Why are Arsonists considered bad?
- randerzbobanderz
- Musketeer
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Jul 14, 2019
- ESO: RandyBobandy
- Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park
Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They have 50% RR, 140 Siege attack, 3.0 ROF and a saloon is cheaper than the Art. foundry. Especially vs Civs like China where Falcs don't do a whole lot, but you still may need quick siege, they seem like a solid option.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They’re basically 300c grens which is already a bad unit
- Method_man714
- Lancer
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mar 12, 2015
- ESO: Therotivator
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Because Arsonists often cause the destruction of property or valuable items, which can be upsetting as there is always loss of monetary value.
hazzarov: can u fk off callen
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They aren't "terrible" but they are easily kited and not particularly useful in most situations. Like grens they are situational. The only matchup i would use them is as india vs russia, but thats like a pr20 strat not a competitive level one
- I_HaRRiiSoN_I
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Jan 15, 2016
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Even if you 'wanted' to use arsonists you cant really due to random nature of mercs available in monastry /saloon, unless i'm missing a way to ship them or ship a card so that they can be trained. I imagine that grens are much more cost effective than arsonists and that the arsonist is definitely a merc which would get shredded and picked off by spies.
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They are just far inferior to grenadiers. A comparison:
Unit: Vet. Grenadier / Arsonist
Cost: 120f 60c / 300 c
HP: 240 / 250
RR: .5 / .5
Dmg: 19.2 / 25
Siege: 64 / 140
Already here, we can see that the Arsonist is worse due to costing twice as much as a simple Grenadier. But in my opinion the biggest flaw of Arsonsists is that they don't profit from the Incendiary Grenades tech in arsenal which gives a whopping + 30% dmg and an additional +1 on splash damage.
Also note that some civs have upgrade cards which affect Grenadiers but not Arsonsists (famously the British, but also Ottomans).
edit: vet gren siege dmg was corrected
Unit: Vet. Grenadier / Arsonist
Cost: 120f 60c / 300 c
HP: 240 / 250
RR: .5 / .5
Dmg: 19.2 / 25
Siege: 64 / 140
Already here, we can see that the Arsonist is worse due to costing twice as much as a simple Grenadier. But in my opinion the biggest flaw of Arsonsists is that they don't profit from the Incendiary Grenades tech in arsenal which gives a whopping + 30% dmg and an additional +1 on splash damage.
Also note that some civs have upgrade cards which affect Grenadiers but not Arsonsists (famously the British, but also Ottomans).
edit: vet gren siege dmg was corrected
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
- I_HaRRiiSoN_I
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Jan 15, 2016
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Also very low hp and regular given their cost. Siege damage is decent but is less important than their lack of HP
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They're just garbage. Bad stats, super expensive, and trash kind of unit (grenadier). Also happens to be bugged on RE, not affected by the improved mercs card. Not much to add
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
- dietschlander
- Lancer
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Oct 8, 2015
- Location: Dietschland
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Hi Randy
Theres going to be a dam, the great dam and we'll let the beavers pay for it - Edeholland 2016
Anyway, nuancing isn't your forte, so I'll agree with you like I would with a 8 year old: violence is bad, don't do hard drugs and stay in school Benj98
Anyway, nuancing isn't your forte, so I'll agree with you like I would with a 8 year old: violence is bad, don't do hard drugs and stay in school Benj98
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Correct maths doesnt lie!
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
All mercenaries need changes. ESOC no not do.
Wait Forgothen Empires in Definitive Edition.
Wait Forgothen Empires in Definitive Edition.
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Improved mercenaries doesn't affect arsonists??? Ouch
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
dansil92 wrote:Improved mercenaries doesn't affect arsonists??? Ouch
No have TAG mercenaries.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
5CH3U3R wrote:dansil92 wrote:Improved mercenaries doesn't affect arsonists??? Ouch
No have TAG mercenaries.
On EP they do, so they're effected by improved mercs.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
I think the primary concern with arsonists will always be the low hp. Regular grenadiers, should you choose to invest in them, are absolute tanks and genuinely pretty powerful once they actually start throwing those bombs (i believe the above statistic for the siege damage above is incorrect for a vet gren, it should be around 64 iirc)
Arsonists are basically a glass cannon siege unit that is far too expensive and not nearly as effective as they need to be vs basically anything that moves. The ONLY units they are good against are poorly microed xbows, poorly microed ruskets, poorly microed longbows and vills all bunched up on a coin mine. Not great for a 300 coin unit- even the other glass cannon merc (hackapells) at least has mobility and a good attack vs anything they touch
Arsonists are basically a glass cannon siege unit that is far too expensive and not nearly as effective as they need to be vs basically anything that moves. The ONLY units they are good against are poorly microed xbows, poorly microed ruskets, poorly microed longbows and vills all bunched up on a coin mine. Not great for a 300 coin unit- even the other glass cannon merc (hackapells) at least has mobility and a good attack vs anything they touch
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Jul 11, 2019
- ESO: Peachrocks
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Yeah, a better question is why are Grenadiers considered bad and thus why are arsonists worse. I mean there's a lot that work against the unit type in general, but those stats in the case of the arsonist are just dreadful.
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
Grens are not bad they are difficult to use. In terms of raw stats they are extremely good but the long delay on the throw, combined with their classification as heavy infantry (despite not countering cavalry) and slow speed, aggravated by the need for an artillery foundry, compounded against their need to be upgraded to fortress age, and stacked with their 2 population.... they fall into the "non-competitive" class of units.
Ive seen otto players mix a few in even at tournament levels but they already have a foundry so that particular challenge is overcome, making them more accessible
Ive seen otto players mix a few in even at tournament levels but they already have a foundry so that particular challenge is overcome, making them more accessible
Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?
They dont have a merc tag so they actually shit on spiesI_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:Even if you 'wanted' to use arsonists you cant really due to random nature of mercs available in monastry /saloon, unless i'm missing a way to ship them or ship a card so that they can be trained. I imagine that grens are much more cost effective than arsonists and that the arsonist is definitely a merc which would get shredded and picked off by spies.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests