Pavaise crossbowman rework

[DreJaDe]

I think they should be more common or cheap than current. They are so expensive but mot really much worth compared to using the other options. And in history, and in history, I dont think they are that great to cost even more than a knight, foot knight and other 4+ turn unit.

Besides that, maybe it can also help in changing some gameplay in game... Not sure.

So heres my preposition. Anyone can give their own as usual of course. I just want them to be more used and much more common.

Cost:3-4
Barracks: archery, castle (tc?)
HP: 16-20
Atk: 7-8
Range: 4-5
Less mental resistance

And same old other stats

Crossbow deployed
Atk power 10
Range: 5-6

Pretty much same stats as old.

[b2198]

I agree, as currently there are only a very few exceptional cases where it might be worth making them over hospitallers, so I think they could be a middle ground between hospitallers and saethwrs (and without the rng on crusade crossbowmen) in terms of cost as an option for anti-heavy archers, with the added p. armor and very low mobility when deployed still as their unique point.

Damage might need to be reduced to 7/9 when in normal/deployed mode to account for the lower cost? 5/6 range also seems fine for me. I also agree on adding them to castles, to increase their availability a bit, but am not sure about TCs, as perhaps that might be too much.

[Endru1241]

I think they should be more common or cheap than current. They are so expensive but mot really much worth compared to using the other options. And in history, and in history, I dont think they are that great to cost even more than a knight, foot knight and other 4+ turn unit.

Besides that, maybe it can also help in changing some gameplay in game... Not sure.

So heres my preposition. Anyone can give their own as usual of course. I just want them to be more used and much more common.

Cost:3-4
Barracks: archery, castle (tc?)
HP: 16-20
Atk: 7-8
Range: 4-5
Less mental resistance

And same old other stats

Crossbow deployed
Atk power 10
Range: 5-6

Pretty much same stats as old.

Having 3 turn anti-heavy archer unit producable in TC with 10 attack would surely change gameplay.
To spam those in every possible tower and in TCs.
So that would need some bigger nerf or locking unit behind something.

History is never good point when mentioning stats, as we don't know exact count of units men.

But yeah - it's good to mention imbalances. Something needs to be done.

I agree, as currently there are only a very few exceptional cases where it might be worth making them over hospitallers, so I think they could be a middle ground between hospitallers and saethwrs (and without the rng on crusade crossbowmen) in terms of cost as an option for anti-heavy archers, with the added p. armor and very low mobility when deployed still as their unique point.

Damage might need to be reduced to 7/9 when in normal/deployed mode to account for the lower cost? 5/6 range also seems fine for me. I also agree on adding them to castles, to increase their availability a bit, but am not sure about TCs, as perhaps that might be too much.

4 turn cost doesn't seem wrong on endgame.
But pavaise are available since the very start, so also not sure if they could be available in TC then.
I think we could get away with them producable in TC, but requiring archery range without any more changes.
In castles they can be freely available, but if set as requirement - it would affect all places.

[DreJaDe]

Having 3 turns anti-heavy archer unit producable in TC with 10 attack would surely change gameplay.
To spam those in every possible tower and in TCs.
So that would need some bigger nerf or locking unit behind something.

Wouldn't the need of setting them up constitute as the nerf for that? I kinda assumed so and as B1 said, 10 damage can also be nerfed albeit im not sure how it would affect its anti heavy... Im mostly used other units for them anyway.

What about not allowing them to transform on tc and tower although again... I think the tower would pretty much make a stable platform for their weapon anyway so the logic might not fit.

Last thing is the reason why I isolated the TC with "?" is because Im not sure and can never be sure of its full effects which I hope those top class players would comment on.

[Endru1241]

Having 3 turns anti-heavy archer unit producable in TC with 10 attack would surely change gameplay.
To spam those in every possible tower and in TCs.
So that would need some bigger nerf or locking unit behind something.

Wouldn't the need of setting them up constitute as the nerf for that?

Not much difference - only 1 turn delay in using them, but then - you move them around in wagons.

