man I love stark
also f historical accuracy
also f historical accuracy
strictly speaking the best way to use them is to patrol them in prematurely so that they fire in a staggered fashion, as in, the units in the front shoot first, then the units behind shoot slightly afterwards and the units at the back shoot last, this means that there is much less overkill because the backline units will not fire until the first row of champions is dead and will therefore shoot at the next champions rather than at the ones which have already diedThe proper way of using them is spread formation, as far apart as you can to get the biggest surface area possible
speaking of historical accuracy 11strictly speaking the best way to use them is to patrol them in prematurely so that they fire in a staggered fashion, as in, the units in the front shoot first, then the units behind shoot slightly afterwards and the units at the back shoot last, this means that there is much less overkill because the backline units will not fire until the first row of champions is dead and will therefore shoot at the next champions rather than at the ones which have already died
when it comes to hand cannons how the **** is it supposed to make any sense with them shooting over/through each other ? With archers it makes sense because they can shoot upwards and the arrows take an arc path, but with cannoneers, they just shoot a bullet in a straight line. Historically the way they work in aoe2 would have them shooting each other 90% of the timespeaking of historical accuracy 11
No what I meant is that the bold part basically describes the tactics that were actually used.when it comes to hand cannons how the **** is it supposed to make any sense with them shooting over/through each other ? With archers it makes sense because they can shoot upwards and the arrows take an arc path, but with cannoneers, they just shoot a bullet in a straight line. Historically the way they work in aoe2 would have them shooting each other 90% of the time
Neither were archers or crossbowmen running around dodging mangonel shots and taking down army of knights by themselves.Well, 90% of the mechanics of this game make no sense from a historical standpoint. HC, however, kinda do. Hussites used wagons/mobile fortifications for their gunners. They didn't run around holding guns and shooting at cavalry, like some people on this thread seem to suggest.
Which, in any case, would point to an issue with archers and xbow rather than with HC.Neither were archers or crossbowmen running around dodging mangonel shots and taking down army of knights by themselves.
Yeah but if we nerf those we can't pretend to get excited over watching pro players micro them.Which, in any case, would point to an issue with archers and xbow rather than with HC.
What else are we supposed to pretend to get excited about?Yeah but if we nerf those we can't pretend to get excited over watching pro players micro them.
What else are we supposed to pretend to get excited about?
Quickwalling of course.What else are we supposed to pretend to get excited about?
Yeah removing stacking alone would be a big step in the right direction for the healthiness of that unit line. Stacking in general is exceptionally lame. I do not understand why it has become such a commonly tolerated mechanic within the RTS genre. It is something that lowers the strategy skillcap of any game where it is a predominant tactical feature.Speaking of historical accuracy, there was no world where 30 archers sat on a tile while being attacked by 2 knights while the rest of 18 knights were watching.
From historical standpoint, first manuscripts from Europe depicting quasi guns comes from early 14th century. However, it is not until half of 16thcentury that handgunners became common sight in armies. During those almost two centuries, guns were used primarily defensively, esecially in sieges. In rare occasions, such as hussites, they were used in "wagon forts", strategically placed in difficult terrain and so on. For centuries, people used guns and bows/crossbows side by side because each had advantages and disadvantages. They did not replace bows early. Even much later, gunners were just fraction of army, such as is case in famous Tercios. Gunners should hardly get a bonus against knights.Neither were archers or crossbowmen running around dodging mangonel shots and taking down army of knights by themselves.
HC really don't make sense. In historical standpoint HC replaced so early bows and crossbows because they were much more effective against heavily armored knights. Bows and crossbows were still faster to shoot, safer to the user and cheaper. Crossbows were also easy to learn. Bows and crossbows could only do damage if you were lucky and hit a gap in the armor.
HC should get an attack bonus against knights if we really go by history.
You are right about most of this but I don't think the part about societal changes is very accurate. Firearms basically just replaced crossbows once the technology matured sufficiently (with developments like the serpentine matchlock and corned powder) that they achieved similar reliability and reload speed.From historical standpoint, first manuscripts from Europe depicting quasi guns comes from early 14th century. However, it is not until half of 16thcentury that handgunners became common sight in armies. During those almost two centuries, guns were used primarily defensively, esecially in sieges. In rare occasions, such as hussites, they were used in "wagon forts", strategically placed in difficult terrain and so on. For centuries, people used guns and bows/crossbows side by side because each had advantages and disadvantages. They did not replace bows early. Even much later, gunners were just fraction of army, such as is case in famous Tercios. Gunners should hardly get a bonus against knights.
