Does anyone else hate gunpowder?

[Methuselah]

Some civs can't build Arquebusiers, including Calabim, if I'm not mistaken.

Calabim, Clan of Embers, Doviello, Hippus, Ljosalfar, Mercurians and Svartalfar are all unable to build arquebusiers.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Calabim, Clan of Embers, Doviello, Hippus, Ljosalfar, Mercurians and Svartalfar are all unable to build arquebusiers.

Infernals can but mercurians can't?

 

[FireBlaze]

Mercurian's cant build most normal military units out of their cities IIRC. Although that might have just been warriors =D

 

[Methuselah]

Infernals can but mercurians can't?

Yeah. I assume the reason for that is most of the mercuian units are made from upgrading angels - they are blocked from quite a few things (berserkers and immortals for example.)

 

[WarKirby]

Hippus can't make Arquebus? That doesn't seem right.

I think guns would fit very nicely wwith their mercenary theme. Especially...mounted arquebusiers

 

[Darksaber1]

I'm surprised there's no suicide gunpowder bomber unit (destroyed after attacking, collateral damage, ignore walls). Think of the 2nd LOTR film at Helms Deep. They'd fit perfectly into the Balseraph or Clan civs.

You mean like the petard units in Age of Kings and Age of Empires? Powerful anti-building attack (in those games), but one use?

 

[Fafnir13]

I only saw the AI spam Arquebus in a recent game. It did kind of spoil the fun for me, mostly because it is such a bland unit. Good at attack and at defense with no downsides at all and every single town you've got can make them.
To fix some of the blandness, giving them differing attack/defense str would be good. I'm not sure which should be higher. Making them low on defense would reflect how badly they do when overrun, but would be rather contrary to other archery units in the game. Perhaps a specific weakness to a unit type (such as cavalry) would be the best way to do that in addition to differing attack/defense. I think that an 8/10 split would be best. As is, they operate too well as a catch-all in the end game.
To address the spammability, they really do need a building requirement. The alchemy lab would be perfect for that. Maybe go even further and require an alchemy lab and a forge. Either of those would at least limit production to more developed towns.

 

[Kyroshill]

@Fafnir

You couldn't have summed things up much better....

It's not the mere existence of gunpowder that bothers me as much as the spamability. Whatever method to reduce that (building reqs, nat units, et al.) would go a long a way toward improving things IMHO.

And of course.... making it more flavourful as it pertains to individual civs.

 

[FireBlaze]

Mounted arqubuses would hurt....but be awesome.... xD

 

[vivictius]

I've never seen the AI spam them. I rather like them and canons.

 

[PekkaR]

I only saw the AI spam Arquebus in a recent game. It did kind of spoil the fun for me, mostly because it is such a bland unit. Good at attack and at defense with no downsides at all and every single town you've got can make them.
To fix some of the blandness, giving them differing attack/defense str would be good. I'm not sure which should be higher. Making them low on defense would reflect how badly they do when overrun, but would be rather contrary to other archery units in the game. Perhaps a specific weakness to a unit type (such as cavalry) would be the best way to do that in addition to differing attack/defense. I think that an 8/10 split would be best. As is, they operate too well as a catch-all in the end game.
To address the spammability, they really do need a building requirement. The alchemy lab would be perfect for that. Maybe go even further and require an alchemy lab and a forge. Either of those would at least limit production to more developed towns.

I sort of liked these ideas while reading them, but on the other hand Arquebus is already weak~ish for T4. Spammability is supposed to make up for that. Strength 8 (without weapon promotions) would be too weak for T4 and they ought to be a more offensive/balanced than defensive unit.

I actually figured any mounted units would have trouble with them compared to other archery units because of the scary loud noise unnerving their mounts.

Perhaps it's their blandness that makes them special?

 

[renardargent]

Although I like them (makes me feel improvements and a change of era, as many other people has already stated), I agree that they lack a weakness they should have, a weakness that could be seen in the way muskets are treated in Vanilla and BTS.

So how about forcing them to reload their guns after each combat?

They could start with base strength of 2, and a "loaded" promotion, which would provide +8 strength and the ability to perform the defensive strikes, but would be lost after each combat.
And when they lost the said promotion, they could perform "reload" ability, which would give the caster the "loaded" promotion, but would keep the caster busy for 1~2 turns.
In exchange, the hammer needed might be lowered a bit...

Concerning the spamming issue, I agree that changing the AI is the best solution.
Being honest, I liked the way AI spammed arquebuses in my last game.
The AI mixed arquebuses with berserkers and high-level arcane and disciple units, and since I did not bother to build assassins... it was fun!

