Historically speaking hand cannons were crap. The only good thing about them was the “fear” damage they did against armies and when they do hit, did pierce armor very easily. However you will see more soldiers run than killed but that only lasts for so long. Now if they added in an upgrade called the arquebus, that is a completely different story. The arquebus started to see more use over the typical crossbow because they were more accurate and more accuracy means more killing. With more killing, more soldiers were running away even faster and the crossbows started to get phased out. Then of course the muskets came out and that put the nail in the coffin for crossbows because they were essentially more powerful longbows and military doctrine was beginning to change to the point that swords only really belonged to cavalry units because they were fast enough to directly deal with the new military doctrine. What I’m trying to say is, cannons was a major improvement before the hand cannon evolved into the musket. If morale was a thing in this game, then no question the hand cannon unit will be “better” but then this isn’t AoE. Even then I will still hesitate to use hand cannoneers unless the situation demanded it.
I think that simply increasing the projectile velocity should help them tremendously. Tbh it makes no sense when a hand cannon bullet travels more slowly than an arrow.
@@ekim613 or they should eliminate the projectile animation while using a mechanic that maintains the same accuracy levels. Just leave out the dely and allow for better fine tuning of the fire animation or accuracy.
@@roganmorrow Maybe it could make gun units fire faster instead. Or give organ guns more/more powerful secondary bullets. Or some other bonus that I haven't thought of.
Fun fact: in the original Age of Kings you had to research a tech, Hand Cannon, after researching Chemistry before you could create Hand Cannoneers at all. That tech was 450 food, 200 gold, and AoK hand cannoneers were even worse than they are today.
Well guys I think it's worth mentioning that the Multiplayer and even remotely difficult AI are anything but beginner friendly. I've been playing it since I was a kid and I still can't pull a fast castle in 15 minutes.
It doesn't make much sense for one mass of troops blindly firing into another, but there's an argument to be made that you're likely to do more damage to the target you're aiming at because you're likely aiming at the center of mass or head. Also, I suppose if you miss, you're somewhat more likely to hit something behind the target (and thus at a greater range and lower impact velocity).
@@oiii3538 A bit harder to code in, sure. A need for rng to be introduced? not necessarily. It could be as simple as setting the damage based on how far the shot is from the center of the potential impact area, like an archery target.
I always thought that Hand Cannoneers should have been a Unit that ignored enemy Armour, and thus being an Anti-Armour Unit (which would be fitting historically) And when this ability was given to the Leitis I thought on behalf of the Hand Cannoneer: "Am I a joke to you?"
I don't know all the unique units, but wouldn't ignoring armour be a hard counter to some of them? It wouldn't be a good balancing decision to let many civilications have access to a hard counter. That fits much better with a specific unique unit like the Leitis.
That is not true Hand cannoniers where anti-armor unit historically. Do you know why winged hussars didnt' care that much about musket fire? Because armor of soldier on top of horse was literally impenetrable by musket shot in front. What is more true about muskets/hand cannoniers historically, is that they had good firepower in quite close range, but on long range (100m) they were easly outperformed by bows or crossbows. The true anti-armor ranged weapon of middle ages is actually crossbow
There are plenty of demonstration videos made (if you are curious) where gunpowder is tested for armour-penetration. You would be surprised to see that gunpowder did NOT penetrate plate armour ; especially in the period of 1350-1450 which would be, the "imperial age" of AoE 2.
@@piotrj333 Crossbows where never an anti-armor weapon. The really heavy ones had the same power as longbows. Either way, neither of them come close to penetrate plate. There's a reason why knights on full plate began to favor polearms and 2 handers. As armor got better, the need for using shields was no more. Only way for an arrow or bolt to damage them was if It got in a gap only protected by the mail+padding, and even then It woukd have to be in close range to be able to go through.
Isn't it also historically accurate that late-medieval handcannons weren't a pure upgrade over the arbalest and heavy crossbow? I always believed it wasn't till the early renaissance with the introduction of weapons like the musket that handheld gunpowder weapons really started to outpace traditional archery and crossbows. So perhaps the best solution would be to give the Handcannoniers an additional upgrade into Musketmen, though that might be treading a bit too much into AoE3 territory
Actually it wasn't until repeating rifles in the 1800's that firearms surpassed archery overall in terms of real life "damage output". The reason firearms were rolled out before that (and crossbows as well) was because of the training level required for use. Sure, a master archer even today outshines most riflemen, but that takes years of dedicated training and lifestyle. Looking at modern infantry, boot camp is only a couple of months and not all of that is firearm related training either. Now imagine late medieval levies. Yeah. Point and shoot versus the complicated nuance of bowcraft made the adoption of firearms and crossbows a no-brainer. TLDR, you are correct that handcannons weren't a pure upgrade.
The problem is that the thing that made gunpowder weapons attractive was that they were actually cheaper to use since they required less training, yes the weapon itself could be more complex but a longbow archer needs to train for life and so does a crossbow archer. The main appeal was that you could cheaply mass them up and that they had a strong morale effect (as in gunpowder weapons look and sound terrifying), the last thing can't be represented in AoE so the closest thing would be high damage. So really right now in the game they almost have the opposite role from what they did historically.
In fact, crossbows were used more recently than hand cannons were. By the early sixteenth century hand cannons were rendered obsolete by arquebuses, but crossbows were widely used until the mid sixteenth century.
@@Meloncov Being rendered obsolete is not the same thing as not being used. All pike formations were completely obsolete by Napoleonic wars, yet they were used for first few years of it because size of armies exploded and you had nothing else to arm that conscript brigade over there with. With hand cannon using the same powder as the rest of your army did, I am strangely sure they were used alongside other guns into 17th century if simply to increase number of shots, conscripts were cheap, guns were expensive.
@@KuK137 General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate army no joke wanted to include companies of Pikeman in each of the armies he had control of. It never wound up coming to pass.
I've always only ever used hand cannoneers when I was caring about styling. It just seems like archers are an easier option unless your feudal strat was scout rush into fast imp, which is such an odd strat these days. Otherwise it's completely natural to be upgrading the Archer line, and why I'm more on the side it's easier to get the Archer upgrades. In any case I'll probably stick to paladins cause it's a singular unit you can mass and win in low elo
I think HC may be interesting for Goths since it is easy to tech into and they don't have Arbalest. But then again, the problem with Goths is reaching imp.
@@DuckieMcduck As a Goth fan, Hand Cannoneers are a lifesaver if you find yourself facing a Byzantine opponent. Their cataphracts specialize in chewing through masses of infantry.
I think a big thing holding hand cannons back is a unit matchup that's vitally important I think a lot of people aren't considering: the villager. The villager is precisely the kind of low-hp, low pierce armor unit that the arb wins out against, and I think the fact that a small group of arbs can put itself behind a woodline and reliably kill vils in a single shot whereas hand cannons would need to both get closer be effective and are less reliable makes arbs far more useful as a raiding unit. You can see in Game 7 of the Clown Cup 3 finals how often Janissaries, which are better against vils than hand cannons, struggle to pick off vils even at close range in situations where you would expect arbs to slaughter. They may function about the same in the majority of matchups as arbs, but arbs can raid better, we're stuck again with relatively pointless hand cannons.
They just come at different points of the game. Arbalest are the biggest Early-Imperial boon you can get, and they usually finish of the game at that point as well through raiding, annihilating late-castle armies and map control. Hand Cannons comes into play after Chemistry and after some brief massing after that into a Mid to Late-Imperial game. Raiding is rarely an option anymore since Castles are defending anything relevant and games are usually decided by who can exert the strongest pressure with their main army (if things doesn't devolve into a trash war - Hand Cannons will devolve you into trash later by the way -) over the enemy's one. In that case Arbalest's ability to snipe out a couple villagers are kinda irrelevant since the game is decided by then (there is not enough space for the enemy to expand and continue the fight). And here the video is kinda interesting about to decide if you should swap from Arbalest to Hand Cannons or mix a few of them, in the case you are playing any of the 4 civs where this is relevant anyway (all the other Hand Cannon civs lacks Arbalest or lacks most archer upgrades or have huge bonuses to Hand Cannons). They are more about supporting your main force than being the main force themselves. Worth noting that Arbalest are also a lot costlier to tech in. If you didn't go Crossbows in Castle then you can just skip Archer-line and go straight with some Hand Cannoners for ranged support and save up 4k resources. Sure, they don't kill villagers that well, but they still kill vills from range, and might not be worth spending thousand resources into a villager killer in just teching.
@@MsNyara If you didn't tech into crossbows or an archer unique unit, unless you're goths you probably teched into knights or some kind of cav in castle age. You generally want to mix a gold unit with a non-gold unit to counter its weaknesses, and save some kind of full trash setup or the very rare fast imp, you'll likely have already teched into a gold unit in castle age. Having to add hand cannons on top of that rapidly becomes prohibitively expensive. If you're talking about a unit to support your primary force, you're not going to be comparing hand cannons to arbs, you're comparing hand cannons to skirms. Sure, you're spending some res on Elite Skirm, thumb ring, the archer attack upgrades and ballistics that you might not get with hand cannons but in total that's 655 gold, 900 food, and 780 wood, which isn't really a lot. 2990 total converted res using the 1 gold = 2 wood/food conversion used in the video. With a skirm costing 60 converted res, and the Hand Cannon costing 145, you'll have saved the total cost of the investment by just 35 skirms. Plus, you can start massing skirms before chemistry comes in, and they'll last you until after your gold runs out as it will very quickly if you add hand cannons to an already gold-intensive army. Meaning you'll likely need to buy all of those upgrades anyway because of your poor resource management. Even then, you might want things like ballistics and the archer attack upgrades for your castles, towers, and TC's. AND EVEN THEN skirms have better range, pierce armor, can hit moving targets, counter most ranged units, and have bonus damage against halbs, the most common infantry unit in the game. Your gold is better used either on your main force or on things like bombard cannons, rams, or trebs, which will actually support your main force by being able to push castles and other buildings, unlike hand cannons. And my point was more that arbs are far more flexible than hand cannons as the primary gold unit in your army. They kill practically everything just as well as hand cannons, and in many cases better, and since they kill vils easier, they're more useful for raiding and damaging eco, which helps you win. There's a reason you rarely see hand cannons at the top level. They're too niche, and the thing they're good at isn't even really enough to justify teching into them.
