Janissaries aren’t inferior to hand cannoneers in every single aspect, so that’s not relevant.
I agree, and the main value, as I said, is that you can train Janissaries in Castle Age.
Why do you think this is a relevant comparison? Mangudai and cavalry archers have the same range, and cavalry archers are available in Castle Age.
I do think the Jan feels like one of the less “unique” of unique units beyond its status as castle age hc. Strong or not, it doesnt really scream super unique mechanics when the HC technically has the unique mechanic of kill infantry faster.
I hope Im making sense here. I guess its just a mechanical unique feel of the unit. Non elite longbows have a similar identity problem
Elite Janissaries have 0 attack delay, which makes it good for micro. Standard longbow is less unique tho but elite longbow can outrange castle.
Im not disagreeing with their value, I am simply saying they lack something that a player can look at from the outset and go “that’s unique as heck!”
Someone might look at HCs having anti infantry bonus and call that more unique than Janns
Actually, the problem can still be solved by keeping the Janissary’s range at 7.
Hence, the Castle Age Janissary will have a +3 attack advantage over Hand Cannoneers against everything except infantry, thus fulfilling the role of being a generalist Hand Cannoneer.
The Elite Janissary is fine with 22 attack and 70%-75% accuracy. I’m fine with it being 50 HP instead of 56 HP if the elite upgrade cost is going to be lowered.
8-range Janissaries beat Mangonels, Elite Skirmishers and Monks. Which is why Turks had such insane win rate on Arena.
It’s less obvious, but 0 Attack Delay is fairly unique. Most other units who had it have lost it, e.g. Mangudais or Kipchaks.
I don’t know how to tell you this, but I don’t think any unit will ever reach a sweet spot where they never have to be buffed or nerfed ever again. Even Voobly had balance changes.
Wait this is a turks post and hes off topic with turtle ships.
Lmao you’re right
Either it’s because he doesn’t want any other civ to be strong (like vinifrss for AoE3 Ottomans) or he originally posted that in the last thread merged into this one
Bruh did you really made another post to say the same things ? Horrible Balance Decisions of the Last 3 Years - #3
Hindustanis are fine with +2 range. You want Janissaries to buffed ? Or just want other HC to be nerfed ?
I’d be fine if Janissaries take less damage from HCs.
Mate if this person doesn’t hsve you on ignore they soon will
+1 range to Janissary
+6 HP to Elite Janissary
-1 Range to Shatagni
Pirotechina costs halved but provides only accuracy boost.
Buff Janissary? Thats a bad idea imo. The unit is good atm, a change could be broke the unit and the turks.
It’s not a buff. It’s re-establishing the previous balance between Janissaries and Hand Cannoneers.
It doesn’t make any thematic sense for siege engineers to NOT benefit from siege engineers. It’s definitely a strong buff that you dont need elite CG’s to break Teuton, Korean, Turk defenses, but given how many civs dont have the elite upgrade to cannon galleons it’s better for the game to have this.
+2 is alot of range to give on a unit like an HC. Generic counters like onagers, arbs and skirms should at least threaten HC’s since siege engineers isnt a guaranteed tech and Hindustanis have good answers for cavalry and archers. Bonus should be changed to +1 range and some more dps (+ damage or + attack rate).
Crenelation castle drops are alot harder to fend off than a sturdier castle or a little extra damage on projectiles.
They’re weird and clunky techs that are a pain to get on the right power level, but this isnt a good argument against them.
Missionaries are pretty strong, true. At high level people just make a handful of skirms to counter monks if the need to and this unit is the sole exception here. Well and fine that a unique unit has an advantage over regular units, but the value it gets from the speed and hp (after bloodlines) ON TOP of inquisition being a pretty easy pickup makes it too much better for the same price. Also, doesn’t it get armor from the blacksmith? Needs a cost increase, at least, for how much better it is over regular monks.
Turtle ships are alot harder to counter with galleons or even fire ships given their class armor and upgraded speed/range. That being said, demo ships are still a really solid counter to these so the successive buffs just feel like the brought them up to the marks they always should have been at.
There the cost reduction and the age 4 tech. 2 bonuses. Very powerful but still. Italian HC’s were competitive with hindustani HC’s just off the cost and this recent bonus makes them alot stronger vs soft counters like archers/skirms and hands down the best vs infantry. Still, it has basic range and durability so onagers are a generic counter. Really only a dead end for turks, having no siege engineers, eskirms or any other unit that wont just implode vs a GC/HC based army. It’s borderline, but not quite OP for the fact that generic counters DO exist - just need to boost a few civs that are overly countered by this.
HC got buffed because they were terrible vs infantry outside of excessively niche cases - they needed it. There’s no set power level to maintain between jans and HC’s. It stands though, that the turk HC/CA are generally comparable or better than the current janissary, which is just a more durable HC with same-ish dps and +1 range. As they are, jans need a big mass to offset the low accuracy and thats hard to do on open maps over the cost and castle bottleneck. 8 range is too much in age 3? Agreed. But a double nerf to the range AND accuracy is too much in the other direction. So, lower the cost so that you can mass up enough to offset the cost OR improve the accuracy to make it more effective in smaller numbers OR something else.
Food inflation is a small thing, but I do feel it was unneeded - it just amplified the advantage for civs that had a strong early food bonus and made early market play harder. Not insurmountable, but a problem for sure.
I should have said “I assume even Voobly had balance changes”. I wasn’t around for that era of the game.
I don’t know why you are obsessed with nerfing Hindustani and Italians. These 2 civs are fine with their own UT.
Perhaps you want Turks to be the best gunpowder civ? Even Hindustani and Italians have such boni, Turks are still a better gunpowder civ. You should have asked for a nerf for Bohemians instead.
Hindustani gain 9 range HC at the cost of losing FU HCA.
Italians was a long forgotten civ for being generic for long time. Recent winrate improvement is due to archers indirect buff from militia. Their winrate in early game has improved a lot rather than imperial age.
Saw you in Woololo youtube comment section. This was also your comment made in this forum.
3 stacked boni? Let’s compare.
| Turks | Bohemians | Hindustani | Italians | Portuguese |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemistry is free | Chemistry and HC in Castle Age | Imp UT: +2 range | Gunpowder -20% cost | Gunpowder -20% gold |
| Gunpowder+25% HP | University -100W | Gunpowder+1/+1 armor | Chemistry -33% cost | Chemistry researched 25% faster |
| Gunpowder is produced 25% faster | Pirotechnia | Arquebus | ||
Portuguese should have been nerf before this patch then. If Portuguese is fine, why not Italians? Bohemians only have 2 boni. Are they weaker?
You never listen to others. In return, others don’t take you seriously. The more topics you spam, the less support you gain, and therefore, the slimmer the chance Turks get a buff.
All things wrong about his desired changes aside ARE the hindustani HCs okay with +2 range?
Like, they out range archers and cavalry is a no go vs hindustanis. To have a reliable generic counter onagers with siege engineers seems to be the minimum, but there’s not every civ has that both. It’s not a glaring problem rn, but it seems there are a fair number of civs that might have problems with 9 range HC’s.
In the end, would it be so bad if the range was cut down and traded for some other stat?
Hindustanis have an acceptable win rate slightly higher than average (but nothing crazy). They have no cavalry, no arbalest no siege onagers. I don’t understand why should we touch Hindustanis.
I’m actually annoyed by Indian civs lacking Knights (because I’m 100% sure it’s a reference to AoE3 Indians and not a historical accuracy thing), but I never heard anyone but Selim claim Hindustanis are overpowered.
