Page 1 of 1

Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 14:53
by randerzbobanderz
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.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 14:57
by Hazza54321
They’re basically 300c grens which is already a bad unit

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 15:04
by Method_man714
Because Arsonists often cause the destruction of property or valuable items, which can be upsetting as there is always loss of monetary value.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 15:11
by dansil92
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

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 15:17
by I_HaRRiiSoN_I
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?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 15:42
by duckzilla
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

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 16:08
by I_HaRRiiSoN_I
Also very low hp and regular given their cost. Siege damage is decent but is less important than their lack of HP

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 16:16
by Kaiserklein
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

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 16:37
by dietschlander
Hi Randy

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 16:39
by yemshi
Waiting for @Dsy to prove us all wrong because arsonists are magically the best unit in the game.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 16:42
by Hazza54321
Correct maths doesnt lie!

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:13
by 5CH3U3R
All mercenaries need changes. ESOC no not do.
Wait Forgothen Empires in Definitive Edition.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:27
by dansil92
Improved mercenaries doesn't affect arsonists??? Ouch

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:35
by 5CH3U3R
dansil92 wrote:Improved mercenaries doesn't affect arsonists??? Ouch

No have TAG mercenaries.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:36
by Riotcoke
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.

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:43
by dansil92
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

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 19:17
by Peachrocks
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?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 23:28
by dansil92
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

Re: Why are Arsonists considered bad?

Posted: 12 Aug 2019, 23:30
by gibson
I_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.
They dont have a merc tag so they actually shit on spies