next DLC civ: carthage with numidian cavalry (horsemen)
8 move, 16 strength, bonus against spearmen.
Mongolia completely overpowered?
- Thread starter lschnarch
- Start date
next DLC civ: carthage with numidian cavalry (horsemen)
8 move, 16 strength, bonus against spearmen.
Errrr... might want to look that one up.
That's the popular view, but it's very inaccurate. Kublai Khan ruled most of modern day China, for instance. There were also a number of Khanates ruling vast parts of Asia after Genghis died, and they certainly didn't settle all those cities themselves.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
They also took cities the traditional way with Trebuchets and infantry (a lot of times using siege specialists of conquered peoples, but still).
pi-r8, Numidian Cav were also ranged units, so it would be appropriate for them to be so in the game. Horsemen replacements no doubt. Unless, of course, they went with Libyan Infantry, Balearic Slingers, or Quinqueremes. They're a mercantile Civ, so my guess is they won't be as warlike. Seriously, though, are you objecting to the Mongols of all Civs being powerful during war?
pi-r8, Numidian Cav were also ranged units, so it would be appropriate for them to be so in the game. Horsemen replacements no doubt. Unless, of course, they went with Libyan Infantry, Balearic Slingers, or Quinqueremes. They're a mercantile Civ, so my guess is they won't be as warlike. Seriously, though, are you objecting to the Mongols of all Civs being powerful during war?
I just don't like the fact that they took an already overpowered unit (horsemen, and to some extent knights) and made a civ designed to beef up those units even MORE. Fix the basic units first, then you can give the Mongols a fancy version of it. Instead it looks like they're going the classic route of making every single expansion/DLC even more powerful than the last, so that people are forced to keep buying more stuff if they want to keep up.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Are the Mongols really more powerful than Babylon? Babylon seems more useful for singleplayer. I could beat the AI with horses, I don't need Keshiks (Keshiks are actually worse to some degree because they can't actually take the cities). Besides, they're the Mongols!
Both Mongols AND babylon are completely ridiculous bonuses, that's the point. They're both way better than most of the normal civs.
taking something that's already game-breakingly powerful (mounted units) and giving them bonuses for one special civ is not the proper way to make a game. "but it's the mongols! They should be massively overpowered!" is not a good excuse.
China, Greece, Siam, and Japan beg to differ.
Then would you have prefered the Mongols not getting mounted UAs?
the streak
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Messages
- 56
Don't play as them if they're too overpowered for you. It's a single player game, after all.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Exactly.
Also, this. I didn't say the Mongols deserved to be overpowered, but it does make sense for them to get bonuses for military and especially mounted military. They're not suited for a peaceful game or cultural victory, for example.
It's why I asked about comparing the Keshik to the Camel Archer. I think the Keshik is better, but I think they're comparable. Also, the Arab Unique Building is better than the Khan, imo. Arabs aren't even considered the top tier of Civs for most people, from what I gather.
China, Greece, and France are the top tier of the normal civs, roughly on par with Babylon and Mongolia I guess. Siam and Japan don't even come close. You really like fighting with injured units that much? I like to keep my units healthy so they don't die.
Of course the Mongols should have a mounted unique unit but... they need to fix the regular mounted units first. You can't add bonus content when the regular content is such a mess. As it is they'll be fun to mess around with once, and then I'll probably never touch them again because it's just too easy to massacre everything with mounted UUs.
Siam's UA is roughly as good as the Greek ability. Japan's ability is one of the best warmonger UAs in the game. I like keeping my units healthy too, but it's not always possible.
So your solution is to release Mongolia muuuch later, once everything is patched then? What would the point of that be? I'd like to enjoy the civ releases ASAP, personally.
And I'm not getting into the 'what developers should be prioritizing' argument on here, that one's just pointless.
I would rank Greeks over Siam on most maps except when I want to play culture or non-military victory game on a smaller map where there are less city states. Siam's UA is better than Greek UA in that situation with the 50% bonus more culture + food. Less city state = less cash is needed and you need bigger bonus boost to compensate for less city states.
Greek is better overall, the companion Calvary with its extra movement and ability to generate GG faster is sick. That's why I think Mongolian's kheshik in competent hands (not current AI) is going to be hell to counter.
Yep, which is why IMO the Greek and Siamese UAs are about even. With large numbers of CS you need to keep allied/friendly, the Greeks are better. With smaller numbers of CS (or smaller numbers of the CS type you need) the Siamese are better.
Either way, both are clearly top tier UAs for me.
Definitely. I don't rate Siam's other uniques too highly.
Oh yeah. Also, I've got to say I love how the game encourages you to make entire armies of mounted with the Keshik and the GG that can keep up with horses. It encourages a different playstyle and strat, and that's awesome.
Snoopaloop
King
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 607
I just wish the Khan had unique logo; not just the normal GG one
yeah, it's also sick
When I got Mongol package, I tested it on easy, I think warlord, perhaps prince difficulty on a small duel map. I was frustrated my kheshik couldn't take city (duh!) so I had to build swordsman to do it. Later, I was like, duh, horseman works too and built kheshik + horseman on my 2nd game as mongol. oh man, that was sick, my entire army moves fast, hit & run carnage, poor CPU has no chance.
El Caballerion
King
Well... the Mongols did control the largest, continuous land empire in history. Kinda makes sense to give them a crazy good UU, and have them dominate during the Medieval age.
The UA for Greece is totally irrelevent when you can just conquer the entire world with 4 companion cavalry. How can you compare anything to that? It's a joke.
Japan's ability is the equivalent of a +20% promotion for unit that's at 6/10 HP, and worth even less for a unit with less damage. That's barely even noticeable- it's one of the weakest abilities in the game, at least for a human player. The companion cavalry get's almost a 20% boost in BASE STRENGTH, which get's increased even more by any bonuses they get (and they get a lot!). The extra move is also incredibly powerful.
Is it really that hard to release a patch that changes horseman? Surely it doesn't take that long to change a few numbers in the XML. But if they really want to release Mongolia without changing the base mounted units, they should have done so very carefully. Adding any sort of bonus on what are already the strongest units is dangerous. I think that the +1 move ability, by ITSELF, would already make their mounted units dominant. Adding other stuff on top of that is just their attempt to make people interested by making the "new" civ extra powerful.
Yeah it's not as if any other civ can make an entire army of mounted units... oh wait they all can.