Honestly if hand canoners cleared halberdiers better, they wouldn't be a bad unit. Sure they are more fragile, they are harder to micro, they are shorter ranged, and they lose against arbalests head on, but if they could be a great infantry killer, it doesn't matter that they take forever to kill a villager. As we see in 5:31... they aren't even good at _that._
Very excited to see one of my thumbnails (0:08) in a video of my youtube hero! I wrote a program to do these unit vs units fights automatically. It counts the remaining HP, runs every fight 5 times, takes the average, sets everything up in the editor, etc. SotL please feel free to use my footage directly if you want so you don't have re-do the fights yourself! Great video as always :)
@AgeArena There already exists such a program and the devs used it for the original Age of Kings. Take a look at the leaked Alpha and Beta versions of the game if you want to test the out yourself (go to Zero Empires video on the alpha and in the comments you'll find someone asking for the download link and someone else posting the mega link).
When doing these videos, it might be fun if you reach out to some pro players and ask them to predict the results of all the tests you did for the video, in order to see how good their intuition is.
they need to be buffed anyway, they are hardly better than many civs' arbs or most ranged unique units... in comparison to chu ko nus they completely pale
If you just buff their infantry advantage then I think leaving Janisaries as they are is fine. Even non-elite ones have +1 range and a much better frame delay than HC.
I would say, math aside, that one of the biggest frustrations of using gunpowder units is very slow movement of bullet... I think, first thing to buff is increasing the speed of a bullet.
So taking into account that the further away a hand canoneer is from his target the more innacurate he becomes, does this mean that researching the Indians unique tech(Shatagni) is actually, paying to get ripped off? I mean you increase the range of hand cannoneers so does that make them even more inacurate?
Depends on how you quantify it. One perspective is that you are more inaccurate and thus lose damage since you are going to be engaging at maximum range more often. The other perspective is that by being able to engage from a longer range you'd still benefit since you'd previously not be able to deal damage at all from that range and you can always get closer ( or the enemies will get closer to you) to increase accuracy.
every ranged unit has a programmed accuracy. If a unit shoots and the RNG generates a miss, the bullet will go wide in a certain radius around the target. Sometimes the bullet will actually hit the enemy anyway (and thus deal damage). At short range the chance of this happening is larger, so at short range the accuracy is higher than programmed. However at max range the chance to miss is close to the programmed accuracy. So maybe you get like 2% more miss chance.
@@GuilhermeMiranda89 Remember Portuguese get ballistics on gunpowder units, although I don't know how that stacks with HC's bad accuracy. Do they hit every shot or they calculate an enemy unit's movement and then roll the hit/miss?
I think the biggest issue for hand cannons is that even for their optimal role, they are usually outclassed by other units. High pierce armor units already have plenty of natural counters. For example, if you're fighting huskarls, how often is adding 10 hand cannons going to be a better option than adding 10 more champions (or even more, if gold is the limiting factor)? I'm guessing almost never. If I was to change them, I would increase their raw damage (or alternatively, increase their fire rate a bit), increase the missed shot damage to 100%, and further reduce their accuracy. The design goal would be that hand cannons would be an effective volley weapon. Relatively inefficient against single targets, but significantly more effective than arbalests against massed targets. In both small and large fights, arbalests would have moderate value. On the other hand, hand cannons would have low value in small fights, and high value in big fights.
HC main purpose is to have a quick counter to infantry in late imp when you didn't tech into arbs or champs. They are not supposed to be better than other counters. They are just supposed to be easier to get in a pinch.
@@caracaes Personally, I think they're too spendy in terms of gold for that. If they were a bit cheaper, I think that role would be a bit bland, but at least balanced.
@@dragovern Yeah they dont. They are also more inaccurate, and cost more. 5 extra attack and 1 higher range doesn't justify it for elite Janissaries, although the castle age Janissary is insane.
@@davidawesome4569 The Jannisarie is more like a all-rounder compared to the HC. HC is indeed better against infantry but the Jannisaries do better everything else. They are also quite tankier than HC. In Castle Age a group of Jannisaries is quite strong, where you can't even build HC in Castle Age. So Jannisaries do have their Pro's and Con's.
Good observation,b ut I'm not a fan of the "if the pros do it, that outweighs other considerations" approach. Pros also do research and test things out in the editor and watch videos like this, besides amassing tons of practical experience. Research/arguments that disagrees with "whatever is, is good" is still needed. Sometimes the meta is pushed along by finding small advantages here or there...
I think a couple key takeaways for me were: That the upgrades are important to keep in mind (far fewer upgrades to get upgrades hand cannons on the field). If you haven't already been speccing into archers by the imperial age but need some ranged units in your comp, HCs can be a great option. Population efficiency. Especially if you're in a team game with trade, HCs start to become more attractive. I seriously didn't think of most of the points you made, so I really think I understand a lot better! I'm excited to play around with them more now that I understand their strengths and weaknesses besides the simple "HC good against infantry".
@@Skewebjor hand cannoneers are generally have a lot of randomness in the fights due to their average accuracy. considering the available techs and bonuses available, then the turks and the spanish should be on the top of the list (which helped by the fact they have their own gunpowder UU as well) which, in my opinion, the ranks is probably gonna be similar to the gunpowder list ones. maybe in the order : 1. turks - free chemistry, bonus hp, + janissaries 2. spanish - blacksmith bonus, faster HCs, + conqs 3. italians - discounted, can hold against gunpowders w/ condos 4. portuguese - less gold on HCs, ballistics 5. indians - bonus range, gold work rate
Hand Cannons are a good, quick switch when you've gone full cavalry and the opponent has large numbers of halbs and/or camels, in maps with a lot of gold. It's much faster to just get chemistry than to full tech into Champions or Arbalesters.
awwww yeee, A SOTL video. I love how all channels even massive ones take a while till people show up to the videos but here everyone immediately clicks when they see your notification.
this video makes me proud of the job we did on hand cannoneers. Our goal really was that every late game unit would have times it was the "best" so that there was never One Right Choice. Seems like at least with hand cannoneeers and arbalests we pulled it off.
I agree it's good to have every unit be situationally powerful, but I wish the projectile velocity was faster on hand cannons vs arbalest and they had pierce armor, just so it was little bit more historically accurate
I think this was a bad choice. Hand cannoneers have the disadvantage of being harder to micro and they're supposed to specialize as anti-infantry, heck the original counter guide said so. They should be resource efficient at killing halberdiers. At 6:51, we see this is not the case. If hand cannoneers were the best anti-infantry unit at straight paper anti infantry DPS, that wouldn't necessarily mean they were the one best choice. They'd have some overkill even if their on paper DPS was superior. They'd still be more fragile. They'd still be harder to micro, and they still would be inferior to the archer line against light armor non-infantry units (which is most non-Paladin-clone unique units). In other words even with a larger anti-infantry bonus, hand cannoneers and arbalasts wouldn't still be a one size fits all and the hand cannoneers would at least do what they're supposed to do. It would make the arbalests the generalist ranged unit and the hand cannoneer the anti-infantry specialist. And some people might still prefer arbalests for anti infantry if only for getting more milage out of micro. Edit: I'd thought I'd add that 7 arbalests beat 7 hand cannoneers. True hand cannoneers aren't even "anti archer" but "anti-infantry" but if B beats A and B is also easier to micro, A should at least be cost effective at what A is suppose to specialize in. I don't think you guys pulled it off since the damage to infantry bonus is just too small. I can see how one might see this balancing as a success if the hand cannoneers beat the archer line or had more anti-pikeman DPS when you consider gold is made by selling food, but it does neither well. Or maybe balancing was done in a logical way before thumbring and after that tech the hand canonner just was a sad unit?
what do you mean? this video shows that in every real scenario (real meaning ones that would actually happen in a game and not a scenario editor) the hand cannon needs a massive buff. tbh the hand cannon should be as strong as elite janissaries, with janissaries being even stronger.
My suggestion would be to add two techs: Firing Stands: Increases accuracy of Hand Cannoneers. (This “solves” the HC’s fundamental & extreme weakness to cavalry, as well as making them perform much better against infantry) Refined Saltpeter: Doubles HC damage bonus against infantry, and increase their anti-building damage. (This gives them the true crown as the anti-infantry monsters they should be, as well as a secondary function of improving their ability to destroy buildings) Having these be generic techs is ideal, because then the HC doesn’t just feel like a second unique unit. It also allows for some gradation of performance, especially if HC civs could get one or both techs for free (a nice buff to the Portugeuse would be to get Firing Stands for free).
Also Rifling makes them 100% accurate vs non-moving targets. Rifling was invented in 1498 the reason why it wasn't so common until the 19th century was because of fouling in the barrel was harder to clean.
I think the poor accuracy is very appropriate thematically - historically they were pretty inaccurate and worked best against large formations of infantry
@@volk551 Rifling required slower reloading though, until the Minie Ball in the 1800s. Musket stands were a thing, and probably more period appropriate.
@@Septimus_ii That's a terrible and useless mindset. AoE2 is a competitive video game, and balancing things exactly according to history doesn't work. There are a preponderance of ahistorical things about AoE2, so don't even think about trying to justify a unit being obsolete by referring to history.
I personally, instead of buffing their HP or attack bonus, would decrease their cost (in gold more than food) and their training time. This would also match the historic reality.
I did it once. It was a game of King of the Hill. I just stayed in the corner just building up a massive army and then I just swooped in. I don't know if it was that they were hand cannoneers, but at a certain point, I just had enough troops to just win.
I didn't either until I started watching these videos. I mean I would make them if I was making every unit or just try them out sometimes for fun but I wouldn't actually focus on them.
Yeah, I’ve always kind of thought they weren’t that good. That being said, I’ve still used them with some civs, if they have bonuses or something but I tend to prefer arbs but I’ve always been a DM player.
I just used them for the first tike against teutonic knights Because I didn’t have the time to upgrade archers And they werend even that good And that was the best case scenario for them
Something worth noting is that there is considerable overlap between civilizations that have Hand Cannoneers and civilizations that DON'T have Arbalests (only nine out of forty-two civilizations have both, six have neither, and the remaining twenty-seven have one or the other).
I feel like a really important point you missed out is that most civs with hand cannoneer don't have full archer upgrades anyway. Malians and teutons don't have bracer for instance, and Spanish don't even have crossbow.
Yeah really only a few civs like Japan have to make that choice. Though I'd argue Japan should be a infantry+gunpowder civ, historically speaking it makes sense. I'd love to see arbs removed from them exchanged for improved hand canoneers.
@@Atilla_the_Fun Not at all, the most famous thing about Japan is it's horse archers, known as samurai xD But horse archers were taken. They were also the first country to go full matchlock. Famously they made a stupid number of castles too, but that was also taken xD However they didn't go too big into cannons or anything like that, as their method of castle building didn't leave them very vulnerable anyway, & japan has bad terrain for them. The one thing they didn't really have was too much infantry specialisation, using peasants to fill the ranks of spears. Samurai were either horse archers or mounted spearmen. The swords they carried are famously backup weapons, incase they lose their bow or spear or matchlock. They are half naked in AoE2 xD
@@carbon1255 The first country to go full matchlock....which is only represented by hand cannoneers in this game. They should have a hand cannoneer civ bonus
@@carbon1255what you're saying isn't entirely true either. When Japan invaded Korea, their biggest advantage was in the quality of melee infantry and mass firearms. Japan didn't use Mongol like horse archer harassment tactics en masse
One thing I feel like you missed is the Incan Unique Unit, the Slinger, since the slinger is basically built to fill the same anti-infantry role as the hand cannoneer, but is available one age earlier, affected by fletching/bodkin/bracer, chemistry, and ballistics in exchange for a lower base damage. As you discussed in your Incas overview about the whole "Eagle/Slinger/Kamayuk deathball", the niche of something to obliterate heavy cavalry is already filled in for the Incas, and they're only there for their merit against Infantry, which is still something that Kamayuk arguably do well against in straight fights. Are Incan slingers stuck in the same boat as the other civ's HCs or do slingers have things going for them (faster to tech into, easier to mass pre-imp than HC) that make them a clear choice over Incan Arbalests?
Slingers are easier to make than Kamayuk and unlike the Kamayuk can attack infantry from afar. Against infantry civilizations the slingers absolutely shred. Especially when mixed in with skirmishers for anti-archer. Kamayuks are best used for rapidly taking down buildings and cavalry, not fighting other infantry, even if they're okay for it.
It'd be interesting if hand cannons' shots would spill thru like a scorpion shot but only if they killed the initial target. This would help deal with the problem of overkills, and give them more of an edge against mass'd units.
One thing that bothers me about AOE2 Archery (speaking as someone who shoots both bows and crossbows) is that crossbows don't have range, damage, or rate of fire advantages over a decent bow. The extreme draw weight of the crossbow (some exceeding 2500 lbs) is offset by the extremely short power stroke (6-6.5 inches being common for a medieval crossbow). In contrast the draw weight of a war bow (90-200 pounds, generally though between 120 and 160 pounds) is comparable in terms of total energy thanks to its much larger draw distance (28-32 inches). What I think would make sense is to have 3 base units for foot range units at an archery range; Archer (costs gold and wood, good damage, range, rate of fire, long creation time), Crossbow (costs gold and wood, good damage, decent range (1-2 less than a bow), slow rate of fire, very short creation time), and Skirmisher (costs wood and food, poor damage, range, decent rate of fire, short creation time, very high pierce armor). This is because the advantage of the crossbow is twofold: 1) the crossbowm user can keep it drawn for significant lengths of time without tiring, something that a regular archer can not do and 2) the time it takes to become a good shot with a crossbow is significantly less than a bow (on the order of months to years of regular practice compared to a few days to weeks).
That's a very good point. It would never get implemented in aoe2 (way too big a change), but your approach seems much better. In that case, HC would maybe be better as a unit trained from the barracks or SW, getting infantry armor upgrades, which makes sense as they were not archers
If Im not running an archer civ and I have gunpowder options, I'm running Hand Cannons and Bombards. There are few things quite so satisfying as a a line of Teutonic Knights advancing with a support of guns and trebuchets.
I think they definitely could use a buff, for example making them cheaper much cheaper on food since guns did not require as much training as archery or maybe upgrade for their guns, one of those.
It makes sense that the archery line would be strong due to it existing since 20,000 BCE and guns still being in their infancy during the late medieval age.
@@johnnywithshades6001 From your point of view, game developers should make Mesoamerican, African and Southeast Asian civs pretty weak because in real history, they don't have strong states and armies.
@@Asterix958 I don't think the devs should make the game painstakingly accurate to real history. I was just pointing out that it makes sense for archery to be better due to how it was quicker to use a bow then a matchlock gun that was inaccurate at long range and took 60 seconds to reload.
@@johnnywithshades6001 Reload time is not that much important because gun can kill a man just one shot. You can't do this with arrow. Also guns are cheaper and riflemans train faster than archers but game think otherwise. After 1450s, guns start to totally dominate battles. Even before 1450s, guns are commonly used but still bows remain its position.
You overlook a significant thing about overkilling! When in mass, overkilling means way more damage goes to waste. You have only considered the case when there is one unit, but think about it this way: the wasted damage is a constant c, such that 0
You are ignoring that food burden of HC at a stage in the game where many units are already consuming a lot of food. HC just add another burden in your farm eco to keep up.
Since AoE2 is a game centered around the medieval period, i think that the hand canoneers are in a good spot. While they were used in the medieval era in specific situations, Archers and crossbowmen were seen a lot more often on the battlefield. Hand canoneers fill a specific role wich makes them a rather sutuational unit, just like they were irl.
When listing civ bonuses, don't forget that Teutons' cheaper farms effectively means you can have a few less lumberjacks eating up pop space to support a maxed-out army. Also, they've got great bonuses for your shielding infantry/siege.
This buff needed for hand cannoneer: - Increase accuracy from 65% to 75% - Give an elite version for it - Gain affect from ballistics; and - Maybe gain 5+ bonus damage to cavalry
hey spirit, i think you missed another point against the handcannoniers: if you have a lot of them (big lategame fights), ranged units often target the same unit which results in overkills. a faster attackspeed means less chance to get massive overkill (same dps). id even prefer 1/3 less dps with 2-3 times the attackspeed just to get less overkills in big fights
hi, would like to know what do you think about placing a mill near deers, is it worth it, is it better to bring deers close to tc with the scout, is it different if there are three or four deer? thanks!
I would say: Moving the Deer to the mill with the scout is better as it gives you more freedom to place the Mill where you want. But herding them like that requires quite some attention and scout time, wich may be better spend doing other stuff. Like scouting with the scout. I guess spirit needs a way to quantise the whole "mill placement" thing.
Depends on what's in between them and your TC and how many there are. If it looks like micro with the scout would be a pain to navigate then it's probably better to just mill them and micro the villagers instead.
if your berries and deer are on the same side of the TC then try and share the mill, otherwise try and lure with the scout. you can also lure the 2nd boar to the mill if it's on the way
@@deepakdhanavelkumarravikum8458 If it doesn't mess up your build there's no problem with luring deer. I only do it on closed maps tho since on open maps like arabia exploring is more valuable than extra food
one other factor about hand cannoneers is their effect on garrisoning keeps and castles. Hand cannoneers with their higher base damage will contribute more arrows to the building's firing. They can also impact Bombard Towers since a fully cannoneered Teuton Bombard tower will fire 2 shots instead of one. This is a minor factor for the most part but something worth noting
I think the one advantage hand cannons should have is that they shouldn't have any delay between shooting and hitting the target - as it would be in reality. Thus, they shouldn't need ballistics and they would be better to micro.
How many hand cannons can you make with the extra resources that it costs to tech fully into archers? this can give a break even point And how does ballistics affect actual fights instead of target practise?
If you are to buff the Hand cannoneers, to bring them more in line with the Arbalests, one idea I can think of would be to introduce a new "Rifling" tech to the university that becomes available after chemistry, which gives a small boost to accuracy and damage for hand cannons. Though that may be a bit too far ahead historically, Wikipedia says the first invention of rifling was 1498.
I barely even play this game, but I feel like SOTL was definitely inclined toward Hand Cannoneers, showing them in an as-good-as-possible light. 4:16: Taking the side of the HC here, but ignoring mostly arguments that Arbalest can be used much earlier, and that Arbalests will be developed quite far by the time you need to choose between either them or HC. I think a more fair comparison between the 2 in development costs would be when we would only take the Imperial Age costs into account. That would disregard both the pre-imperial costs of the Arbalests but also the opportunity to use them. 5:48: You conclude that Hand Cannons do more damage than Arbalests purely based on the assumption that all their missed shots will hit something else and do 50% damage to that. That's a bit of stretch if you ask me. Not only will they barely ever hit a different target, but those are also not the intended for the Hand Cannoneer to hit. Like what if the other target it hits is a stone wall? Sure, it adds to the Hand Cannoneer's damage output, but it's effect on gameplay is (extremely close to) 0. I would therefore nuance the overall conclusion. 8:22: We are not testing it with infantry rushing the HC or Arbalests (Arbalests would come out positively out of this test) 8:45: Taking some SPECIFIC unique units in which the HC dóes perform better because of their unique stats. Though definitely worth the mention, let's keep in mind these are the unique exceptions.. And like you did say but I feel I must repeat, this should be the HC's specialty, and it's mostly losing out to Arbalests. I definitely think the unit needs a buff. EDIT: Just an edit because my original comment seems very offensive: I liked the video, and the analysis is good and it's obvious a lot of thought went into the tests and performing them! I just had the feeling that the HC had a bit of an unearned spotlight.
Since this video they have had some buffs: Accuracy 65% to 75% Attack dispersion(not sure what this is but probably effects projectile deviation when "missing") 0.75 to 0.5 Hp 35 to 40 Projectile speed 5.5 to 7.5 so missing ballistics isn't as detrimental(arb has projectile speed of 7 btw)
Given the research tree for both, I would also point out that switching into hand cannons is much faster than switching into arbalest. If you need a counter to infantry immediately in the late game, and you have chemistry, you can instantly use them. Archers are not a valid option until you researched a whole lot of upgrades, especially crossbow and arbalest. With hand cannons you also only commit the resources for the units themselves. If you are switching to arbalest, you are sinking a lot of resources into tech. So I would add another situation where hand cannons come in handy (badam tss): to do an immediate, temporary switch against infantry.
