camel archers/polls/other

Rpger29 said:

It really boils down to the experience points/promotions. I'd rather have a keshik built with no promos than two camel archers built in a city with barracks/armory.

A small group of keshiks fielded as early as possible will have logistics before camel archers even have the third terrain bonus. Someone want to do the math (can't right now)?

You also make repeated mention of tight terrain being in favor of camel archers. If a camel archer gets caught in a tough spot and gets hit by two pikes because he can't retreat, he's toast.

The keshik will probably at least be able to retreat to be attacked by only one unit at worst.

Click to expand...

I think being caught by a pike by either unit only occurs with improper scouting. Both units have the same visibility range, in which case if you place the keshik on a spot and can only see a couple of spaces in front of you and the camel archer does the same thing, both units/players will feel 'safe'. They see no enemy unit two spaces ahead and gain a false sense of security. If you have a horseman with sentry or whatever the promotion is called, or scouts or mobile units flanking the primary battle zone then in either event, camel archer or keshik, you should be able to easily avoid damage or losses. My only point is that you should be able to just as effectively avoid getting hit with a camel archer as with a keshik, if you are getting hit then it's due to bad scouting and in that case, keshik or camel archer, you will be getting hit and in that case really the camel archers higher base strength and cheaper replaceability will be more of an advantage to you.

ShahJahanII said:

Do the poll a favor, play as both Mongols and Arabs on your favorite difficulty, map, etc. and then come back and tell us Keshiks are better.

Really, the 2 extra moves and experience bonus (not to mention synergy with Khans) make the Keshiks the better unit.

And I don't see people really agreeing with you here, so don't makes statements like "it just keeps getting better for the Camel archers".

Click to expand...

Keshik has only one extra movement and khan isn't allowed in this comparison .. or is it? Because if that extra movement is allowed and if the khan is allowed then I include the Arabs specials and in that case it boils down to the camel archers being attached to a more powerful economy and that economy will grind your impoverished mongol empire into the dust, keshiks khans and extra 2 movement spaces notwithstanding.

Does the bazaar directly add attributes to the Camel Archer? No? Then it's not relevant in a discussion of units. Again, I feel like the question you really want to answer is "which civ makes a better warmonger, Mongols or Arabs?".

chazzycat said:

Does the bazaar directly add attributes to the Camel Archer? No? Then it's not relevant in a discussion of units. Again, I feel like the question you really want to answer is "which civ makes a better warmonger, Mongols or Arabs?".

Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant. As I said, unique abilities and secondary unit/building have their tradeoffs. If Arabs weren't given their trade routes UA and bazaar perhaps they would be given a khan and an extra 2 movements for their units as well. You can't seriously try to make a comparison of two civs units while including the specials for one and not for the other, that's called stacking the deck. Nor can you make up arbitrary rules about what constitutes 'directly adding attributes' or whether that even matters in a fair comparison. By most peoples standards if you are going to include one civs specials which add bonuses to their military unit, then you have to include the others civs which add bonuses to their military, directly or indirectly it makes no difference.

Someone else has raised the question of which is the better warmonger and I've responded, but I'm more interested in a comparison of what sort of contribution does each unit make to their specific civ, which implies that where a comparison of pure warmongering would have to include other eras and their respective military units, this is a question more concerned with the specific era for these specific units. In my experience playing the Arabs, camel archers have been dominant and gamechanging. I've played the Mongols and while keshiks are not a bad unit I have not found them to be as powerful; this may be due to the fact that the Mongol economy stinks, but you can't separate a civ from their unit as you've made abundantly clear.

woodshadows said:

Keshik has only one extra movement and khan isn't allowed in this comparison .. or is it? Because if that extra movement is allowed and if the khan is allowed then I include the Arabs specials and in that case it boils down to the camel archers being attached to a more powerful economy and that economy will grind your impoverished mongol empire into the dust, keshiks khans and extra 2 movement spaces notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

That is fine, but then the poll question should be Mongols or Arabs?

I definitely think keshiks are better. But camel archers kick ass too.

woodshadows said:

You're talking from theory, I'm talking from in-game experience.

Click to expand...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

camel archers kick all sorts of @$$

I prefer Arabia over Mongolia. Much more flexible of a civ. And Camel Archers are much sturdier to take more damage in multiplayer (you wont always be able to hit and retreat in time on multi) and losing less hp allows you to hit harder.