Are the Shoshone completely overpowered?

I mean with their ability to expand quickly, scouts that choose upgrades, and free territory for their new cities, the Shoshone are completely overpowered. On top of that they get defensive bonuses in their own territory. They can snatch up land and immediately defend it. How does that make other expansionists civs like America and Russia look. At the beginning of the game, the most important time for growth, the
Shoshone would take everything before any other civ could react. Give me one reason why they aren't in desperate need of a nerf.

The shoshone don't get anything to help them out after they've settled their last city. The extra borders are nice, certainly, but they don't compare to what Babylon gets whatsoever. Remember that expansion was nerfed significantly in BNW. Yes, it's true that you can expand like a ten year old's waistline at grandma's house, but for every city you found, you're hurting yourself scientifically and culturally, not to mention what rapid expansion now does for your economy now that the river and coast gold is out of the game. All in all, I'd rather have a civ like the Inca that gives me benefits I can use for the entire game.

They've got to be in the top 3 new civs in this update.

The pathfinder, after you upgrade it to a composite bowman is a really good explorer, and helps you get the world congress going nice and fast. Settlers gobble up land like crazy and the defensive bonus is nice as well.

However, as mentioned above, unless you make great use of comanche riders, you basically have no passive bonuses after you settle in. It's not like the mayans where you get great people every once in a while or babylon with techs. They're good, but not overpowered

shneb said:

How does that make other expansionists civs like America and Russia look.

Click to expand...

Nearly all of the vanilla Civs are bland compared to G&K/BNW Civs. If it came down to wanting a change, I'd rather have the old Civs spiced up than nerfing the Shoshone (or any other expansion Civ).

MantaRevan said:

but for every city you found, you're hurting yourself scientifically and culturally

Click to expand...

When can we stop spreading these myths? They only hurt your empire if you don't develop the new cities, otherwise more cities will always = more science and culture.

I wouldn't consider them overpowered, but they are considerably powerful. Probably one of the more controversial of the new civs in BNW if only for their unique ability which makes border expansion a breeze. They can win competitive land struggles without as much initial cultural influence with their UA. All they have to do is plop down a settler somewhere nice and bam - instant bunch of land without having to put the time or gold to grab it all yourself.

The pathfinders are a great UU, although I wouldn't consider their special ability to be particularly powerful. While they remove the RNG annoyance that comes with finding and exploring ruins, they can only pick each bonus once IIRC. This means you can't pop several of the same kind of ruins by sheer chance (barb encampment and crude map ruins are fantastic in bunches), which again, is completely random and no one should have to rely on trying that as a serious aspect of their early game.

Pathfinders are somewhat more expensive to build compared to regular scouts, but when you factor in their attributes compared to other early game units like warriors, there's no reason to build many other units anyway. I haven't tried their other UU so I can't weigh in on it. I was never one for mounted units, so perhaps it has its use that I'm not seeing.

My verdict: Powerful, but not unbalanced. A very flexible and formidable early-game civ.

I'm sure many players will restrict their use in their multiplayer games, however. Along with the Zulu, the Shoshone are one Civ from BNW that I hate spawning next to, as the scramble to settle land against them is ridiculous. Outside of their early game, they don't have much going for them as far as I can tell, but that doesn't really matter since any player can adapt their strategies accordingly after they have a lay of the land.

Matthew. said:

Nearly all of the vanilla Civs are bland compared to G&K/BNW Civs. If it came down to wanting a change, I'd rather have the old Civs spiced up than nerfing the Shoshone (or any other expansion Civ).



When can we stop spreading these myths? They only hurt your empire if you don't develop the new cities, otherwise more cities will always = more science and culture.

Click to expand...

More citys equal more culture but each new city adds more to the cultural requirement for policys , as a defense against tourism going wide will give you a large defense but your policy aquistion will take more turns .
Likewise science , yes you will make more beakers but you will need more turns to complete a technology

newarkinvaders said:

More citys equal more culture but each new city adds more to the cultural requirement for policys , as a defense against tourism going wide will give you a large defense but your policy aquistion will take more turns .
Likewise science , yes you will make more beakers but you will need more turns to complete a technology

Click to expand...

...No, you will need less turns because you should be making more beakers or culture than the added amount required to get a policy or tech for each city, unless you're not putting any cultural or scientific buildings in any of those cities.

They really need to nerf the points the Shoshone get for land compared to other civs. Otherwise they will keep being no.1 on the leaderboards all the time and everyone keeps thinking they're op.

omg, the hex acquisition bonus AND defensive bonus is just ... well, I only play at Prince which is kind of walkover easy anyway. But with these Injuns it is just a joke, no contest, outright win guaranteed even without the ruins.