If Hand cannons are buffed Militia line needs general buff + theres desperate need for a ranged counter to knights. I actually think because onagers deal so well with infantry and ranged, the scorpion could be changed in specialisation against high armored and mounted units, which it generally always was. They penetrated pierce armor and could even dismount (which could be reflected in a damage bonus). In addition to this, there could be a late-game tech increasing health of any infantry unit by 20 - 30 %, so they are better balanced generally (some infantry civs don't get this tech, because their infantry is already quite good). Then you can give hand cannons a big damage bonus against infantry, like 20 or even more. Actually @sotl: Hand cannons die hard to almost all other ranged units, that's a big downside, you forgot to announce in the video. Like now, Infantry is in general just weak, even with supplies (there are some exceptions). There's actually almost no need for a hard-counter against infantry.
I think another point to the Hand Cannoneer's favor is if you're not a particularly strong archer civ, it can offer some relatively effective ranged support in a pinch. Because you save the resources in not researching archer offensive techs or Bracer or any upgrade techs (Crossbowman/Arbalest) you can get some of these out on the field relatively easily. I think that's where a lot of their value comes in: if you get them and you don't have a good Arbalest line, they're going to be the only real game in town for an infantry ranged support unit beyond the Skirmisher. I do agree with Spirit's point about increasing their bonus damage against Infantry a smidge, though.
*Developer watches SoTL video*, *doesn't understand the math*, *goes with what forum say because popular vote!* *put some random value in code, releases next patch* Everybody: Hand Cannoners are broken! They are new 'photon men'! Italians: let me introduce you to my friend Tony!
TBH if we were being historically accurate, the hand cannoneer should be vastly cheaper and/or quicker to train. This is the reason they won out against (cross)bows, which required far more practice and investment to sufficiently train, despite the latter being more accurate, longer ranged, and faster-firing. And if we're going for even very early hand cannons, (as seen in Europe, at least) they should have pretty good armor as well.
That's why guns won against bows. As compared to crossbows, firing speed and difficulty of training were comparable. Guns win out on stopping power, armor piercing, and ease of transporting ammunition.
Historically early firearms weren't better than bows. Their main advantage was that it was easier to train to use them instead of longbows/composite bows (although the unit we have to compare them to uses crossbow which are also relatively easier to learn). So an appropriate buff could be to reduce their train time drastically, so they are at least better at their niche role of being good in a fast imp.
From what this vid says it feels like hc could be treated as a harder to use, more expansive version of archer(hard to micro, need better protection) with added benefit of population efficiency and better performance against high pierce armour units. That actually sounds fair enough and the number shows that the devs definitely take into consideration of the balance Honestly I think the reason most ppl prefer archers over hc is just that when imperial hits there are usually archers in your army so you just stick with them. Maybe giving hc a castle age version(much like giving eagles a feudal version) could bump up their usage a bit
I would reduce their production time personally, after all you already need Chemistry before you can even begin to field them, it makes me little sense they also take so long to produce.
There isn't really any reason to pick the HC over the arbalest. I mostly see the HC is an arbalest substitute for civs who either lack archer line upgrades or players who didn't tech into them but still want strong anti-infantry.
I really like the idea to give them a castle age version. But then im reminded that infantry is already useless, and need a buff, not even yet another counter earlier. Archers need to be nerfed, not HC buffed imo. Make arbalest upgrade more expensive. Even crossbow upgrade. It's just too strong how you can mass them and then quickly upgrade them to gain insane advantage.
Not only that, but no thumb ring or bracer. I use them exclusively when I need ranged units as teutons, also due in part to cheaper farms making food easier to mass
Hand Cannoneers paired with Elite Skirms with a fully upgraded Knight line has been my most tech/resource expedient means of building a well rounded bulwark. It's initially less expensive than a FULLY upped combo of skirms/archers/knights and can be produced quicker in my opinion. Once the initial bulwark is brought into play then I'll eventually phase out hand cannoneers with fully upped archers and place Hand Cannoneers as siege support.
I never understood why people value food as much as wood post imp? To cut wood you need a villager's worth of investment. To farm, you need to invest into both a villager and a farm and also periodically reseed it. This makes it much easier to mass wood-costing units than food-costing ones.
I once played a 4v4 where it came down to mass hand cannons vs mass paladins. They were surprisingly evenly matched. I would even go as far as to say that the hand cannons had a slight advantage and that was on open field with both having max upgrades.
But you can have them massed in early imp, sometimes before other players have full upgrades on their infantry. That early spike in power if well used make them really powerful.
I think that the hand cannoneer should perform better than the stablest against all infantry in general personally, it makes sense to me, seeing how long it takes in a game to actually get access to them. It’s simply more convenient to tech into archers at some earlier point in the game, which I think really makes the HC’s too situational
I remember a few months ago after the patch of buffing feitoria. Viper tried out the strat of fast-imp with multiple feitorias. He got loss with hand cannoneers in the first game and won with arbalest in the next game.
@@syntax2004 Exactly, that how they were that why they existed alongside Crossbow and Bows for years. They also were highly inaccurate. Handgunners were hybrid infantry they had a powerfull weapon to kill a knigjt in it track but also were good infantrymen unlike crossbowmen or bowmen.
the hand canoneer is a very specific unit to be used in a very specific situation and the archer is a more random unit to be used a lot of diferent situations in the battle field so i guess thats an advantage when the combat.
I'm honestly more impressed by the fact that such an old game still has a community that doesn't know the answer to every question (like in this case "Is the unit too weak or not?")
![Longbow vs Crossbow [AoE2]](/img/1.gif)
The more math in the video, the higher and happier his voice is
Maths is like sex, the more you do, the happier you’ll get!
So it's like:
Math being involved: *Happy SoTL noises*
spirit of the math
He should become a mathematician at this rate.
Historically speaking hand cannons were crap. The only good thing about them was the “fear” damage they did against armies and when they do hit, did pierce armor very easily. However you will see more soldiers run than killed but that only lasts for so long.
Now if they added in an upgrade called the arquebus, that is a completely different story. The arquebus started to see more use over the typical crossbow because they were more accurate and more accuracy means more killing. With more killing, more soldiers were running away even faster and the crossbows started to get phased out.
Then of course the muskets came out and that put the nail in the coffin for crossbows because they were essentially more powerful longbows and military doctrine was beginning to change to the point that swords only really belonged to cavalry units because they were fast enough to directly deal with the new military doctrine.
What I’m trying to say is, cannons was a major improvement before the hand cannon evolved into the musket. If morale was a thing in this game, then no question the hand cannon unit will be “better” but then this isn’t AoE. Even then I will still hesitate to use hand cannoneers unless the situation demanded it.
I think that simply increasing the projectile velocity should help them tremendously. Tbh it makes no sense when a hand cannon bullet travels more slowly than an arrow.
maybe ballistics should give them that accuracy buff. and without they could remain as inaccurate as they are
@@ekim613 or they should eliminate the projectile animation while using a mechanic that maintains the same accuracy levels. Just leave out the dely and allow for better fine tuning of the fire animation or accuracy.
cries in cannon galleon
@@ekim613 Then what happens to the Portuguese tech?
@@roganmorrow Maybe it could make gun units fire faster instead. Or give organ guns more/more powerful secondary bullets. Or some other bonus that I haven't thought of.
Fun fact: in the original Age of Kings you had to research a tech, Hand Cannon, after researching Chemistry before you could create Hand Cannoneers at all. That tech was 450 food, 200 gold, and AoK hand cannoneers were even worse than they are today.
Agree. I remember that.
I remember absolutely never using them... probably why I remember nothing about them. :P
And you also had to research bombard cannons too!! Good old times ^^
Did they get rid of the minimum range? I recall that being a thing way back when.
Yeah but turks had like +50% hp on gunpowder instead of +20% today.
Me: -has never played Age of Empires 2-
Video: “Are Hand Cannons too weak?”
Me: well shit now I gotta know, are they?
I was in the same position a couple months ago. After watching like 30 videos I decided to download the game XD
It's the best rts 20 years running
Well guys I think it's worth mentioning that the Multiplayer and even remotely difficult AI are anything but beginner friendly.
I've been playing it since I was a kid and I still can't pull a fast castle in 15 minutes.
Last week I saw Indian hand cannoneers get slaughtered by some Celt Woad raiders... uhhh, yep HCs are too weak...
I've had good luck with mixed units
If the hand canoneer didnt quickscope all the time they would be more accurate.
They don't even quickscope, they noscope. They fire from the hip.
They're only given like 20 seconds of training after given their gun, give them a break!
6:00 those 2 boars: "nah I'm good, you guys carry on"
Scrolled down for this! 😂
I hope they didn’t suffer damage :(
I love the logic behind hand cannoneer's missed shots. "Guys, I've hit somebody, but I wasn't aiming for him so it only counts as half."
It weren't a direct hit is what it is.
It doesn't make much sense for one mass of troops blindly firing into another, but there's an argument to be made that you're likely to do more damage to the target you're aiming at because you're likely aiming at the center of mass or head. Also, I suppose if you miss, you're somewhat more likely to hit something behind the target (and thus at a greater range and lower impact velocity).
@@oiii3538 A bit harder to code in, sure. A need for rng to be introduced? not necessarily. It could be as simple as setting the damage based on how far the shot is from the center of the potential impact area, like an archery target.
I trained hand cannoneer for extra garrison arrows.
@@h3892003 thats pretty evil
I don’t play age of empires anymore but I love watching you videos Spirit. Thank you!
me too last time i play is 2 years ago
Bob Shut up
I still playing it since 2007 🤔
@Bob wtf? If someone is mean it could be you too.
@@fo0l913pretty good way to prove bobs point
I always thought that Hand Cannoneers should have been a Unit that ignored enemy Armour, and thus being an Anti-Armour Unit (which would be fitting historically) And when this ability was given to the Leitis I thought on behalf of the Hand Cannoneer: "Am I a joke to you?"
I don't know all the unique units, but wouldn't ignoring armour be a hard counter to some of them? It wouldn't be a good balancing decision to let many civilications have access to a hard counter. That fits much better with a specific unique unit like the Leitis.
That is not true Hand cannoniers where anti-armor unit historically. Do you know why winged hussars didnt' care that much about musket fire? Because armor of soldier on top of horse was literally impenetrable by musket shot in front.
