Hunters - too powerful?

Bad Player · Mar 30, 2007

I see the role of hunters as being for capturing animals. However I usually see human players just build hunters as an all purpose unit for the early-ish game. As a recon unit they have no anti-recon promotion and they are str 3 move 2 which is powerful for the early game anyway. They have access to first level anti-melee/mounted/archer promotions IIRC and also can get hill defence promotion which makes them very good defenders in cities (combined with being able to fortify and enemies have no anti-recon promotion).

IMHO Hunters should be str 2 move 2 (and of course +100% vs animals).

What do others think?

Jono · Mar 30, 2007

I think they just shouldn't be able to fortify. Maybe -40% city attack or something.

eerr · Mar 30, 2007

maybe... -40% on attack (hunters lay traps for animals, not go out and poke them with spears right away)

Saien · Mar 30, 2007

Make Shock be vs Melee and Recon

Sarisin · Mar 31, 2007

Saien said:
Make Shock be vs Melee and Recon

I agree with this, especially, when you get the Rangers and the like appearing.

Sureshot · Mar 31, 2007

i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

gandalf51 · Mar 31, 2007

Sureshot said:
i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

I agree with the -50% city strength

Jean Elcard · Mar 31, 2007

Sureshot said:
i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

Totally the same as my opinion.

Jono · Mar 31, 2007

Still think they shouldn't be allowed to fortify.

loki1232 · Mar 31, 2007

Why? Wouldn't hunters be better if defending a forest than if defending on a grassland?

BlazeRedSXT · Mar 31, 2007

I am pretty sure Recon units already have a -50 City. I could see them not be able to fortify, that would make sense.
Forests already have a fairly good sized Def. bonus.
Hunters do seem to be pretty good early units.. but then , it also depends on how you go at the tech tree. Archers can be considerably able units also, with the right promotions.

Cheers!

R0GERSHRUBBER · Mar 31, 2007

Sureshot said:
i dont mind their strength, i just think they should be moved to Tracking and have -50% city strength (i.e. on offense and defense). ive modded them that way before and it works out nicely, hunters are only usefl in the field that way.

As is, there isn't much incentive to research Tracking unless you're working toward something further down the tech tree.

Still, Hunters strike me as appropriate as frontier city defenders. Is it possible to code them such that they don't receive the cultural defense bonus or the fortification bonus?

Chandrasekhar · Mar 31, 2007

I'd just move them to Tracking. Even as they are, the addition of bronze weapons for warriors makes them fairly well balanced.

Bad Player · Apr 1, 2007

Jono said:
Still think they shouldn't be allowed to fortify.

Do you mean from a flavour (e.g. hunters don't build fortifications) or gameplay (e.g. people are fortifying hunters on their improvements and they are too powerful like that) perspective?

loki1232 said:
Why? Wouldn't hunters be better if defending a forest than if defending on a grassland?

Hunters would still get the forest defence bonus even without fortifying AFAIK.

I like the -50% city strength idea for hunters too.

BlazeRedSXT hunters only have -20% city attack but no defensive penalty for being in a city. Some other recon units have both an offensive AND a defensive penalty.

drekmonger · Apr 1, 2007

Split their Offensive/Defense to 3/1?

Bad Player · Apr 1, 2007

Still I think they are (ab)used for attacking cities which I don't think they should do. -20% is not very much when you consider most hunters running around have combat V and other promotions.

Arpymaster · Apr 4, 2007

I really like the 3/1 idea. They can be good atacking (-30 or -40 to cities) but not that powerfull when defending, so their combat promotions won't make them superman.

Marksman77 · Apr 4, 2007

I don't think 3/1 is sensible, I fail to see why should a hunter be weaker when defending then when attacking (e.g. vs animals)
I agree with -50% city both flavourwise and gameplaywise.

cvlowe · Apr 4, 2007

I agree with the -50% city attack/defense idea. I hate going to attack a city early in the game and seeing stacks of hunters- doesn't seem realistic.

onedreamer · Apr 4, 2007

Hunters aren't too powerful. The only problem with them is that there isn't a promotion vs Recon. They don't require a resource so if the enemy has them you can have them too. They have a penalty to attack cities so they can't be unbalancing because a defending hunter will win an attacking hunter. Proposed solutions will only create unbalance:
1) hunters not being able to defend: this will give a chance to attacking hunters.
2) 3/1 and -50% to city attack. This will be 1.5 for the attacking hunter and 1 for the defending hunter. Again will create unbalance and help early attacks.
3) move them to Tracking: then I'd rather move to Bronze Working and have a unit with no penalties and that even has a chance to get strength 4. Plus, moving them so late gratly hinders their role of explorers / animal capture.

Hunters - too powerful?

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Warlord

Deity

Goddess

Chieftain

The Flavournator

Emperor

Loki

Warlord

Shrubber

Determined

Deity

Chieftain

Deity

Warlord

Aethernaut

King

Dragon

Similar threads