Chu Ko Nu is OP for the cost lol
4 Likes
Arbalest is more useful than Chu Ko Nu and has cheaper upgrades. Chu Ko Nu is also weak against all archers due to 1 less range. Chu Ko Nu isnât that good unit. It has great hp and low cost but it is still meh unit. Maybe decreasing too high 45, 50 hp to 40, 45 hp but it definitely need buff like 10 attack for elite.
Itâs just cheaper and better against anything armored. Dude you should seriously stop while youâre ahead.
3 Likes
What is your problem? You basically want to destroy the identity of a heap of civs, as well as destroying their campaigns. A lot of the campaigns are built around features you want to remove, and in some cases, historical accuracy comes from it as well.
7 Likes
In 1v1, there is no right time to switch to Chu Ko Nu because Chu Ko Nu good against only cavalries and Chinese has already FU Halberdier. I watched videos that Chu Ko Nu performed very bad against infantries. Neither It perform immensely well against cavalry.
Historically Chu Ko Nu doesnât throw mutliple arrow, it is just worse arbalest than European counterpart but it is cheaper-to-produce and easy-to-use. Chinese had great siege units in history and doesnât have good pikeman and camels, thus I proposed to chance this way. Also in history, Camel wasnât used as cavalry except some Arabic tribes because they have no mount other than Camel. Arabs preferred horse as mount over Camel when they have facility to use. Horse is much more expensive to feed than camel btw.
I donât destroy any civ identity. I only proposed to improve their faulty designs. Byzantinesâ so-called identity is just incorrect design. It canât be a defensive civ with no offensive option. It is wrong design. Byzantines has no raiding in addition their pushing army consist of generic Arbalest, 25% cheaper trash and Cataphract which is very bad unit, thus Byzantines need big change.
Please provide these videos. Iâd love to laugh at what they are doing wrong. Viper considers it s tier. Hera a tier.
What you view as faulty and others view as faulty clearly are massively different. And nothing you have ever shown me shows that you have a great understanding of the game.
2 Likes
This video: ELITE CHU KO NU | Best COMMON Counters | Tierlist | Age of Empires 2 - YouTube
Chu Ko Nu is FU in this video, in real game, I remind that it is very hard to make FU. In another video vs unique units, Chu Ko Nu performed fine but it is still 40 Chu Ko Nu in these videos. In normal game, reaching 40 number is very hard. In team game 70 Chu Ko Nu could be good choice because it kill Paladin and Eagle Warrior better than Arbalest. Arbalest is better against infantry, gunpowder units, a lot cheaper upgrades, need no Castle thus easy-to-mass. On the other hand, Chu Ko Nu has 2 advantages: Better against Cavalries and Ram, that is all.
So a microless video. Go figure. Dude. Archers are meant to be microed. If you used those videos as comparisons archers would be in general bad against melee units.
The fact rhat you legit think a video like that has any meaning at all just shows why no one should take you seriously.
4 Likes
Micro change things, on the other hand, it is total resources, infantry units cost so much food and little gold. Arbalest is better in micro and it beats infantries better than Chu Ko Nu without micro. I am sharing Arbalester video, Generic Arbalester performed better. vs unique units. Generic Arbalest shouldnât be better unit than unique archer unit which gain bonus from unique tech in addition.
Arbalester is luckier due to total resources, however Chu Ko Nu is also luckier because in real game, Chu Ko Nu upgrades are too expensive. In real game, continuing to produce Arbalester and Halberdier is better than switch into Chu Ko Nu. Why I switch Chu Ko Nu while I has FU Halberdier. Chu Ko Nu started to do his job after creating 20+ of them. Just going Arbalester feels smoother to me.
Chu ko nu - positives:
- lower gold ratio
- more damage vs high pierce armor units
- more HP
Chu ko nu - negatives: - produced at castle
- worse rof
- lower range
All in all the Chu ko nu is harder to counter and is better long-term because of the lower gold cost.
Itâs a strong unit especially against rams, but it isnât impossible to stop.