What is more true about muskets/hand cannoniers historically, is that they had good firepower in quite close range, but on long range (100m) they were easly outperformed by bows or crossbows. The true anti-armor ranged weapon of middle ages is actually crossbow
There are plenty of demonstration videos made (if you are curious) where gunpowder is tested for armour-penetration. You would be surprised to see that gunpowder did NOT penetrate plate armour ; especially in the period of 1350-1450 which would be, the "imperial age" of AoE 2.
@@1998marijn1998
Hand canonniers never wore armor from what Ive read. So the weakness was lack of armor and or health.
@@piotrj333 Crossbows where never an anti-armor weapon. The really heavy ones had the same power as longbows. Either way, neither of them come close to penetrate plate.
There's a reason why knights on full plate began to favor polearms and 2 handers. As armor got better, the need for using shields was no more. Only way for an arrow or bolt to damage them was if It got in a gap only protected by the mail+padding, and even then It woukd have to be in close range to be able to go through.
Isn't it also historically accurate that late-medieval handcannons weren't a pure upgrade over the arbalest and heavy crossbow? I always believed it wasn't till the early renaissance with the introduction of weapons like the musket that handheld gunpowder weapons really started to outpace traditional archery and crossbows.
So perhaps the best solution would be to give the Handcannoniers an additional upgrade into Musketmen, though that might be treading a bit too much into AoE3 territory
But loading arquebus was too slow, raining days was not operative.
The Conquistador carries a musket so I don't think it would be to out of place.
Musket in aoe3 already have bayonet to stab horse, no longer pure ranged unit
Actually it wasn't until repeating rifles in the 1800's that firearms surpassed archery overall in terms of real life "damage output".
The reason firearms were rolled out before that (and crossbows as well) was because of the training level required for use. Sure, a master archer even today outshines most riflemen, but that takes years of dedicated training and lifestyle. Looking at modern infantry, boot camp is only a couple of months and not all of that is firearm related training either. Now imagine late medieval levies. Yeah.
Point and shoot versus the complicated nuance of bowcraft made the adoption of firearms and crossbows a no-brainer.
TLDR, you are correct that handcannons weren't a pure upgrade.
The problem is that the thing that made gunpowder weapons attractive was that they were actually cheaper to use since they required less training, yes the weapon itself could be more complex but a longbow archer needs to train for life and so does a crossbow archer. The main appeal was that you could cheaply mass them up and that they had a strong morale effect (as in gunpowder weapons look and sound terrifying), the last thing can't be represented in AoE so the closest thing would be high damage. So really right now in the game they almost have the opposite role from what they did historically.
Historically, both hand-cannons and crossbows would have been found on the same battlefields, shooting alongside and probably at each other.
In fact, crossbows were used more recently than hand cannons were. By the early sixteenth century hand cannons were rendered obsolete by arquebuses, but crossbows were widely used until the mid sixteenth century.
@@Meloncov Being rendered obsolete is not the same thing as not being used. All pike formations were completely obsolete by Napoleonic wars, yet they were used for first few years of it because size of armies exploded and you had nothing else to arm that conscript brigade over there with. With hand cannon using the same powder as the rest of your army did, I am strangely sure they were used alongside other guns into 17th century if simply to increase number of shots, conscripts were cheap, guns were expensive.
@@KuK137 General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate army no joke wanted to include companies of Pikeman in each of the armies he had control of. It never wound up coming to pass.
Then why handcanoneers look like arquebusiers? :D
I've always only ever used hand cannoneers when I was caring about styling. It just seems like archers are an easier option unless your feudal strat was scout rush into fast imp, which is such an odd strat these days. Otherwise it's completely natural to be upgrading the Archer line, and why I'm more on the side it's easier to get the Archer upgrades. In any case I'll probably stick to paladins cause it's a singular unit you can mass and win in low elo
I think HC may be interesting for Goths since it is easy to tech into and they don't have Arbalest. But then again, the problem with Goths is reaching imp.
@@DuckieMcduck As a Goth fan, Hand Cannoneers are a lifesaver if you find yourself facing a Byzantine opponent. Their cataphracts specialize in chewing through masses of infantry.
I've teched into them against goths because they counter Huskarls. Did okay but it was too late to save the game
Unless the game pushes you yo use cavalary and/or trash, infantry, in other words a scenario where u didnt researched arbs u can use hc
How do you know what an "odd strat" these days looks like? What level are you playing at?
I think a big thing holding hand cannons back is a unit matchup that's vitally important I think a lot of people aren't considering: the villager. The villager is precisely the kind of low-hp, low pierce armor unit that the arb wins out against, and I think the fact that a small group of arbs can put itself behind a woodline and reliably kill vils in a single shot whereas hand cannons would need to both get closer be effective and are less reliable makes arbs far more useful as a raiding unit. You can see in Game 7 of the Clown Cup 3 finals how often Janissaries, which are better against vils than hand cannons, struggle to pick off vils even at close range in situations where you would expect arbs to slaughter. They may function about the same in the majority of matchups as arbs, but arbs can raid better, we're stuck again with relatively pointless hand cannons.
They just come at different points of the game. Arbalest are the biggest Early-Imperial boon you can get, and they usually finish of the game at that point as well through raiding, annihilating late-castle armies and map control. Hand Cannons comes into play after Chemistry and after some brief massing after that into a Mid to Late-Imperial game. Raiding is rarely an option anymore since Castles are defending anything relevant and games are usually decided by who can exert the strongest pressure with their main army (if things doesn't devolve into a trash war - Hand Cannons will devolve you into trash later by the way -) over the enemy's one.
In that case Arbalest's ability to snipe out a couple villagers are kinda irrelevant since the game is decided by then (there is not enough space for the enemy to expand and continue the fight). And here the video is kinda interesting about to decide if you should swap from Arbalest to Hand Cannons or mix a few of them, in the case you are playing any of the 4 civs where this is relevant anyway (all the other Hand Cannon civs lacks Arbalest or lacks most archer upgrades or have huge bonuses to Hand Cannons). They are more about supporting your main force than being the main force themselves.
Worth noting that Arbalest are also a lot costlier to tech in. If you didn't go Crossbows in Castle then you can just skip Archer-line and go straight with some Hand Cannoners for ranged support and save up 4k resources. Sure, they don't kill villagers that well, but they still kill vills from range, and might not be worth spending thousand resources into a villager killer in just teching.
@@MsNyara If you didn't tech into crossbows or an archer unique unit, unless you're goths you probably teched into knights or some kind of cav in castle age. You generally want to mix a gold unit with a non-gold unit to counter its weaknesses, and save some kind of full trash setup or the very rare fast imp, you'll likely have already teched into a gold unit in castle age. Having to add hand cannons on top of that rapidly becomes prohibitively expensive. If you're talking about a unit to support your primary force, you're not going to be comparing hand cannons to arbs, you're comparing hand cannons to skirms. Sure, you're spending some res on Elite Skirm, thumb ring, the archer attack upgrades and ballistics that you might not get with hand cannons but in total that's 655 gold, 900 food, and 780 wood, which isn't really a lot. 2990 total converted res using the 1 gold = 2 wood/food conversion used in the video. With a skirm costing 60 converted res, and the Hand Cannon costing 145, you'll have saved the total cost of the investment by just 35 skirms. Plus, you can start massing skirms before chemistry comes in, and they'll last you until after your gold runs out as it will very quickly if you add hand cannons to an already gold-intensive army. Meaning you'll likely need to buy all of those upgrades anyway because of your poor resource management. Even then, you might want things like ballistics and the archer attack upgrades for your castles, towers, and TC's. AND EVEN THEN skirms have better range, pierce armor, can hit moving targets, counter most ranged units, and have bonus damage against halbs, the most common infantry unit in the game. Your gold is better used either on your main force or on things like bombard cannons, rams, or trebs, which will actually support your main force by being able to push castles and other buildings, unlike hand cannons.
And my point was more that arbs are far more flexible than hand cannons as the primary gold unit in your army. They kill practically everything just as well as hand cannons, and in many cases better, and since they kill vils easier, they're more useful for raiding and damaging eco, which helps you win. There's a reason you rarely see hand cannons at the top level. They're too niche, and the thing they're good at isn't even really enough to justify teching into them.
Honestly if hand canoners cleared halberdiers better, they wouldn't be a bad unit. Sure they are more fragile, they are harder to micro, they are shorter ranged, and they lose against arbalests head on, but if they could be a great infantry killer, it doesn't matter that they take forever to kill a villager. As we see in 5:31... they aren't even good at _that._
Very excited to see one of my thumbnails (0:08) in a video of my youtube hero!
I wrote a program to do these unit vs units fights automatically. It counts the remaining HP, runs every fight 5 times, takes the average, sets everything up in the editor, etc.
SotL please feel free to use my footage directly if you want so you don't have re-do the fights yourself!
Great video as always :)
Very impressive! Really enjoy your videos BTW!
Sounds very professional using a program to do this for you :D
Was excited to see one of your thumbnails too :) always great to see that great youtubers watch each other’s videos!
@AgeArena
There already exists such a program and the devs used it for the original Age of Kings. Take a look at the leaked Alpha and Beta versions of the game if you want to test the out yourself (go to Zero Empires video on the alpha and in the comments you'll find someone asking for the download link and someone else posting the mega link).
@@khankhomrad8855 Thanks, I'll check it out!
When doing these videos, it might be fun if you reach out to some pro players and ask them to predict the results of all the tests you did for the video, in order to see how good their intuition is.
If Hand Cannoners are buffed then Turks' Janissaries also need to be buffed
they need to be buffed anyway, they are hardly better than many civs' arbs or most ranged unique units... in comparison to chu ko nus they completely pale
@@TheNewMaxico Janissaries are amazing in castle age doe. They fall off a lot in Imp. Maybe a buff to elite janissaries would make sense.
@@MichaelMeyerRS yee, in CA they aint too bad
If you just buff their infantry advantage then I think leaving Janisaries as they are is fine.
Even non-elite ones have +1 range and a much better frame delay than HC.
i think Turks in general need a buff tho
I would say, math aside, that one of the biggest frustrations of using gunpowder units is very slow movement of bullet... I think, first thing to buff is increasing the speed of a bullet.
