah, a terrible synergy. Cheaper/stronger castles which are difficult to take down with trebs sucks. Especially if you are playing as a civ without BBCs, like vikings, japanese, sicilians, or even mayans, it sucks having to deal with frank castle spam with BBCs.
Okay, wait. Iâm specifically talking about BBCs. Donât generalize this to âother aspectsâ. You want to give strong infantry like with bulgarians, or gunpowder (except BBC), go ahead. Even cav archers like with mongols and tartars is fine.
And even in that case, I already said that Lithuanians should probably get BBCs.