No, if a unit “misses” it fires to a random spot near the target (the random spot can be exactly where the unit stands). If that projectile hits a unit while flying to the random spot it deals half damage, if the projectile hits the initial target it deals full damage.
The bigger the target is and the closer the target is the higher the chance is that the initial target is hit by the projectile.
That’s e.g. why Trebuchets have a 100% accuracy against most buildings even though their accuracy is only 15%. Most buildings are so large the “missed” shots still hit the target. Might have been changed since the last time I tested this, though.
Are you 100% sure that the bigger the target is, the more likely it will be hit by the projectile? Because for example, both elephants and monkeys occupy the same 1x1 square.
So a giant ass elephant might be not more vulnerable than a situationary monkey against projectiles?
And trebs have a specific 80% accuracy against 1x1 buildings. This specific set is what made me think that this might not be the case.
Shatagni’s range bonus can be reverted back to +1. And to compensate for the Hindustanis’ loss, all camels can get +6 bonus damage (+3 for Camel Riders) against the elephant armor class.
Hindustanis really do need something to cover their age4 as a power unit tho. I’d rather change it to +1 range and +10% attack speed. Range is too strong a stat to mess with since it lets them beat too many counter units, but this much should let them keep most of their edge vs infantry.
As for giving bonus damage to ALL camels creates the argument of taking pikes away from many other camel civs - I’d rather have a new tech added to the game to just give something like block printing/illumination so that using monks doesnt feel like as much of a dead end.
Lastly, do we have a final proposal for the janissary to conclude the thread?
I favor:
I have three criteria to consider whether a hand cannoneer is balanced or not:
Being countered cost-efficiently by mass archers/skirmishers.
Not countering Elite Janissaries.
Not countering Spanish, Turkish, Portuguese, or Burgundian hand cannoneers by a huge margin.
+1 range and 10% attack speed is a great proposal.
I haven’t played extensively with the camel civilizations, so I have no opinion about that.
For non-elite: 60% accuracy and reduced attack dispersion from 0.75 to 0.5. Not sure about giving them extra HP or melee armor but it’s definitely worth considering, because Janissaries used to have +9 more HP than hand cannoneers; now they have just +4.
For elite: 70% accuracy, reduced attack dispersion from 0.75 to 0.5, and 56 HP (base HP increased from 40 to 45) is a must. Elite Janissaries have always had more HP than the Turkish hand cannoneers.
What if Janissary becomes a kind of sniper shooter?
Tentative stats:
Standard,Elite
HP 40, 45
Attack: 15/20
Attack Bonus: vs Ram +4, +5 / vs Cavalry +4, +6 / Vs War Elephants +4, +6
Reload Time 5
Range: 8,10
Accuracy: 75%,90%
Melee Armor: 1, 2
Pierce Armor: 0, 0
Another issue is that even if we increase the Janissary’s accuracy to 60%, the Castle Age Janissary would still be a horribly inferior and overpriced version of the Bohemian Castle Age Hand Cannoneer.
Currently, Janissaries are:
Significantly more expensive
25% less accurate
Have no attack bonus against infantry
Require a castle
I know it’s wrong to compare a Castle Age unit with an Imperial Age unit. However, the Castle Age Janissary still had a +9 HP and +1 range advantage over generic Hand Cannoneers. Castle Age Janissaries were still serviceable in the Imperial Age and could be used alongside Hand Cannoneers. But now, they are borderline useless in the Imperial Age. There is zero reason to train any Janissary in the Imperial Age when you already have a 50 HP, 75% accurate Hand Cannoneer with bonus damage against infantry/spearman.
For example, if you are the Italians, you are still better at countering cavalry by mixing your Arbalesters with Castle Age Genoese Crossbows instead of going full Arbalester. But as the Turks, you should never train a single Janissary if you are not going to upgrade them.
The upgrade is now worth more but is hardly worth getting because you can get 15 Hand Cannoneers instead of upgrading the Janissaries.
I am currently playing with 56 HP, 70% accurate Elite Janissaries, and they are fine; I wouldn’t want any more buffs for the elite one. I considered the Castle Age Janissary having 50 HP with 60% accuracy, but then they might be overpowered. In the end, they should be cost-effectively countered by massed archers/skirmishers.
Giving them an attack bonus against mounted units is a somewhat popular suggestion. What if we gave them a +5 attack bonus damage against cavalry in the Castle Age only? Hence, they would still be serviceable even in the Imperial Age. And they will still fulfill their role of being a generalist hand cannoneer after the upgrade.
The 10 range is just too powerful. Even if a unit shot one a minute, that combination of range and damage would always be a problem. This would just end up as another overlaoded concept that gets nerfed to oblivion to save the game.
Barring the unique case of the italians, most everything else that competes with jans in age 3 just gets wiped out by CA - those are, rightly, the real stars of the civ. Bohemians are light work if they play for age 3 HC.
Between those and huss, i dont feel theres much of a need for jans to be anything mire than ‘functional’ in age 3 - let them be an age 4 pop value unit.
The melee armor I reccomended, combining with their current stats would make them better than practically all handcannoneers just for the utility against soft counters like cavalry - while keeping hard counters relevent.
Elite Janissaries deserve higher HP than Turkish hand cannoneers because, unlike the hand cannoneers, you need to pay an expensive upgrade cost, and they are much more expensive. Elite Janissaries had always had +6 more HP than Turkish hand cannoneers until they buffed hand cannoneers.
If we had to pay a similarly expensive tech to unlock hand cannoneers, then I’d be fine with 50 HP Elite Janissaries.
I liked the melee armor suggestion too. Maybe the non-elite version could have 2 melee armor, the same as the elite one.
After rethinking, I find no other way but bumping the Janissary’s range to 8.
A Castle Age Mangudai still retains its anti-siege advantage over heavy cavalry archers. A Castle Age Longbowman still retains its longer range over a generic arbalester. Why should a Castle Age Janissary not have any single advantage over hand cannoneers?
I trust the original game designers more, and that’s what the original deal was.
So, the Janissary would still have 44 HP but get back its +1 range, and its accuracy would be bumped to 55% instead.
The elite version would be the same: 56 HP, 8 range with 70% accuracy.
Castle Age Longbowman has 8 range, and it reaches 9 with Yeomen!
A Castle Age unique unit has to retain some advantages over its generic counterparts. Longbowman, Genoese crossbow, Mangudai, etc., all have this feature.
Castle Age Janissary is now the only unique unit that retains zero advantage over its generic counterpart.
Longbowman’s 5 range increases to 8 after fletching, bodkin, and the Britons’ +1 range bonus in the Castle Age. It can even reach 9 range after researching Yeomen. Meanwhile, a fully upgraded generic crossbowman has only 7 range in the Castle Age.
The current Janissary does not outrange crossbows, unlike Longbowmen.