So taking into account that the further away a hand canoneer is from his target the more innacurate he becomes, does this mean that researching the Indians unique tech(Shatagni) is actually, paying to get ripped off?
I mean you increase the range of hand cannoneers so does that make them even more inacurate?
Depends on how you quantify it. One perspective is that you are more inaccurate and thus lose damage since you are going to be engaging at maximum range more often. The other perspective is that by being able to engage from a longer range you'd still benefit since you'd previously not be able to deal damage at all from that range and you can always get closer ( or the enemies will get closer to you) to increase accuracy.
every ranged unit has a programmed accuracy. If a unit shoots and the RNG generates a miss, the bullet will go wide in a certain radius around the target. Sometimes the bullet will actually hit the enemy anyway (and thus deal damage). At short range the chance of this happening is larger, so at short range the accuracy is higher than programmed. However at max range the chance to miss is close to the programmed accuracy. So maybe you get like 2% more miss chance.
@JR 1986 well it doesnt increase accuracy against standing targets, so they still deal the same DPS to those, it only affects moving units.
@JR 1986 Turks because they have more HP (and that's is really usefull for a expensive unit) and create 25% faster.
@@GuilhermeMiranda89 Remember Portuguese get ballistics on gunpowder units, although I don't know how that stacks with HC's bad accuracy. Do they hit every shot or they calculate an enemy unit's movement and then roll the hit/miss?
I think the biggest issue for hand cannons is that even for their optimal role, they are usually outclassed by other units. High pierce armor units already have plenty of natural counters. For example, if you're fighting huskarls, how often is adding 10 hand cannons going to be a better option than adding 10 more champions (or even more, if gold is the limiting factor)? I'm guessing almost never.
If I was to change them, I would increase their raw damage (or alternatively, increase their fire rate a bit), increase the missed shot damage to 100%, and further reduce their accuracy. The design goal would be that hand cannons would be an effective volley weapon. Relatively inefficient against single targets, but significantly more effective than arbalests against massed targets. In both small and large fights, arbalests would have moderate value. On the other hand, hand cannons would have low value in small fights, and high value in big fights.
HC main purpose is to have a quick counter to infantry in late imp when you didn't tech into arbs or champs.
They are not supposed to be better than other counters. They are just supposed to be easier to get in a pinch.
@@caracaes Personally, I think they're too spendy in terms of gold for that. If they were a bit cheaper, I think that role would be a bit bland, but at least balanced.
Here so early I hear the conquerors expansion is dropping soon.
Those civs without cavalry will never be viable.
Wooooosh
If the devs buffs hand canoners, the jannisaries would need some to
They dont have anti infantry bonus,.do they?
@@dragovern Yeah they dont. They are also more inaccurate, and cost more. 5 extra attack and 1 higher range doesn't justify it for elite Janissaries, although the castle age Janissary is insane.
The hell?
So normal Hand Cannoners deal 27 damage against inf but Jannisaries deal only 17?
Why in would anyone build Jannisaries over Hand Cannoners?
@@davidawesome4569 because you can rush them in early castle
@@davidawesome4569 The Jannisarie is more like a all-rounder compared to the HC.
HC is indeed better against infantry but the Jannisaries do better everything else. They are also quite tankier than HC. In Castle Age a group of Jannisaries is quite strong, where you can't even build HC in Castle Age.
So Jannisaries do have their Pro's and Con's.
This is my favorite type of SotL video: an in-depth answer to a question I never even considered!
The real issue I would say is "do professionals use the hand cannoneer" and, outside of maybe arena, they just don't. Poor cannon bois.
Good observation,b ut I'm not a fan of the "if the pros do it, that outweighs other considerations" approach. Pros also do research and test things out in the editor and watch videos like this, besides amassing tons of practical experience. Research/arguments that disagrees with "whatever is, is good" is still needed. Sometimes the meta is pushed along by finding small advantages here or there...
The real question, which civs do the pros use in major tournaments?
I see you are a team MOMO fan!!!
I thought Hera does it. If he's Turk's he goes fast imp with 1 TC right into Jans. Normally catches opponent off guard and can push.
Fewer pro games go to Imperial than mid-ELO players' though. Imp-only units are always going to be niche in pro games.
I think a couple key takeaways for me were:
That the upgrades are important to keep in mind (far fewer upgrades to get upgrades hand cannons on the field). If you haven't already been speccing into archers by the imperial age but need some ranged units in your comp, HCs can be a great option.
Population efficiency. Especially if you're in a team game with trade, HCs start to become more attractive.
I seriously didn't think of most of the points you made, so I really think I understand a lot better! I'm excited to play around with them more now that I understand their strengths and weaknesses besides the simple "HC good against infantry".
And next video abot "Who have the best Hand Cannonrer?" Like about Battle Elephants and Eagles etc.?
gunpowder units video was already made by sotl years ago
@@candrarazaka4351 Its different from best gunpower civ like the best trash civ, the best cav civ, the best husar civ. So why no best HC civ
@@Skewebjor hand cannoneers are generally have a lot of randomness in the fights due to their average accuracy. considering the available techs and bonuses available, then the turks and the spanish should be on the top of the list (which helped by the fact they have their own gunpowder UU as well) which, in my opinion, the ranks is probably gonna be similar to the gunpowder list ones.
maybe in the order :
1. turks - free chemistry, bonus hp, + janissaries
2. spanish - blacksmith bonus, faster HCs, + conqs
3. italians - discounted, can hold against gunpowders w/ condos
4. portuguese - less gold on HCs, ballistics
5. indians - bonus range, gold work rate
@@candrarazaka4351 Then make a video like SOTL ;)
@@Skewebjor nah pretty sure it won't come soon though since cuman overview isn't done yet
It makes me so happy that the extended intro is back, it’s just so good
Hand Cannons are a good, quick switch when you've gone full cavalry and the opponent has large numbers of halbs and/or camels, in maps with a lot of gold.
It's much faster to just get chemistry than to full tech into Champions or Arbalesters.
awwww yeee, A SOTL video.
I love how all channels even massive ones take a while till people show up to the videos but here everyone immediately clicks when they see your notification.
this video makes me proud of the job we did on hand cannoneers. Our goal really was that every late game unit would have times it was the "best" so that there was never One Right Choice. Seems like at least with hand cannoneeers and arbalests we pulled it off.
I agree it's good to have every unit be situationally powerful, but I wish the projectile velocity was faster on hand cannons vs arbalest and they had pierce armor, just so it was little bit more historically accurate
I think this was a bad choice. Hand cannoneers have the disadvantage of being harder to micro and they're supposed to specialize as anti-infantry, heck the original counter guide said so. They should be resource efficient at killing halberdiers. At 6:51, we see this is not the case. If hand cannoneers were the best anti-infantry unit at straight paper anti infantry DPS, that wouldn't necessarily mean they were the one best choice. They'd have some overkill even if their on paper DPS was superior. They'd still be more fragile. They'd still be harder to micro, and they still would be inferior to the archer line against light armor non-infantry units (which is most non-Paladin-clone unique units). In other words even with a larger anti-infantry bonus, hand cannoneers and arbalasts wouldn't still be a one size fits all and the hand cannoneers would at least do what they're supposed to do. It would make the arbalests the generalist ranged unit and the hand cannoneer the anti-infantry specialist. And some people might still prefer arbalests for anti infantry if only for getting more milage out of micro.
Edit: I'd thought I'd add that 7 arbalests beat 7 hand cannoneers. True hand cannoneers aren't even "anti archer" but "anti-infantry" but if B beats A and B is also easier to micro, A should at least be cost effective at what A is suppose to specialize in. I don't think you guys pulled it off since the damage to infantry bonus is just too small. I can see how one might see this balancing as a success if the hand cannoneers beat the archer line or had more anti-pikeman DPS when you consider gold is made by selling food, but it does neither well.
Or maybe balancing was done in a logical way before thumbring and after that tech the hand canonner just was a sad unit?
we? are you a developer?
Sandy Peterson's the name, he worked on Doom and AoE, among many, maany other things
what do you mean? this video shows that in every real scenario (real meaning ones that would actually happen in a game and not a scenario editor) the hand cannon needs a massive buff. tbh the hand cannon should be as strong as elite janissaries, with janissaries being even stronger.
My suggestion would be to add two techs:
Firing Stands: Increases accuracy of Hand Cannoneers. (This “solves” the HC’s fundamental & extreme weakness to cavalry, as well as making them perform much better against infantry)
Refined Saltpeter: Doubles HC damage bonus against infantry, and increase their anti-building damage. (This gives them the true crown as the anti-infantry monsters they should be, as well as a secondary function of improving their ability to destroy buildings)
Having these be generic techs is ideal, because then the HC doesn’t just feel like a second unique unit. It also allows for some gradation of performance, especially if HC civs could get one or both techs for free (a nice buff to the Portugeuse would be to get Firing Stands for free).
Could be Corned Powder instead of refined saltpeter. That represents an actual technology.
Also Rifling makes them 100% accurate vs non-moving targets. Rifling was invented in 1498 the reason why it wasn't so common until the 19th century was because of fouling in the barrel was harder to clean.
I think the poor accuracy is very appropriate thematically - historically they were pretty inaccurate and worked best against large formations of infantry
@@volk551 Rifling required slower reloading though, until the Minie Ball in the 1800s. Musket stands were a thing, and probably more period appropriate.
@@Septimus_ii That's a terrible and useless mindset. AoE2 is a competitive video game, and balancing things exactly according to history doesn't work. There are a preponderance of ahistorical things about AoE2, so don't even think about trying to justify a unit being obsolete by referring to history.
"Hand cannons cant be created until chemestry is researched"
*Laughs in being a turks main*
I love doing a Turkish Spanish team up.
Spanish need to research chemistry to be able to dismount a horse.
But does not having to research chemistry as Turks really matter in terms of prodcing handcannons? They can jsut produce Janissaries instead anyway.
@@FernandoHernandez-jw4yy yes turks can produce hand cannoneers which is anti infantry and jannissaries arent really anti infantry here
@@racelkatyusha403 But janissaries do beat infantry as well cause they have much better stats, while also being better vs cavalry
I personally, instead of buffing their HP or attack bonus, would decrease their cost (in gold more than food) and their training time.
This would also match the historic reality.
I'd like to see how Portuguese's ballistics influences this. And a hand cannoneer vs organ gun similar comparison.
