What role should gunpowder play in Age 4?

志在明天 · |2019-12-07

　　It seems the developers have confirmed the time span of the new game as a little “broader” than Age 2 (maybe up to late Renaissance?). So how shall gunpowder be depicted in the late game?
　　Well, though Age 2 campaigns do cover the time period as late as Battle of Lepanto (1571), the technological development of the main game seem to end up in late medieval. For example, the most advanced firearm that most civilization can have access to is the hand cannon, and that’s mainly a 14th or 15th century thing, and mostly fell out of use at the time of, say, Lepanto:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon
　　If Age 4 is advancing to a little later time period than Age 2, then maybe more advanced firearms like arquebuses should be available (though there’s a technology called that in Age 2). They had been widely equipped since 15th century and were known for the use by Janissaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus
　　Also, Renaissance artillery were already well-developed, with portable, fast-firing and accurate artillery pieces like culverins that can be deployed in field battles, not just the “lightweight trebuchet” kind of thing as in Age 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culverin
　　I don’t really think the game will go further into the era of flintlock muskets and line infantry (that’s a totally different kind of warfare, though would also be fun to play). However, I really expect to be able to field a broader range of more advanced firearms and artillery pieces in the late game than what we have in Age 2.

赵培善会长 · |2019-12-07

　　Should follow history
　　Armor sucked >> Arrows
Crossbow was born >>>>>> Armor Started to be useless again
Gunpowder weapons >>>>>> Both
　　On Infantry at least to me they should start with high damage weapons on next age or ages armor upgrades reducing those weapons damage then going to the crossbow that starts with partial armor penetration(50%) and finally Arquebus and etc… Full armor penetration considering that the Spanish conquest they used the Arquebus and plate mail
　　Would like the same with battering ram and canon on a way that it is useless against stone wall but canons simply bring’em down(the stone wall has the same armor as the ram damage turning it zero but the trebuchet has armor penetration and the canon the same total penetration)

不屑一顾 · |2019-12-07

　　Crossbows were invented as early as 650BCE in China and they still used Armor until they invented firearms.
In Europe, likewise, the crossbow dates back to Classical Greece, but you can obviously tell that didn’t stop armor from sticking on.

同心未滅 · |2019-12-07

　　That’s one thing I’d like to see looked at. Razing buildings shouldn’t be so easy. Stuff made of stone should be capturable first, destructible second IMO.

笑看风生 · |2019-12-07

　　It’s always been like that why would you like to change it

?

十年长白 · |2019-12-07

　　Crossbow had a massive reload time and needed strength a malnourished peasant couldn’t use it unlike arquebus that everyone could use at least once.

　　Bows require even more strength. It’s the whole reason why crossbows were invented around the world.

　　The Chinese ones were multi fire but weren’t strong as the European ones…

　　You are conflating different things here. Chinese had both weaker and stronger/larger crossbows, as well as multi-fire ones as their own category altogether. They kept on increasing their power just as armor got better.
They have the same reputation as guns would come to have in the western world as the great equaliser. A peasant could be handed one and strike down an armored aristocrat whom practiced warfare all his life.

　　AND the crossbow was banned by the catholic church

　　AND no one really cared.

All European nations kept using them both against the outside world and against each other.
Just look up the amazing number of well known people whose life ended with a crossbow bolt during a siege in Europe well after pope declared the weapon unfit for use.

北京老克勒 · |2019-12-07

　　even children could use bows

　　Not even in the wildest dreams. Bows capable of hunting and being used in warfare require enormous amounts of physical strength. Crossbows of equal draw weight require the same amount of strength. Except crossbows can be drawn with helping mechanisms while bows always require your arms.

　　We all know that
That was late middle ages anyway the price meant only castle guard and merchants could afford it…

　　Well, you apparently do not. I was talking about Chinese crossbows.
The ones going from 650 BC. These have been established as a standard home defense tool by the Han Dynasty (200 BC). Likewise, anyone in the imperial army (which was an army made out of empire’s citizens, not some exclusive warrior caste) would have access to them during war.
　　And it kept being the main ranged weapon of the Chinese armies until the invent of firearms, so that’s about 1700 years of warfare dominance.

红蜻蜓 · |2019-12-07

　　Ummmmm… No Crossbows require a lot more strength even children could use bows a crossbow would cost a lot more to make then a bow

　　You have gotten this completely the wrong way around. Bows require much more strenght to use effectively than a crossbow. With a crossbow you can draw using both of your arms; and in more advanced versions you get help from a loading tool/mechanism. With a bow of equal strenght you need to draw all of that with one arm. Bows required years of upper body training to be even halfway useful in battle; while with a crossbow someone could be decent enough after only weeks.
　　Same for production: crossbows were much much cheaper to make. They could be produced with just about any type of wood, cut down to the configuration you need, shipped around from different areas and assebled on the spot, the shorter “bow” it used could be elastic metal so no need for special wood. Bows on the other hand had to be hand made, from special wood from special trees that had to be dried just perfectly over a span of months just to get the right elasticity for it to have proper war power - it was super inconvenient.
　　It was exactly because crossbows were cheaper to mass produce and cheaper/faster to train soldiers with that it became so popular. In fact: before the crossbow archery was a special forces unit and not something you would have in large quantities.

吴大健 · |2019-12-07

　　You are mixing ages there…
Bows were being made even on stone age with ■■■■■■ equipment but that was enough because armor was also ■■■■■■ or non existent(excluding rare civilizations)
　　Strength i doubt maybe on later creations of the crossbows but…
Yet again on early ages you only needed to have a decent aim and power just hitting someone was already good enough since armor was only developed centuries later
　　Wouldn’t say cheaper but practical like everybody know it was easier to hit something with a crossbow then a bow

樱花雨 · |2019-12-07

　　AbyssTower, I probably get the misconception of crossbow require lots of strength from pop culture (I guess fantasy movies and games). In real life bow require a lots of strength to use, an average peasant wouldn’t be able to hurt anyone in armor with his bow

风铃 · |2019-12-07

　　again on early ages you only needed to have a decent aim and power just hitting someone was already good enough since armor was only developed centuries later and nothing could penetrate shield anyway

一缕斜阳 · |2019-12-07

　　Interesting topic. Gunpowder Era was known for its magnficent, glorious and marveollous innovations ranging from archeitextures to weaponary to other infastuctures and crafts. I also heard that much of the designs and innovations of this era are shrouded in mystery in blue prints. Espically of that Da Vinci ones.

丢丢 · |2019-12-07

　　What role should gunpowder play in Age 4?

　　If you’re looking for diverse opinions, my answer is, “None.” I’m not a fan of gunpowder explosions and guns in AoE. And at least not for the first new, well-done, AoE2-like game like AoE4. If there must be, I hope they’re relegated to unique, civ-specific applications in very late game and are subtly implemented; nothing too over-the-top.
　　I know there were some gunpowder units in AoE2, but I feel there’s little fanfare with them, so you almost don’t realize they’re all that different from arrow-shooting units. I like that. They blend in well enough with the game. If AoE4 can do that, then that’s fine.
　　My subtle fear for if gunpowder units are put in AoE4, is that the devs will make them stand out like a sore thumb; with incredibly loud, echoing explosions and booms (reminiscent of AoE3). Like you know the medieval times are over and modern warfare is here to bring the game to an end in ‘T-minus 3 minutes’ with unrivaled onslaughts of power and force.

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			加入团队

[aoe IV] What role should gunpowder play in Age 4?

最佳新兵

推广达人

宣传达人

社区元老

玩帝国，到新时代

在这里，找到战友，找到家