I kinda assumed so and as B1 said, 10 damage can also be nerfed albeit im not sure how it would affect its anti heavy... Im mostly used other units for them anyway.

Saethwrs have 7 (8 if counting war paint) and are mentioned. Hospitaller with Teuton aura - 9.
The rest of bonuses all three get same (morale, fervor, blacksmith techs).

What about not allowing them to transform on tc and tower although again... I think the tower would pretty much make a stable platform for their weapon anyway so the logic might not fit.

Disallowing them from being carried as deployed could actually work.
Maybe except TC.
It would hit them hard - possibly hard enough for cost 3 (along with nerfs in regular form).

Last thing is the reason why I isolated the TC with "?" is because Im not sure and can never be sure of its full effects which I hope those top class players would comment on.

Fair.

Well - overall my possible overreaction is fear of too much of a change.
It's not good to change units from underpowered straight to overpowered.

[DreJaDe]

Saethwrs have 7 (8 if counting war paint) and are mentioned. Hospitaller with Teuton aura - 9.
The rest of bonuses all three get same (morale, fervor, blacksmith techs).

I honestly thought that attack geass affects Sawthwrs but yeah.. They dont. Though I think their overall use if to counter lighter units.

As per hospitaller. I assumed that other stats makes them somewhat equal when compared overall.

[Sombrar +1]

I also agree to add them to the Castle production list, it fits well with its purpose in my view but I don't think it's good for him to be trainable in the TC either, even though it's not a unit I have a lot of experience with him i don't think he needs to be producible on TC although of course he's a little weak at the moment. I believe making it a 4-turn unit is better with no restrictions on its pavise mode deployed in wagons, turrets or tcs until it can be, a resistance reduction to 20 Hp and attack to 7 I think it's good, the rest can remain the same.

[b2198]

I kinda assumed so and as B1 said, 10 damage can also be nerfed albeit im not sure how it would affect its anti heavy... Im mostly used other units for them anyway.

Saethwrs have 7 (8 if counting war paint) and are mentioned. Hospitaller with Teuton aura - 9.
The rest of bonuses all three get same (morale, fervor, blacksmith techs).

Though Elite Hospitaller gets to 11.

What about not allowing them to transform on tc and tower although again... I think the tower would pretty much make a stable platform for their weapon anyway so the logic might not fit.

Disallowing them from being carried as deployed could actually work.
Maybe except TC.
It would hit them hard - possibly hard enough for cost 3 (along with nerfs in regular form).

Wouldn't that also overcomplicate their usage too much?

Last thing is the reason why I isolated the TC with "?" is because Im not sure and can never be sure of its full effects which I hope those top class players would comment on.

Fair.

Well - overall my possible overreaction is fear of too much of a change.
It's not good to change units from underpowered straight to overpowered.

That's why I was also hesitant on the TC part. Might be too much of a buff.

[Endru1241]

I honestly thought that attack geass affects Sawthwrs but yeah.. They dont. Though I think their overall use if to counter lighter units.

Against lighter units culture neutral have better options like Arbalests or Longbowmen which are cheaper.

As per hospitaller. I assumed that other stats makes them somewhat equal when compared overall.

And hospitaller is 5 turn unit.

I also agree to add them to the Castle production list, it fits well with its purpose in my view but I don't think it's good for him to be trainable in the TC either, even though it's not a unit I have a lot of experience with him i don't think he needs to be producible on TC although of course he's a little weak at the moment. I believe making it a 4-turn unit is better with no restrictions on its pavise mode deployed in wagons, turrets or tcs until it can be, a resistance reduction to 20 Hp and attack to 7 I think it's good, the rest can remain the same.

For me it's actually quite obvious, that nerf in regular form and leaving deployed untouched is meaningless when pavaise still can work perfectly well from wagons.

I kinda assumed so and as B1 said, 10 damage can also be nerfed albeit im not sure how it would affect its anti heavy... Im mostly used other units for them anyway.

Saethwrs have 7 (8 if counting war paint) and are mentioned. Hospitaller with Teuton aura - 9.
The rest of bonuses all three get same (morale, fervor, blacksmith techs).