4 Likes
I think also massing Chu Ko Nu is big problem. Enemy can punish you until you create 20+ Chu Ko Nu, Longbow hasnât this problem because it die rarely because it has immense range. Chu Ko Nu is more open target for other archers and siege units.
I never said it wasnât impossible to stop. What we said was that
This comment is completely wrong.
1 Like
Can you tell me that Which Chineseâs needs does Chu Ko Nu satisfy. It doesnât feel it is necessary unit, even it is not important for Chinese army compositions. I wouldnât create Chu Ko Nu in late game because 35 gold is still big for late game. In early Imperial Age, Arbalester is cleary better. Chu Ko Nu has very little time frame to be useful unit which is mid Imperial Age.
Itâs strong all arounf and cheaper on gold then arbs making it a good long term value. It also decimates siege unlike arb meaning you donât have to mix in some type of answer to that.
But youâll keep creating arbs at 45 gold a pop lol.
2 Likes
It decimate only Siege Ram, against other sieges it is worse than Arbalester.
No, I wouldnât create Arbalester in late game as well, I use in early-mid Imperial and that is all.
I also I want to talk about "you are destroying civ identities " @TheConqueror753 comment again. Devs destroyed Turks civ identity by giving +1 PA to Scout-line. Before that, Turksâ civ identity was it is a civ that weak against archer, purpose of not giving Elite Skirmisher upgrade was also pointing out Turks civ weak against archers. However, with this +1 PA, Turks gained decent archer counter and Devs changed this civ identity on purpose.
Purpose of forums putting forward new ideas, if you think game is substantially faultless, you should play the game not replying other guys have new ideas.
Because the identity was supposed to be âweak counter unitsâ not weak to archers.
I donât think the game is flawless. But your ideas are downright awful.
4 Likes
Bruh are we seriously discussing how an archer that has 3 more attack than xbows and 4 more than arbs is supposedely bad?
They only look better in this video because they assume that 1 wood = 1 gold, and Chu ko nu cost 5 more res, and there is a hefty amount of randomness. Sometimes you will see bonused units performing worse than generic because at the end of the day the results depend on whether attack move feels like working.
Being a high DPS ranged unit. Chinese donât have siege engineers or hand cannon, so they get a super strong archer unit.
Nope. Their identity was that their only good trash is hussar, so +1 PA still fits.
Well youâre kinda failing to see what 99% of players know already so if anything he is helping you rn.
1 Like
Weak against archer is obvious civ identiy. You canât defend opposite. Turks has gunpowder units, Devs doesnât give Elite Skirmisher on purpose because they think Turks gunpowder will be OP with Skirmisher support. However, their initial plan was wrong, thus they gave very good anti archer unit with +1 PA change.
It is also new idea which is great. Did you see that purpose of forum is arguing not game is fine as it is, âfine as it isâ guys can play the game, they shouldnât interfere guys want to argue. I am following a lot of topic in this Forum and I saw that first comment is like 5 paragraph and it gain 0 like, second comment is 1-4 sentence and it says simply âwhat about noâ, these comments gain 12 likes. I donât think all these guys opened topic had bad ideas. I am sure that at least 20% of them has good ideas but they donât get any corroboration. This is a death certificate for a forum.
1 Like
Then why do they lack pikemen too?
1 Like
And yet people are still here. For example, you will get almost universal pushback if you try and destroy civ identities in the way you suggested, yet Iâm sure you will continue to use the forums. Turks have weak counter units, not a weakness to archers. It reflects how they used heavy duty gunpowder and stuff, but only had a rabble of untrained militia style soldiers to serve as cannon fodder, reflected by missing Pikeman and E-Skirm. The civ that is meant to have an actual weakness to archers is Burmese, and that was too extreme.
No. It was the single fastest rapid fire weapon for centuries, literally until the invention of the machine gun. It doesnât shoot multiple arrows simultaneously, but the way it is depicted in game is pretty accurate. It had a low range though, and was low powered, so the bolts were actually dipped in poison. Therefore, if the goal was to make it super historically accurate, it would have to fire the same way, have like 2 range, and deal insane damage, but almost nothing to buildings.
1 Like