Matthew. said:

Nearly all of the vanilla Civs are bland compared to G&K/BNW Civs. If it came down to wanting a change, I'd rather have the old Civs spiced up than nerfing the Shoshone (or any other expansion Civ).

Click to expand...

I think that is an impression that has more to do with the older civs being older and the newer being, well, newer. It is a human characteristic to have a higher appreciation of the new rather than the old.

For example, at the moment I consider England to be the most powerful civ (for my play style, preferring naval combat, that is).

The statement about the OG Civs being "boring" is only part true. Compare Germany and Japan to Persia or the Iroquis. Both of the latter have highly interesting abilities and units/buildings. There are just a few very painful offenders in Vanilla, but most of them still have nice tricks that wouldn't go amiss on new civs. Heck, Poland is bland as can be (Let's be honest here, they ARE!) but that doesn't make Poland weak either. Of the generally considered top tier civs (pre-BNW; Inca/Maya/Babylon/China/Korea), sure, only one of them is from Vanilla. Still doesn't mean they're all poor.
Now on to the Shoshone. The thing about them is that while powerful, their entire bonus focusses on the early game. They can set up a fast culture/faith game, sure. Or troll their closest neighbor with Comp Bows in the ancient era. But on the flipside, once other civs stabilize, they tend to get bonuses...which the Shoshone don't. The Comanche Rider, while not a POOR UU by any means, is just not special enough like, say, the Keshik to be able to carry the Shoshone further.
Their combat bonus is like a fixed version of Ethiopia's, which is annoying but nothing spectacular. Still won't save them from some artillery fire.
Now, if they get that huge territory + tradition + Great Wall going on...then you're in for a long slog. But they don't offer any other bonuses that helps them actually win the game - they simply have a much smoother early game then most others.

Okay so everyone thinks they have no bonuses in the late game. What about the defensive bonus? Makes it even easier to run a sprawling empire. Plus the beginning of the game is the most important time for expansionist civs. If America spawned next to the Shoshone for example they would be at a disadvantage for the entire game.

The defensive bonus does not help them obtaining a science/culture/diplomatic/war victory by any means. It merely prevents easier times for warmongers trying to take them that way. If you want to use it as an example, then tell me this. Does the combat bonus for Ethiopia factor in highly in you evaluating that civ?
That bonus isn't going to save them from long-distance attacks either. Nukes ahoy...

I think a major difference is that the Ethiopians are meant for turtling while achieving a cultural victory with a small empire. So a defensive bonus is a huge plus for them. But the Shoshone are an expansive civ, so a similar defensive bonus doesn't seem fair. Why is it that a civ meant for a small defensive strategy shares a similar power to one meant for expansion?

Their second UU -Comanche Riders- has nothing special. austrian Hussars have 50% flank bonus. Cossacks have 33% combat bonus against damaged enemy units. Berber Cavalry have 50% in desert and 25% in home. Yes, Pathfinders seems OP but Shoshone definetely is not OP.

Really, the Shoshone don't primarily compete with expansion civs like the OP mentions, they compete with Ethiopia.

Other than the Stele, Ethiopia really doesn't have anything going for it that the Shoshone don't get. I suppose you can use Ethiopia's bonus offensively against larger civs, but how many cities can you actually take before your ability becomes obsolete?

As much as I like Ethiopia, they seem like a weaker Shoshone in game(almost like Germany and the Zulu).

I'd also rate them as a nice UA, but not over powered.

The part dealing with discovery of ruins is a bit luck dependent; on some games none of the AIs bother getting the ruins a few tiles away, but in others some of the AIs send their scouts all over the map. But in general, their edge is slightly smaller on Emperor & above than King & below due to Emperor being the first level in which the AIs start with a scout.

Shoshone are very strong, but I can't say for sure if overpowered. Annoying, yes, but ruins are pretty random, so getting Pathfinders upgraded is random too.

If you asked if Poland is overpowered, I'd say "probably yes". There's many UA's worse than some social policies, and as Casimir you can get more than an entire tree for free, not to mention the uniques are both good.

I suspect Assyria is OP too, but I haven't played it yet so I can't say.

I play with ancient ruins off, so they aren't overpowered in my games.

It totally depends on the amount of ruins you find early game. I rushed liberty because I made extra pathfinders and got as much culture from ruins as I could. You could even get culture twice in a row of ruins after a certain amount of turns, so I saved the ruins nearby me for that. I went settler before worker because liberty gives me a free worker. Then with the +5% production from Liberty I constructed the Pyramids that gave me another 2 workers and improved tiles. I was able to focus on settlers while also getting really quick tile improvements.

However this was on king. On higher difficulties their scouts will find ruins before you and the advantage is much weaker.