Reason why guns replaced bows is as much result of social and economic chanes of late medieval, early modern period just as it is result of military development. Growth of plebeian population, growth of cities, use of professional armies, defensive approach to warfare and many more impulses resulted in guns slowly taking over.
If anything, AoE gunners are one of those more historically accurate units. Lower(effective) range, low accuracy, very slow to reload but very high attack, once it hit target. Use them in choke points/behind walls, or in cooperation with halbs and suddenly they are decent unit. Put them in open field and they die because they are untrained folk lacking discipline and military tradition and experience of professional units and/or nobles.
P.S Not taking sides in this topic, I just enjoy talking about history.
Not if you get defense upgrades on the HC, then they die in 3 hits from Aztec champs just like they do from every other champ (except ones lacking Blast Furnace, which need 4 hits to kill).Handcannon's melt to aztec champs with +8 attack anyway, as soon as the champs catch up it's over. That's probably where a lot of the annoyance came from. Handcannons are already terrible, but against aztec even more so.
Yes and no - it is true that once the technology matured firearms replaced crossbows and bows, yes, but this went hand-in-hand with social changes. Firearms (and crossbows before them) unlike bows, required little training, so they could be handed to untrained men of the lowest ranks of society who had become 'readily available' whether through forced conscription or voluntary enlistment (whether in royal armies, mercenary companies, city militias, or other such armed movements). Perhaps somewhat ironically, some of these people would end up making a career out of warfare. Furthermore, the growth of the cities (which also made some more people of the lower classes 'readily available' for combat) and the incipient development of proto-industrial arms production made firearms a lot easier to manufacture once the technology had advanced enough, while [good] bows still required a more or less 'artisanal' production. Neither of you are wrong in my opinion, but I'm disinclined to disregard societal changes as an important factor in the development and increasing popularity of firearms. All this being said, I'm not in the field of military history so I don't intend anyone to just take my word for it :PYou are right about most of this but I don't think the part about societal changes is very accurate. Firearms basically just replaced crossbows once the technology matured sufficiently (with developments like the serpentine matchlock and corned powder) that they achieved similar reliability and reload speed.
Well if we are treating drawn bows as distinct from crossbows/arbalest then I think you say nothing really changed with firearms because the majority of European armies during the medieval time period did not substantially use drawn bows due to the production and training factors you and @IvIaximus brought up. The societal factors are there but I think more appropriately placed around the time when Europeans started using the crossbow. Firearms represent an evolution of that weapon type more than something novel, imo.Yes and no - it is true that once the technology matured firearms replaced crossbows and bows, yes, but this went hand-in-hand with social changes. Firearms (and crossbows before them) unlike bows, required little training, so they could be handed to untrained men of the lowest ranks of society who had become 'readily available' whether through forced conscription or voluntary enlistment (whether in royal armies, mercenary companies, city militias, or other such armed movements). Perhaps somewhat ironically, some of these people would end up making a career out of warfare. Furthermore, the growth of the cities (which also made some more people of the lower classes 'readily available' for combat) and the incipient development of proto-industrial arms production made firearms a lot easier to manufacture once the technology had advanced enough, while [good] bows still required a more or less 'artisanal' production. Neither of you are wrong in my opinion, but I'm disinclined to disregard societal changes as an important factor in the development and increasing popularity of firearms. All this being said, I'm not in the field of military history so I don't intend anyone to just take my word for it :P
That would depend on where you draw the boundaries of Europe, though. In Britain, where archers were also drawn from a 'middle' class, longbows were still well in use in the 15th century, and in the Ottoman Empire archery still played a role in the 16th century (although some of the social changes described were not present in most of the Ottoman lands).Well if we are treating drawn bows as distinct from crossbows/arbalest then I think you say nothing really changed with firearms because the majority of European armies during the medieval time period did not substantially use drawn bows due to the production and training factors you and @IvIaximus brought up. The societal factors are there but I think more appropriately placed around the time when Europeans started using the crossbow. Firearms represent an evolution of that weapon type more than something novel, imo.
Yeah those (and Japan) are notable exceptions. Does make the Janissary seem a little curious as a unique unit.That would depend on where you draw the boundaries of Europe, though. In Britain, where archers were also drawn from a 'middle' class, longbows were still well in use in the 15th century, and in the Ottoman Empire archery still played a role in the 16th century (although some of the social changes described were not present in most of the Ottoman lands).