Mongolia completely overpowered?

pi-r8 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Complain noted, doesn't change the fact that your complaints that the expansion civs have better UAs than the vanilla civs are pure bullcrap.

Which is what we were discussing, in case you'd forgotten.

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.

Click to expand...

So...why are you comparing UAs to the CC? It doesn't really make much sense. We all know CC are powerful to the point of being broken, it doesn't mean other traits can't be good. As a warmonger trait, the only better one (than Bushido) is arguably Art of War.

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.

Click to expand...

Make your own mod then, or send Firaxis an email.

I'm not getting into the 'Firaxis priorities' argument again, it never goes anywhere.

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.

Click to expand...

It's free. If they released a new civ with a $5 price tag that was blatantly overpowered, I'd agree, but this is free. Thus, your conspiracy theory (and really, it is one) doesn't really make any sense.

Once mounted gets nerfed (and it probably eventually will) the Mongols should be pretty well balanced.

Yeah it's not as if any other civ can make an entire army of mounted units... oh wait they all can.

Click to expand...

I meant in terms of their having a mounted ranged unit and effectively a mounted GG, obviously (which I flat out say), but keep twisting my words if you enjoy it.

UWHabs said:

For historical accuracy, they should be allowed to take and raze cities, but not capture them.

Click to expand...

The Mongols had many military advantages in the 13th century and one of them was the excellent application of psychological warfare. They would raze a city and butcher it's people so that the surrounding cities would capitulate with little or no bloodshed. They used fear and terror with great success and it was an important part of their success. Not sure if this could've been implemented but one idea would be that a razed city would give a defensive penalty to surrounding cities in X radius for X number of turns. Hmmm...

One aspect of the game that needs balancing is the strength of mounted units in the early game. A penalty for mounted melée units vs cities would be one solution and another would be stronger/cheaper defenses.

Vordeo said:

Complain noted, doesn't change the fact that your complaints that the expansion civs have better UAs than the vanilla civs are pure bullcrap.

Which is what we were discussing, in case you'd forgotten.

Click to expand...

What I originally said was:
"Both Mongols AND babylon are completely ridiculous bonuses"
You responded: "China, Greece, Siam, and Japan beg to differ."
So no I was talking about the civs as a whole, not just the UAs. The UA is just part of a civ. The way the UA of mongolia synergizes with it's unique units makes it way better than almost any vanilla civ.

Vordeo said:

So...why are you comparing UAs to the CC? It doesn't really make much sense. We all know CC are powerful to the point of being broken, it doesn't mean other traits can't be good. As a warmonger trait, the only better one (than Bushido) is arguably Art of War.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "warmonger" trait? The ONLY 2 abilities that directly help your units in war are Bushido and Art of War. So yeah, I agree that of those two Bushido is in second place.

Vordeo said:

Make your own mod then, or send Firaxis an email.

I'm not getting into the 'Firaxis priorities' argument again, it never goes anywhere.

Click to expand...

Oh OK i'll just fix everything myself. Or make my own game from scratch. I paid them for this game, and it's in a completely unacceptable state right now. I'm just venting my anger here a bit.

Vordeo said:

It's free. If they released a new civ with a $5 price tag that was blatantly overpowered, I'd agree, but this is free. Thus, your conspiracy theory (and really, it is one) doesn't really make any sense.

Once mounted gets nerfed (and it probably eventually will) the Mongols should be pretty well balanced.

Click to expand...

It just adds hype for the game. "You think you've tried everything? Wait, try THIS." They can't really do that with a subtle, balanced civ. And I'm quite sure that they'll add more DLC civs which cost money. I read something by D2D saying that one was coming in December.

And right now they've given no indication that they even think mounted is a problem. Who knows what they'll do. I knew that horsemen would be powerful as soon as I saw their stats, so I don't know why they even made it into the release version this way.

Vordeo said:

I meant in terms of their having a mounted ranged unit and effectively a mounted GG, obviously (which I flat out say), but keep twisting my words if you enjoy it.

Click to expand...

You said "entire armies of mounted". I can't read your mind and assume that you meant "entire armies of mounted ranged units". I use GGs with all my mounted units anyway, and it's not much of a problem.

pi-r8 said:

What I originally said was:
"Both Mongols AND babylon are completely ridiculous bonuses"
You responded: "China, Greece, Siam, and Japan beg to differ."
So no I was talking about the civs as a whole, not just the UAs. The UA is just part of a civ. The way the UA of mongolia synergizes with it's unique units makes it way better than almost any vanilla civ.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, though if that was the case, why didn't you point that out earlier?

What do you mean by "warmonger" trait? The ONLY 2 abilities that directly help your units in war are Bushido and Art of War. So yeah, I agree that of those two Bushido is in second place.

Click to expand...

Those are the only two that help directly. I don't think anyone's going to argue that Furor Teutonicus or Achaemenid Legacy don't boost warmongering efforts.