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Magic can be used for many purposes, but generally it has an evil connotation in the world of FFH. Magic was introduced by the evil Angel Ceridwen, the Age of Magic was a corrupted one, and in the Age of Rebirth it's the Ashen Veil that excels at research and the techs along the arcane path. Technology is also used for many purposes, but in this world it is generally tools that the good use to counter powers of evil. There's nothing like a large force of peasant-militia fighting demons with arquebusers and crossbows.

 

[Fafnir13]

I sort of liked these ideas while reading them, but on the other hand Arquebus is already weak~ish for T4.

Are you comparing them to national units? Nah, you want to compare them to champions, longbowmen, rangers, and horse-archers. That, in theory, is the mess they should be fitting into. Instead, they seem to be replacing all of those units. They may not have the mobility of horsemen or the vs animals and hawk capacity of rangers, but their high base strength plus ease of manufacturing makes all that moot.
It's this late game homogenization that bugs me. While I don't see it too frequently (my games tend to end when the AI is starting to think of building champions), it is the inevitable result of any long-haul game. I'd rather see more diverse armies, with champions charging in only to be fended off by a good defense of longbowmen only to have the longbowmen fall prey to the cavalry et cetera. Arquebus should be fitting into a unique roll in this melee, not replacing all the players therein. It's just not as much fun.

 

[WarKirby]

they ought to be a more offensive/balanced than defensive unit.

I don't understand this sentiment. They are defensive units. They have the Archery category, and can learn city defence promotions.

 

[Jabie]

They could start with base strength of 2, and a "loaded" promotion, which would provide +8 strength and the ability to perform the defensive strikes, but would be lost after each combat.
And when they lost the said promotion, they could perform "reload" ability, which would give the caster the "loaded" promotion, but would keep the caster busy for 1~2 turns.
In exchange, the hammer needed might be lowered a bit...

As long as it's an automatic ability not attached to a spell, because that would get old fast. Also won't this lead to even more suiciding of skeletons and low level jank than currently occurs.

 

[jwin]

With the reloading mechanism, you are thinking it would take weeks or months, depending on how long you feel a turn is, to reload the guns. I think this could be bette represented by a lower strength and massive amounts of first strikes, to signify the initial onslaught of all the guns firing at once, but petering out as everyone fired slowly.

Kael originally designed them as a very weak tier 4 unit, weak but in unlimited numbers.

I think you can't have mounted units not because of scaring the horses, but because of how hard they were to reload. Around US civil war time, officers on horseback used pistols beause they could fire multiple times and reload easily. Few mounted units, if any, used muzzle loading rifles.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

It's this late game homogenization that bugs me. While I don't see it too frequently (my games tend to end when the AI is starting to think of building champions), it is the inevitable result of any long-haul game. I'd rather see more diverse armies, with champions charging in only to be fended off by a good defense of longbowmen only to have the longbowmen fall prey to the cavalry et cetera. Arquebus should be fitting into a unique roll in this melee, not replacing all the players therein. It's just not as much fun.

Mithril champions > Arquebusers. Cost much less, same strength, have a bonus vs. melee to make up for no defensive strikes. Due to position in the tech tree that's a more fair comparison than arquebusers vs. iron champions.

 

[KillerClowns]

The main benefit of Arquebusiers is they can be trained right at the start. Just capture a new city? Have it train an Arquebusier or, if you've money to burn, train a cheap warrior and upgrade it to one. They can be mass-produced in cities that previously had no military attention whatseover. Plus, as archery units, they get access the city defense promos. I usually take some along the ride of my Stack of Doom, to serve as the guys to hold newly taken cities. Mithril Champions are overall better, and arguably even Iron ones, but the main reason the AI likes to spam them is it doesn't have to think about building requirements.

 

[Neomega]

With the reloading mechanism, you are thinking it would take weeks or months, depending on how long you feel a turn is, to reload the guns. I think this could be bette represented by a lower strength and massive amounts of first strikes, to signify the initial onslaught of all the guns firing at once, but petering out as everyone fired slowly.

Kael originally designed them as a very weak tier 4 unit, weak but in unlimited numbers.

I think you can't have mounted units not because of scaring the horses, but because of how hard they were to reload. Around US civil war time, officers on horseback used pistols beause they could fire multiple times and reload easily. Few mounted units, if any, used muzzle loading rifles.

I was thinking massive first strikes too.

I also read somebody say, and I agree, the reason why regular civ gets boring is because everything homogenizes. It sucks when every civ's infantry looks the same.