Honestly I don't think in 20 years of playing AoE2 I've ever purposely built handcannons.
I did it once. It was a game of King of the Hill. I just stayed in the corner just building up a massive army and then I just swooped in. I don't know if it was that they were hand cannoneers, but at a certain point, I just had enough troops to just win.
I didn't either until I started watching these videos. I mean I would make them if I was making every unit or just try them out sometimes for fun but I wouldn't actually focus on them.
Yeah, I’ve always kind of thought they weren’t that good. That being said, I’ve still used them with some civs, if they have bonuses or something but I tend to prefer arbs but I’ve always been a DM player.
I just used them for the first tike against teutonic knights
Because I didn’t have the time to upgrade archers
And they werend even that good
And that was the best case scenario for them
10:49 Is that a storm trooper from Star wars, would you just look at the margin that hand canoneer missed that skirmisher. Damn.
Something worth noting is that there is considerable overlap between civilizations that have Hand Cannoneers and civilizations that DON'T have Arbalests (only nine out of forty-two civilizations have both, six have neither, and the remaining twenty-seven have one or the other).
I feel like a really important point you missed out is that most civs with hand cannoneer don't have full archer upgrades anyway. Malians and teutons don't have bracer for instance, and Spanish don't even have crossbow.
Yeah really only a few civs like Japan have to make that choice.
Though I'd argue Japan should be a infantry+gunpowder civ, historically speaking it makes sense. I'd love to see arbs removed from them exchanged for improved hand canoneers.
@@Atilla_the_Fun Not at all, the most famous thing about Japan is it's horse archers, known as samurai xD But horse archers were taken. They were also the first country to go full matchlock.
Famously they made a stupid number of castles too, but that was also taken xD
However they didn't go too big into cannons or anything like that, as their method of castle building didn't leave them very vulnerable anyway, & japan has bad terrain for them.
The one thing they didn't really have was too much infantry specialisation, using peasants to fill the ranks of spears. Samurai were either horse archers or mounted spearmen. The swords they carried are famously backup weapons, incase they lose their bow or spear or matchlock.
They are half naked in AoE2 xD
@@carbon1255
The first country to go full matchlock....which is only represented by hand cannoneers in this game. They should have a hand cannoneer civ bonus
@@carbon1255what you're saying isn't entirely true either. When Japan invaded Korea, their biggest advantage was in the quality of melee infantry and mass firearms. Japan didn't use Mongol like horse archer harassment tactics en masse
Best intro music of any channel. Even more dope that you wrote and performed it
One thing I feel like you missed is the Incan Unique Unit, the Slinger, since the slinger is basically built to fill the same anti-infantry role as the hand cannoneer, but is available one age earlier, affected by fletching/bodkin/bracer, chemistry, and ballistics in exchange for a lower base damage.
As you discussed in your Incas overview about the whole "Eagle/Slinger/Kamayuk deathball", the niche of something to obliterate heavy cavalry is already filled in for the Incas, and they're only there for their merit against Infantry, which is still something that Kamayuk arguably do well against in straight fights.
Are Incan slingers stuck in the same boat as the other civ's HCs or do slingers have things going for them (faster to tech into, easier to mass pre-imp than HC) that make them a clear choice over Incan Arbalests?
Slingers are easier to make than Kamayuk and unlike the Kamayuk can attack infantry from afar. Against infantry civilizations the slingers absolutely shred. Especially when mixed in with skirmishers for anti-archer. Kamayuks are best used for rapidly taking down buildings and cavalry, not fighting other infantry, even if they're okay for it.
@@shadovars9477 Also Slingers benefit from fabric shields, giving them quite high pierce armor.
@@ucallmeschnitzel yeah, never thought about that part, it's still good to mix them with a few skirmishers
It'd be interesting if hand cannons' shots would spill thru like a scorpion shot but only if they killed the initial target. This would help deal with the problem of overkills, and give them more of an edge against mass'd units.
My friend is the cyan at minute 4:09 versus Spirit of the Law red one
One thing that bothers me about AOE2 Archery (speaking as someone who shoots both bows and crossbows) is that crossbows don't have range, damage, or rate of fire advantages over a decent bow. The extreme draw weight of the crossbow (some exceeding 2500 lbs) is offset by the extremely short power stroke (6-6.5 inches being common for a medieval crossbow). In contrast the draw weight of a war bow (90-200 pounds, generally though between 120 and 160 pounds) is comparable in terms of total energy thanks to its much larger draw distance (28-32 inches). What I think would make sense is to have 3 base units for foot range units at an archery range; Archer (costs gold and wood, good damage, range, rate of fire, long creation time), Crossbow (costs gold and wood, good damage, decent range (1-2 less than a bow), slow rate of fire, very short creation time), and Skirmisher (costs wood and food, poor damage, range, decent rate of fire, short creation time, very high pierce armor). This is because the advantage of the crossbow is twofold: 1) the crossbowm user can keep it drawn for significant lengths of time without tiring, something that a regular archer can not do and 2) the time it takes to become a good shot with a crossbow is significantly less than a bow (on the order of months to years of regular practice compared to a few days to weeks).
That's a very good point. It would never get implemented in aoe2 (way too big a change), but your approach seems much better. In that case, HC would maybe be better as a unit trained from the barracks or SW, getting infantry armor upgrades, which makes sense as they were not archers
OK, if someone says Hand Cannons feel weak... did they ever see an Organ Gun? :O
If Im not running an archer civ and I have gunpowder options, I'm running Hand Cannons and Bombards.
There are few things quite so satisfying as a a line of Teutonic Knights advancing with a support of guns and trebuchets.
09:02 Hand cannoneers appeared for the first time in the Imperial Age. The Goths died out in the Imperial Age. Coincedence? I think not!
Their mounted counterpart on the other hand, if in a group, they're basically slower Cobra cars
I think they definitely could use a buff, for example making them cheaper much cheaper on food since guns did not require as much training as archery or maybe upgrade for their guns, one of those.
I love that in the new video intro you made (DE) the grass at 1:29 has a 4k texture HAHAHAHAHA
It's not that HC are not strong enough, it's that archer line is stupidly strong.
Age of archers, definitive edition.
It makes sense that the archery line would be strong due to it existing since 20,000 BCE and guns still being in their infancy during the late medieval age.
@@johnnywithshades6001 it has nothing to do with video game balance.
@@johnnywithshades6001 From your point of view, game developers should make Mesoamerican, African and Southeast Asian civs pretty weak because in real history, they don't have strong states and armies.
@@Asterix958 I don't think the devs should make the game painstakingly accurate to real history. I was just pointing out that it makes sense for archery to be better due to how it was quicker to use a bow then a matchlock gun that was inaccurate at long range and took 60 seconds to reload.
@@johnnywithshades6001 Reload time is not that much important because gun can kill a man just one shot. You can't do this with arrow. Also guns are cheaper and riflemans train faster than archers but game think otherwise. After 1450s, guns start to totally dominate battles. Even before 1450s, guns are commonly used but still bows remain its position.
You overlook a significant thing about overkilling! When in mass, overkilling means way more damage goes to waste. You have only considered the case when there is one unit, but think about it this way: the wasted damage is a constant c, such that 0
You are ignoring that food burden of HC at a stage in the game where many units are already consuming a lot of food. HC just add another burden in your farm eco to keep up.
It's almost impossible to combine Hand Cannonners with Light Cavalry/Hussars. Probably only possible on Black Forest maps.
On today's installment of things I didn't think I'd need to know but always end up loving to watching
"The Hand Cannon also doesn't benefit from Ballistics"
The units fire Bullets.
Literally unplayable
Everyone knows bullets fly like lasers and not in a ballistic trajectory.
I'd be more upset for ballistae (scorpions)
Thanks for the vid Spirit. When is the Cuman overview coming? They are the weirdest civ ever and would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
Hand cannons or arbs? Nah, you need mass mangos.
Laughs in minimum range.
This is my first time watching in a while. I love how your opening is in the remaster now
Since AoE2 is a game centered around the medieval period, i think that the hand canoneers are in a good spot. While they were used in the medieval era in specific situations, Archers and crossbowmen were seen a lot more often on the battlefield. Hand canoneers fill a specific role wich makes them a rather sutuational unit, just like they were irl.
Awesome analysis, good job Spirit virtually all bases covered.
WE NEED MORE SOTL VIDEOS.
(I'm well aware that those videos take a long time we all appreciate the hard word
How many people are you?
@@NowhereMan7 Ok i give you that😂
When listing civ bonuses, don't forget that Teutons' cheaper farms effectively means you can have a few less lumberjacks eating up pop space to support a maxed-out army. Also, they've got great bonuses for your shielding infantry/siege.
This buff needed for hand cannoneer:
- Increase accuracy from 65% to 75%
- Give an elite version for it
- Gain affect from ballistics; and
- Maybe gain 5+ bonus damage to cavalry
I like +5HP (Total 40HP) plus -5 food (Total cost: 40F, 50G)
Yeah no... that would be too much man
hey spirit, i think you missed another point against the handcannoniers:
if you have a lot of them (big lategame fights), ranged units often target the same unit which results in overkills.
a faster attackspeed means less chance to get massive overkill (same dps). id even prefer 1/3 less dps with 2-3 times the attackspeed just to get less overkills in big fights
hi, would like to know what do you think about placing a mill near deers, is it worth it, is it better to bring deers close to tc with the scout, is it different if there are three or four deer? thanks!
I would say:
Moving the Deer to the mill with the scout is better as it gives you more freedom to place the Mill where you want.
But herding them like that requires quite some attention and scout time, wich may be better spend doing other stuff. Like scouting with the scout.
I guess spirit needs a way to quantise the whole "mill placement" thing.
Depends on what's in between them and your TC and how many there are. If it looks like micro with the scout would be a pain to navigate then it's probably better to just mill them and micro the villagers instead.
if your berries and deer are on the same side of the TC then try and share the mill, otherwise try and lure with the scout. you can also lure the 2nd boar to the mill if it's on the way
Hera says that at lower elo, never lure in deer. It's just not worth it.
@@deepakdhanavelkumarravikum8458 If it doesn't mess up your build there's no problem with luring deer. I only do it on closed maps tho since on open maps like arabia exploring is more valuable than extra food
one other factor about hand cannoneers is their effect on garrisoning keeps and castles. Hand cannoneers with their higher base damage will contribute more arrows to the building's firing. They can also impact Bombard Towers since a fully cannoneered Teuton Bombard tower will fire 2 shots instead of one.
This is a minor factor for the most part but something worth noting
Spirit of the Law: Are hand cannons too week?
Janissary be like: everyone is stupid except me. 😂
I think the one advantage hand cannons should have is that they shouldn't have any delay between shooting and hitting the target - as it would be in reality. Thus, they shouldn't need ballistics and they would be better to micro.
How many hand cannons can you make with the extra resources that it costs to tech fully into archers? this can give a break even point
And how does ballistics affect actual fights instead of target practise?
If you are to buff the Hand cannoneers, to bring them more in line with the Arbalests, one idea I can think of would be to introduce a new "Rifling" tech to the university that becomes available after chemistry, which gives a small boost to accuracy and damage for hand cannons. Though that may be a bit too far ahead historically, Wikipedia says the first invention of rifling was 1498.
I barely even play this game, but I feel like SOTL was definitely inclined toward Hand Cannoneers, showing them in an as-good-as-possible light.
4:16: Taking the side of the HC here, but ignoring mostly arguments that Arbalest can be used much earlier, and that Arbalests will be developed quite far by the time you need to choose between either them or HC. I think a more fair comparison between the 2 in development costs would be when we would only take the Imperial Age costs into account. That would disregard both the pre-imperial costs of the Arbalests but also the opportunity to use them.
5:48: You conclude that Hand Cannons do more damage than Arbalests purely based on the assumption that all their missed shots will hit something else and do 50% damage to that. That's a bit of stretch if you ask me. Not only will they barely ever hit a different target, but those are also not the intended for the Hand Cannoneer to hit. Like what if the other target it hits is a stone wall? Sure, it adds to the Hand Cannoneer's damage output, but it's effect on gameplay is (extremely close to) 0. I would therefore nuance the overall conclusion.
8:22: We are not testing it with infantry rushing the HC or Arbalests (Arbalests would come out positively out of this test)
8:45: Taking some SPECIFIC unique units in which the HC dóes perform better because of their unique stats. Though definitely worth the mention, let's keep in mind these are the unique exceptions..
And like you did say but I feel I must repeat, this should be the HC's specialty, and it's mostly losing out to Arbalests. I definitely think the unit needs a buff.
EDIT: Just an edit because my original comment seems very offensive: I liked the video, and the analysis is good and it's obvious a lot of thought went into the tests and performing them! I just had the feeling that the HC had a bit of an unearned spotlight.
Since this video they have had some buffs:
Accuracy 65% to 75%
Attack dispersion(not sure what this is but probably effects projectile deviation when "missing") 0.75 to 0.5
Hp 35 to 40
Projectile speed 5.5 to 7.5 so missing ballistics isn't as detrimental(arb has projectile speed of 7 btw)
they still suck tho
The problem is that you should not use hand cannoners until you upgrade than to photon men.
Given the research tree for both, I would also point out that switching into hand cannons is much faster than switching into arbalest. If you need a counter to infantry immediately in the late game, and you have chemistry, you can instantly use them. Archers are not a valid option until you researched a whole lot of upgrades, especially crossbow and arbalest. With hand cannons you also only commit the resources for the units themselves. If you are switching to arbalest, you are sinking a lot of resources into tech. So I would add another situation where hand cannons come in handy (badam tss): to do an immediate, temporary switch against infantry.
If Hand cannons are buffed Militia line needs general buff + theres desperate need for a ranged counter to knights. I actually think because onagers deal so well with infantry and ranged, the scorpion could be changed in specialisation against high armored and mounted units, which it generally always was. They penetrated pierce armor and could even dismount (which could be reflected in a damage bonus). In addition to this, there could be a late-game tech increasing health of any infantry unit by 20 - 30 %, so they are better balanced generally (some infantry civs don't get this tech, because their infantry is already quite good).
Then you can give hand cannons a big damage bonus against infantry, like 20 or even more.
Actually @sotl: Hand cannons die hard to almost all other ranged units, that's a big downside, you forgot to announce in the video.
Like now, Infantry is in general just weak, even with supplies (there are some exceptions). There's actually almost no need for a hard-counter against infantry.
I think another point to the Hand Cannoneer's favor is if you're not a particularly strong archer civ, it can offer some relatively effective ranged support in a pinch. Because you save the resources in not researching archer offensive techs or Bracer or any upgrade techs (Crossbowman/Arbalest) you can get some of these out on the field relatively easily. I think that's where a lot of their value comes in: if you get them and you don't have a good Arbalest line, they're going to be the only real game in town for an infantry ranged support unit beyond the Skirmisher.
I do agree with Spirit's point about increasing their bonus damage against Infantry a smidge, though.
*Developer watches SoTL video*, *doesn't understand the math*,
*goes with what forum say because popular vote!*
*put some random value in code, releases next patch*
Everybody: Hand Cannoners are broken! They are new 'photon men'!
Italians: let me introduce you to my friend Tony!
TBH if we were being historically accurate, the hand cannoneer should be vastly cheaper and/or quicker to train. This is the reason they won out against (cross)bows, which required far more practice and investment to sufficiently train, despite the latter being more accurate, longer ranged, and faster-firing. And if we're going for even very early hand cannons, (as seen in Europe, at least) they should have pretty good armor as well.
That's why guns won against bows. As compared to crossbows, firing speed and difficulty of training were comparable. Guns win out on stopping power, armor piercing, and ease of transporting ammunition.
I lost my hand cannons army to a Goth spamming hellberdiers, so ye
Historically early firearms weren't better than bows. Their main advantage was that it was easier to train to use them instead of longbows/composite bows (although the unit we have to compare them to uses crossbow which are also relatively easier to learn). So an appropriate buff could be to reduce their train time drastically, so they are at least better at their niche role of being good in a fast imp.
Your idea is super interesting.
I'm so early that militias haven't showed up near my lumberjacks
That's because they are after your food income.
From what this vid says it feels like hc could be treated as a harder to use, more expansive version of archer(hard to micro, need better protection) with added benefit of population efficiency and better performance against high pierce armour units. That actually sounds fair enough and the number shows that the devs definitely take into consideration of the balance
Honestly I think the reason most ppl prefer archers over hc is just that when imperial hits there are usually archers in your army so you just stick with them. Maybe giving hc a castle age version(much like giving eagles a feudal version) could bump up their usage a bit
I would reduce their production time personally, after all you already need Chemistry before you can even begin to field them, it makes me little sense they also take so long to produce.
There isn't really any reason to pick the HC over the arbalest. I mostly see the HC is an arbalest substitute for civs who either lack archer line upgrades or players who didn't tech into them but still want strong anti-infantry.
I really like the idea to give them a castle age version. But then im reminded that infantry is already useless, and need a buff, not even yet another counter earlier. Archers need to be nerfed, not HC buffed imo. Make arbalest upgrade more expensive. Even crossbow upgrade. It's just too strong how you can mass them and then quickly upgrade them to gain insane advantage.
Hand canons are good when you're playing teutons. No arbs.
Not only that, but no thumb ring or bracer. I use them exclusively when I need ranged units as teutons, also due in part to cheaper farms making food easier to mass
Hand Cannoneers paired with Elite Skirms with a fully upgraded Knight line has been my most tech/resource expedient means of building a well rounded bulwark. It's initially less expensive than a FULLY upped combo of skirms/archers/knights and can be produced quicker in my opinion. Once the initial bulwark is brought into play then I'll eventually phase out hand cannoneers with fully upped archers and place Hand Cannoneers as siege support.
i love the star wars aoe2 memes
I never understood why people value food as much as wood post imp? To cut wood you need a villager's worth of investment. To farm, you need to invest into both a villager and a farm and also periodically reseed it. This makes it much easier to mass wood-costing units than food-costing ones.
They need to be armed with a bayonette to beat calvery :)
I once played a 4v4 where it came down to mass hand cannons vs mass paladins. They were surprisingly evenly matched. I would even go as far as to say that the hand cannons had a slight advantage and that was on open field with both having max upgrades.
And then you consider that Elite Janissaries are even worse than the Hand Cannoneers. Jeez
But you can have them massed in early imp, sometimes before other players have full upgrades on their infantry.
That early spike in power if well used make them really powerful.
I disagree, janissaries do far better vs heavy cavalry while still beating infantry comfortably.
I think that the hand cannoneer should perform better than the stablest against all infantry in general personally, it makes sense to me, seeing how long it takes in a game to actually get access to them. It’s simply more convenient to tech into archers at some earlier point in the game, which I think really makes the HC’s too situational
I dont think this is the perfect way to compare them both. Since when targets are moving hand cannoners suck
EXACTLY
Surprised myself at how quickly i clicked on this video. I'm gonna set notifications on for your videos from now!
Did I show up at the right time or what?!
I remember a few months ago after the patch of buffing feitoria. Viper tried out the strat of fast-imp with multiple feitorias. He got loss with hand cannoneers in the first game and won with arbalest in the next game.
Hand cannon... looks historically accurate handcannons never replaced bows or crossbows.
They expect Hand Cannoner to perform like Bolt Action rifle
@@syntax2004 Exactly, that how they were that why they existed alongside Crossbow and Bows for years.
They also were highly inaccurate. Handgunners were hybrid infantry they had a powerfull weapon to kill a knigjt in it track but also were good infantrymen unlike crossbowmen or bowmen.
I think you are forgetting 1 very important metric for ranged units: how they do against onagers.
By the time there are onagers both hand cannons and arbalests have to gtfo
He didn't, he said hand cannons don't micro xD
As a Goth main, I can objectively say no. Please nerf Hand Cannons.
Why ur name archer then 🤣
Those gunpowder tracers looks so satisfying. Another pro for hand cannoneers. 11
Especially with gunsmoke mod enabled.
All that age evolution just for a worse unit
the hand canoneer is a very specific unit to be used in a very specific situation and the archer is a more random unit to be used a lot of diferent situations in the battle field so i guess thats an advantage when the combat.
maybe they need assault rifles as an upgrade
They have stormtrooper aim so they'd probably miss 95% of those shots.
I'm honestly more impressed by the fact that such an old game still has a community that doesn't know the answer to every question (like in this case "Is the unit too weak or not?")