Oh OK i'll just fix everything myself. Or make my own game from scratch. I paid them for this game, and it's in a completely unacceptable state right now. I'm just venting my anger here a bit.

Click to expand...

*Shrug*

Complain all you want, it's everyone on here's right, but some of the complaints aren't really rational, IMO.

It just adds hype for the game. "You think you've tried everything? Wait, try THIS." They can't really do that with a subtle, balanced civ. And I'm quite sure that they'll add more DLC civs which cost money. I read something by D2D saying that one was coming in December.

Click to expand...

2 civs, reportedly.

And it's Mongolia. Mongolia as a DLC is going to be a winner as long as they don't try and actively screw it up. Firaxis isn't perfect and they've screwed up alot of things, but blaming all this on them in one big conspiracy just makes no sense.

You said "entire armies of mounted". I can't read your mind and assume that you meant "entire armies of mounted ranged units". I use GGs with all my mounted units anyway, and it's not much of a problem.

Click to expand...

My exact quote (which is the exact line of text you quoted) was :

Me said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bit hard to miss the Keshik and the GG bits in that quote.

I thought you were talking about the civs this whole time.

"Those are the only two that help directly. I don't think anyone's going to argue that Furor Teutonicus or Achaemenid Legacy don't boost warmongering efforts."
If you're going that route then EVERY ability boosts war. Allying with city-states give you food which grows your cities which produce bigger armies. Everything in this game is related, so you can't really separate gold, production, and war.

"Bit hard to miss the Keshik and the GG bits in that quote. "
I thought you meant that the Keshik and the GG encourage you to make entire armies of mounted.

Are you saying that the game encourages you to make entire armies of Keshik and GG? That's not a good thing.

Vordeo said:

Bit hard to miss the Keshik and the GG bits in that quote.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that there's no other mounted there.

I'm completely with pi-r8 on this one.

Guardian_PL said:

That doesn't mean that there's no other mounted there.

Click to expand...

Er...what?

I'm completely with pi-r8 on this one.

Click to expand...

On what exactly?

Vordeo said:

Those are the only two that help directly. I don't think anyone's going to argue that Furor Teutonicus or Achaemenid Legacy don't boost warmongering efforts.

Click to expand...

Achaemenid Legacy almost certainly is more powerful than Bushido; the flat 10% bonus and much more importantly the +1 move is a huge boast, then the eternal golden age means that you'll have no problems overwhelming your opponents with troops. Bushido is very useful but less useful then it appears to be; don't forget that you don't get a 50% penalty when you are down to 5/10. The actual penalty is more like 25%.

pi-r8 said:

If you're going that route then EVERY ability boosts war. Allying with city-states give you food which grows your cities which produce bigger armies. Everything in this game is related, so you can't really separate gold, production, and war.

Click to expand...

Disagree. While they are interconnected, most UAs clearly support one of those three things or culture. Free extra units (Bismarck/Suleiman) or a +10% to all unit's combat strengths (Darius) are clearly bonuses that support warmongering.

I thought you meant that the Keshik and the GG encourage you to make entire armies of mounted.

Are you saying that the game encourages you to make entire armies of Keshik and GG? That's not a good thing.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that with the Keshik and Khan, you can field whole armies of mounted, with melee (Horsemen), ranged (Keshiks) and support (Khan).

I'm not saying it'd be the best strat, but it'll be pretty fun.

scytheavatar said:

Achaemenid Legacy almost certainly is more powerful than Bushido; the flat 10% bonus and much more importantly the +1 move is a huge boast, then the eternal golden age means that you'll have no problems overwhelming your opponents with troops. Bushido is very useful but less useful then it appears to be; don't forget that you don't get a 50% penalty when you are down to 5/10. The actual penalty is more like 25%.

Click to expand...

You can't always pull off the eternal golden age though.

Also, Bushido means you can take territories (and hold them) with far less units than you'd regularly need. The boost you get from Bushido also often exceeds the Persian bonus.

Vordeo said:

Guardian_PL
That doesn't mean that there's no other mounted there.

Click to expand...

Er...what?

Click to expand...

pi-r8
You said "entire armies of mounted". I can't read your mind and assume that you meant "entire armies of mounted ranged units". I use GGs with all my mounted units anyway, and it's not much of a problem.

Click to expand...

Vordeo
My exact quote (which is the exact line of text you quoted) was :
"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."

Click to expand...

pi-r8
Yeah it's not as if any other civ can make an entire army of mounted units... oh wait they all can.

Click to expand...

Meaning: it's not a different playstyle, since "armies of mounted" are armies of mounted, regardless if it's Keshiks, Camel Archers, of Horsemen and all civs can use them (even 2-move GG's can keep up with them) and they all are severely overpowered. So it's all boring and not challenging.

Vordeo

Guardian_PL
I'm completely with pi-r8 on this one.

Click to expand...

On what exactly?

Click to expand...

What, you don't know what you're arguing about with him?

pi-r8 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Louis XXIV said:

Completely overpowered? In a stable, human vs. human competition, they're powerful.

