I had assumed that because the culverin costs 200 more resources than the springald and was only available in the imperial age to certain civs, that it would be noticeably better, like by out ranging the culv. If you were not a braindead monkey and were balancing a game it would be the assumption that slower infantry based factions like the HRE and england get the culverin b/c having great artillery and great cav like the mongols and the rus would be too powerful, and that the french were obviously designed by a brain damaged lobotomy victim.
But imagine my surprise when today going against the Rus I built culverins assuming that the game was designed by someone that wouldn’t drown on their spit if they failed to open their mouth to drool, when my culverins were absolutely destroyed. Curious as to why I went back to look at the replay.
Apparently not only do imperial age springalds get to move AS FAST AS INFANTRY, but with the upgrade that every faction gets in the imperial ages they get to MATCH THE RANGE OF CULVERINS, and the Rus in particular have a special upgrade that lets them OUT RANGE CULVERINS?! So for 200 gold less the Rus get an artlllery piece that outranges you and is faster than you, and for your 200 extra gold you get something that just gets to fire without setting up.
WHAT THE ■■■■ IS THE POINT OF CULVERINS THEN IF THEY GET BEATEN BY SPRINGALDS FOR ALMOST HALF THE COST? What idiot designed this stupidity?
Maybe spend less time being an asshole and trying to come up with colorful insults and look at their stats, or ask someone less lazy nicely, and you’ll probably find the answer to your question more quickly.
Culverins have 2 more range, but there is an imperial tech that gives springalds 2 range making them even. Probably because most civs don’t even get culverins. So the Rus actually can outrage culverins, they have the best springalds with their unique tech.
They said they are nerfing springalds in some way to make them more focused on anti siege, not sure about culverins though, they’ve made no mention of them.
Mongols can get +3 range with the improved version of that tech, which outranges culverins too. Rus springalds end up with 0.5 more range than the Mongol ones.
They mark what each units bonus is against under the unit description. I would like them to be a little clearer Culverins are anti siege like aoe 3. Not sure what else they are good against. But I have used to nail people’s trebuchets from a distance with like two shots
Culverins should be a straight upgrade in damage and range since it’s a higher age unit and more expensive. The civs who only have springalds should keep/have unique benefits to them, but there should never be a situation where armies who bring equal cost in springs vs culverins, and the springs will decisively win because culverins will die before they can even set up
Culverin’s win in lower number fights especially if you have repair vills since it takes 6 springald shots to take down a culverin. The main issue is springalds are a good option vs many units so they frequently get a large mass of them.
On further examination,
The springald range upgrade cannot be taken until imperial, so we can assume springs vs culverins are largely equally upgraded.
So we can assume crossbars because its generally always researched if you are using springs
Springald
Health: 200(240 Upgraded)
11 Ranged Armor
Range: 12(13.5 for Rus)
Damage 60(+20 Siege)
3.31 Attacks
Speed: 1 Tile/s
Culverin
Health: 400(480 Upgraded)
15 Ranged Armor
Range: 12
Damage: 85(+200 Siege)
4.25 Attacks
0.62 Tiles/s
No Setup time
A culverin will always one-shot a spring regardless of health or chemistry upgrade
A spring takes 7 shots to kill a baseline culverin, 8 shots with health upgrade.
In this regard, it would take commanding 8 springalds to target each culverin, where culverins would only need to target one to one.
Springs are 200/200 Wood/Gold, Culverin are 400/600 (Same as a Bombard)
In equal cost, you could have about 10 Springs for the price of 2 culverin. You would probably not care about commanding exactly 8 shots and would just mass fire the 2 down one by one. The culverins would kill about 3 springalds before they fall. In equal value fights, where siege exists with a standard army to guard them, springs should easily beat culverins every time, then proceed to shoot at the rest of your army.
In equal supply, the cost difference would be so massive that the player using springs would lose regardless of if his opponents economy allowed him that much more valuable units.
A did notice a bug on testing. Culverins state they have no setup time, but it’s clear that they have the exact same setup animation time as springs.
These numbers don’t add up: 3 springs cost more than 1 culverin. I think that swings it so the culverins should probably always win, but it’s still closer than you might hope considering the tech tree suggests culverins are the ultimate.
Culverins one shot Springalds. Springalds need 9 to kill a culverin. Culverin also does more damage vs enemy units. Culverins also dont have to pack/unpack so they’ll get to fire first. Culverins are quite decisive in chokepoint fights, you’ll practically win any siege war in Black Forest with culverins maybe except China.