Praetorians Imbalanced

Splaaat · Feb 22, 2006

It seems to me that Praetorians are imbalanced - notably in multiplayer campaigns. They come very early. They overpower any units until crossbowmen (which come a bit later, quite later unless they are your focus, and it seems unfair to focus a strategy on obtaining 1 counter unit.)

Their strength of 8 is 33% more than the unit they replace (the swordsman at 6.) Most unique units only gain a free promotion or so that only make them useful in 1 specific situation, and this 33% is clearly the largest power increase of any UU.

While the Romans must have Iron to make them, if this is the focus of their game, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. It seems that if you play against Ceasar, you have two choices, rush to ironworking to find the iron on the map to try to keep it from him or rush to crossbowmen and hope you're still alive when they show up (unlikely).

Is it just me, or are these guys a bit too powerful?

IamSid · Feb 22, 2006

Splaaat said:
It seems to me that Praetorians are imbalanced - notably in multiplayer campaigns. They come very early. They overpower any units until crossbowmen (which come a bit later, quite later unless they are your focus, and it seems unfair to focus a strategy on obtaining 1 counter unit.)

Their strength of 8 is 33% more than the unit they replace (the swordsman at 6.) Most unique units only gain a free promotion or so that only make them useful in 1 specific situation, and this 33% is clearly the largest power increase of any UU.

While the Romans must have Iron to make them, if this is the focus of their game, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. It seems that if you play against Ceasar, you have two choices, rush to ironworking to find the iron on the map to try to keep it from him or rush to crossbowmen and hope you're still alive when they show up (unlikely).

Is it just me, or are these guys a bit too powerful?

I noticed this on my first emporer game as Rome. I thought to myself "This is to easy."

*Nosferatu* · Feb 22, 2006

Axeman, they may get raped, but they will do the job with a bit of stratagy.

But I think Conquistadors are the real *****es, +50% vs. Melee, It'll even destroy pikeman 12 vs. 10 x 1.50 = 15.

Splaaat · Feb 22, 2006

*Nosferatu* said:
Axeman, they may get raped, but they will do the job with a bit of stratagy.

But I think Conquistadors are the real *****es, +50% vs. Melee, It'll even destroy pikeman 12 vs. 10 x 1.50 = 15.

But in multiplay, your axemen are going to be meeting a human strategist, not the AI.

They'll be at a disadvantage even with their mele bonus (5x1.5 = 7.5 Axemen vs. 8 Praetorian). AND - those axemen only are 7.5 vs. Praetorians and other mele. Praetorians are 8 vs. EVERYTHING.

Conquistadors may show up to see your last city falling to the Roman Legions. Guilds comes waaaay after Iron Working.

A stack of Praetorians will steamroll, and Construction shows up much later than iron working to provide the catapults to hit the stack.

sabres77 · Feb 22, 2006

kind of reflects the the rise of the Roman Empire IMO..... :king:

Malarkey · Feb 22, 2006

My favorite UU. If you can't beat em, join em. :king:

Xanikk999 · Feb 22, 2006

Thier unique unit is very good. But i hate playing rome because their traits are total crap and i mean the worst combination in the game.

gettingfat · Feb 22, 2006

sabres77 said:
kind of reflects the the rise of the Roman Empire IMO.....

Romans rose at the same time of Qin dynasty and Han dynasty in China, where repeating crossbows, poweful composite bows and a bit later catapults were already being used in large scale, the game does not reflect this.

And the fact that Praetorians are able to beat Keshiks is also a joke from realistic viewpoint. Unless you can shut these two units in a small room Praetorians will just be another lunch for the immensely powerful Keshiks.

Lockesdonkey · Feb 22, 2006

Perhaps. However, I find the most effective strat v. Caesar to be convert him and make him your closest ally.

Splaaat · Feb 22, 2006

Lockesdonkey said:
Perhaps. However, I find the most effective strat v. Caesar to be convert him and make him your closest ally.

That doesn't work very well in multi-player.

lz14 · Feb 22, 2006

Axeman is a bit weaker but they are cheaper.

plus if you are aggressive it's even better

neriana · Feb 22, 2006

*Nosferatu* said:
But I think Conquistadors are the real *****es, +50% vs. Melee, It'll even destroy pikeman 12 vs. 10 x 1.50 = 15.

I have never used Conquistadors for very long. Guilds take a long time to research, and preclude getting other extremely good techs -- unlike ironworking, which you've really gotta get pretty early anyway. I'm usually building cavalry before I get a chance to use conquistadors. Also, iron has been MORE common than horses in my games

potatokiosk · Feb 22, 2006

lz14 said:
Axeman is a bit weaker but they are cheaper.

plus if you are aggressive it's even better

Indeed. A city with a barracks will train a unit equipped with an instant promotion. Since an agressive civ gets the Combat 1 promotion for free, you can use your first promotion for shock. (+25% vs. melee) The axeman is left with 8.75 vs. melee units, and is still cheaper than a Praetorian. Sure, you could be crushed by Horse Archers, but some people aren't that smart.

vinstafresh · Feb 23, 2006

In MP: Team up against Rome to keep him on the defense from multiple fronts in stead of offense. Have someone rush to construction and trade it to everyone except Rome. In MP you can ally straight off the bat...

Vonreuter · Feb 23, 2006

The Praetorian nicely balances Julius' bad traits. Expansionist and Organized just isn't a competitive choice.

What I don't understand is why they chose to name them Praetorians! Praetorians were the Emperor's guard, not armies by themselves. Legionary would've been better by miles.

Uiler · Feb 23, 2006

Noble. Playing America (random civs). I was stuck on a continent alone with Caesar. Just as I discovered Iron Working and hooked up some iron, Caesar popped up begging me for some iron.

I loved that game as I crushed Caesar under my heel. Though I think that might have been due more to the way I boxed him into jungle very early. I love lots of early scouting...

warpstorm · Feb 23, 2006

Vonreuter said:
What I don't understand is why they chose to name them Praetorians!

Historical accuracy be damned! Praetorian sounds cooler than legions :lol:

lord_graywolfe · Feb 23, 2006

something else to consider is what speed your on. anything less than marathon and the preatorian will probally be outdated by the time anyone can build enough of them to be a serious threat. its not far past iron working to civil service and macemen. from past experiance the macemen will eat the preatorian alive just rolling over them. also before getting cats or mace or xbow the best thing to do is as mentioned before use axemen with the shock promo. defend cities with lots of archers/longbowmen. use mounted units that can withdraw to wear them down.

Xen · Feb 23, 2006

gettingfat said:
Romans rose at the same time of Qin dynasty and Han dynasty in China, where repeating crossbows, poweful composite bows and a bit later catapults were already being used in large scale, the game does not reflect this.

in all fairness, crossbows were being used in the med sea area before Rome really started to rise, so i dont see what the big deal is.

alco75 · Feb 23, 2006

Xanikk999 said:
I hate playing rome because their traits are total crap

Errr, no.

Organized + Expansive = Horizontal + Vertical Growth = Large Population = 1st in GNP, 1st in Crops, 1st in Production.

Organized is the best trait for large empires or domination victories.

Expansive is only crap at easy difficulties.

Stop playing at Warlord. :mischief:

Praetorians Imbalanced

Chieftain

TheTrueIdiot!

AHHH!!! BEARS!!!

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

History junkie

Emperor

Liberal Jihadist

Chieftain

Prince

Warlord

Deity

Prince

Warlord

Emperor

Yumbo? Yumbo!

Wolfman

Magister

Warlord

Similar threads