Talin2009
Mar 04, 2010, 11:07 AM
Is it intended that Immortal (uniq persian replacement for chariot) requires animal husbandry instead of chariotry?
|
View Full Version : Immortals? Talin2009 Mar 04, 2010, 11:07 AM Is it intended that Immortal (uniq persian replacement for chariot) requires animal husbandry instead of chariotry? Afforess Mar 04, 2010, 11:44 AM The immortal isn't a chariot, so why should it require chariotry? Talin2009 Mar 04, 2010, 12:56 PM The immortal isn't a chariot, so why should it require chariotry? Well, if we use that logic, they are horsemen, and should be available after horseback riding then ... my OP was about them being replacement of chariot without that tech req., why make them chariot replacement then? Grathocke Mar 05, 2010, 02:20 AM Well, if we use that logic, they are horsemen, and should be available after horseback riding then ... my OP was about them being replacement of chariot without that tech req., why make them chariot replacement then? They were neither horsemen nor charioteers: they were infantry. It wasn't until the later Sassanid Empire that they became a cavalry unit. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Immortal Supercheese Mar 05, 2010, 02:24 AM C'mon guys, don't you remember Immortals from 300? They were indeed infantry, and not as "immortal" as they claimed to be. P.S. This, is, SPARTAAAA!!... ;) zappara Mar 05, 2010, 08:14 AM Is it intended that Immortal (uniq persian replacement for chariot) requires animal husbandry instead of chariotry?It's intended in RoM :p Talin2009 Mar 06, 2010, 08:20 AM It's intended in RoM :p well, i just wanted to mention that they are pretty overpowered for their age, being both mounted unit with 2 movement and having +50% vs archers Afforess Mar 06, 2010, 01:35 PM well, i just wanted to mention that they are pretty overpowered for their age, being both mounted unit with 2 movement and having +50% vs archers Chariots have 2 movement and 30% vs Archers, so its a stretch to claim immortals are that much better. civ_king Mar 06, 2010, 02:37 PM Chariots have 2 movement and 30% vs Archers, so its a stretch to claim immortals are that much better. They come earlier too? Afforess Mar 06, 2010, 02:47 PM They come earlier too? The difference in time is fairly inconsequential, as getting access to horses takes more time than researching Chariotry or Animal Husbandry. Supercheese Mar 06, 2010, 02:54 PM The difference in time is fairly inconsequential, as getting access to horses takes more time than researching Chariotry or Animal Husbandry. Unless you get lucky and discover horses beneath your capital. ;) Afforess Mar 06, 2010, 02:57 PM Unless you get lucky and discover horses beneath your capital. ;) In which case you get easy access to mounted units and...? Mounted units haven't been very useful since RoM 2.61. Heck, Chariots have free first strikes and Immortals don't. That makes them better right there. ;) Talin2009 Mar 07, 2010, 02:42 AM Game i'm playing right now, Persians, gigantic map. in 1st tribal hut i discovered Animal Husbandry, thus founding Ngai, horses were next tile from my capital. After that i made 5 immortals which laid waste to several civs around me, and kept razing every barbarian city i came across. Soon they got enough promotions so that they had 99% odds with javelineers and later on spearmen. [edi]t Anyhow, my whole point was that Animal Husbandry as prereq tech. is way too early for those units. |
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.