Though Elite Hospitaller gets to 11.

Wait - did I not count anything?
Fully powered should be:
Saethwr: 7 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + warpaint + high morale + fervor)
Pavaise Crossbow: 8 + 4 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + high morale + fervor)
Hospitaller: 7 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + divine right + high morale + fervor)
Hospitaller Elite: 8 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + divine right + high morale + fervor)
Pavaise Crossbow Deployed: 10 + 4 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + high morale + fervor)

What about not allowing them to transform on tc and tower although again... I think the tower would pretty much make a stable platform for their weapon anyway so the logic might not fit.

Disallowing them from being carried as deployed could actually work.
Maybe except TC.
It would hit them hard - possibly hard enough for cost 3 (along with nerfs in regular form).

Wouldn't that also overcomplicate their usage too much?

Possibly.
But for them to become 3 turn unit heavy changes would need to be made and that is one of the options.
Even for 4 turn - I am hesitating if 10 attack deployed won't be too much whenever culture neutral would get some more buff.

That's why I was also hesitant on the TC part. Might be too much of a buff.

Much less than making cost 3.
My comment:

Well - overall my possible overreaction is fear of too much of a change.
It's not good to change units from underpowered straight to overpowered.

was made in regards of pavaise being made 3 turn unit.

[DreJaDe]

And hospitaller is 5 turn unit.

Of course of course

Then I guess a good way to really do this is for it to be.

Cost: 4
Barracks: archer barracks and castle
HP: 18
Atk: 7
Range: 5
Arm / p. Arm: 1/1

Deployed version
Atk: 9
Range: 6
Arm/P.armor 1/5

I honestly want it to be more used but indeed. The European culture indeed has so many options already and yeah... Didnt much thought about the deployed and how prevalent the face-to-face defensive fight in this game is.

[b2198]

Saethwrs have 7 (8 if counting war paint) and are mentioned. Hospitaller with Teuton aura - 9.
The rest of bonuses all three get same (morale, fervor, blacksmith techs).

Though Elite Hospitaller gets to 11.

Wait - did I not count anything?
Fully powered should be:
Saethwr: 7 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + warpaint + high morale + fervor)
Pavaise Crossbow: 8 + 4 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + high morale + fervor)
Hospitaller: 7 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + divine right + high morale + fervor)
Hospitaller Elite: 8 + 5 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + divine right + high morale + fervor)
Pavaise Crossbow Deployed: 10 + 4 (base + ranged damage lv1 + ranged damage lv2 + high morale + fervor)

Oh, sorry, misinterpreted what you were saying there.

But for them to become 3 turn unit heavy changes would need to be made and that is one of the options.
Even for 4 turn - I am hesitating if 10 attack deployed won't be too much whenever culture neutral would get some more buff.

That's why I was also hesitant on the TC part. Might be too much of a buff.

Much less than making cost 3.
My comment:

Well - overall my possible overreaction is fear of too much of a change.
It's not good to change units from underpowered straight to overpowered.

was made in regards of pavaise being made 3 turn unit.

Yeah, I also think making them cost 3 is an even bigger overbuff. Should've said that explicitly, my mistake. I was only talking about making them being cost 4.

Also, I don't think them being 9 (even if going to 10 when/if culture neutral units get some buff specific to them) would be too much, since elite hospitaller would still have the same damage (or 1 lower) while being more tanky overall and having a heal, though costlier, and elite longbowman would have just 1 less damage (minus the bonus vs heavy inf/cav, of course), while being more frail, though with more range and cheaper.

[SirPat]

Totally diff idea

How about make the pavaise crossbowman more of a defense oriented unit

Like in its base form, it could only attack every 3 turns(is that possible?)and it should move slower(2tiles) cause heavy pavaise, but once it transforms it can attack every turn again +the stat boost and immovability

So u cant use this as a offensive unit, it needs time to setup

Oh and it shouldnt be allowed to attack right after it transforms idk if it does that rn, havent played the unit in a long time