Click to expand...

i dont see how

when keshik get in range to shot the opponent enemy has the same chance to attack and much more dmg

its only against ai that they are good since you actually CAN scout-attack-retreat

you surely cant kite humans as well

also against human fights come way sooner that kashik, they are too late to be good


imo they should change them to replace an earlier unit but apperently 2k doesnt care about balance at all

i dont get how could this civ and many others pass a balance check

Guardian_PL said:

Click to expand...

"That doesn't mean there's no other mounted there" doesn't really make sense as a sentence as a reply to my comment, hence the question.

Meaning: it's not a different playstyle, since "armies of mounted" are armies of mounted, regardless if it's Keshiks, Camel Archers, of Horsemen and all civs can use them (even 2-move GG's can keep up with them) and they all are severely overpowered. So it's all boring and not challenging.

Click to expand...

Ok. How does say, Germany get a mounted ranged unit then?

And how does a normal GG keep up with Horsemen without hindering their movement?

Also, you're the one repeating the argument that horsemen are broken and you're accusing me of beating a dead horse? That's rich.

What, you don't know what you're arguing about with him?

Click to expand...

No, I don't know exactly what you're agreeing with him on. Not like that's the only thing we're discussing here.

Vordeo said:

No, I'm saying that with the Keshik and Khan, you can field whole armies of mounted, with melee (Horsemen), ranged (Keshiks) and support (Khan).

I'm not saying it'd be the best strat, but it'll be pretty fun.

Click to expand...

basically what Guardian said. I'm just sick of how powerful armies of nothing but mounted are in this game. If you could only do that with the mongols it would be fine, but as it is you can do it with anyone, and the Mongols just do it even more so.

pi-r8 said:

basically what Guardian said. I'm just sick of how powerful armies of nothing but mounted are in this game. If you could only do that with the mongols it would be fine, but as it is you can do it with anyone, and the Mongols just do it even more so.

Click to expand...

The only mounted units most civs have are the Horsemen, Knights, Lancers, and Cavalry (and chariot archers, but they're trash IMO, as the bonuses of spear/pikemen apply to their attacks). Those are all melee mounted units, so that;s a bit one-dimensional. Against a smart opponent (so not the AI), that can be countered, despite the fact that mounted are a bit too strong atm. The Mongol mounted army has much more variety, is the point.

Also, you could send along a GG, but he'd hamper your army's movement a bit.

Vordeo said:

The only mounted units most civs have are the Horsemen, Knights, Lancers, and Cavalry (and chariot archers, but they're trash IMO, as the bonuses of spear/pikemen apply to their attacks). Those are all melee mounted units, so that;s a bit one-dimensional. Against a smart opponent (so not the AI), that can be countered, despite the fact that mounted are a bit too strong atm. The Mongol mounted army has much more variety, is the point.

Also, you could send along a GG, but he'd hamper your army's movement a bit.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that horsemen are already, effectively, a ranged unit. Think of it this way- you attack with an archer at range 2, and he ends turn. Or you attack with a horsemen at range 2, and move back again. The horsemen takes a little damage, but it will heal fast. With an army of horsemen you don't need ranged units.

I wouldn't even waste time thinking about what "a smart opponent" would do. Multiplayer is so buggy I can't do it at all, and if it does work it'll focus heavily on scout/warrior/archer rushes, ending long before knights and probably even before horsemen.

I usually have no problem getting GGs to keep up with horsemen, because the horsemen have to attack, retreat, and heal, while the GG just sits there from the back.

pi-r8 said:

Part of the problem is that horsemen are already, effectively, a ranged unit. Think of it this way- you attack with an archer at range 2, and he ends turn. Or you attack with a horsemen at range 2, and move back again. The horsemen takes a little damage, but it will heal fast. With an army of horsemen you don't need ranged units.

Click to expand...

They're ranged units in the sense that they can usually get out of range. However, that assumes flat terrain. Also, if they're up against spears, the damage won't be as insignificant as you say.

You don't really need ranged units period. We all did fine without them in CivIV, after all. However, they certainly help.

I wouldn't even waste time thinking about what "a smart opponent" would do. Multiplayer is so buggy I can't do it at all, and if it does work it'll focus heavily on scout/warrior/archer rushes, ending long before knights and probably even before horsemen.

Click to expand...

Eh, doubt things'll end before horsemen. Depends on the map, I suppose.

I usually have no problem getting GGs to keep up with horsemen, because the horsemen have to attack, retreat, and heal, while the GG just sits there from the back.

Click to expand...

If that's your strategy fine, but even then you lose a number of turns moving the GG to the front from your territory. Khans are far more flexible.

Louis XXIV said:

I'm aware of that. But singleplayer is useless to figure this out. Humans with a horserush can beat the AI anyway. The AI isn't good enough with horses that a human couldn't defend against them. In the end, Mongolia doesn't add anything to the game except speed up victory slightly for those who want to horse rush (actually, not really, since you have to wait for Chivalry instead of Horseback Riding).

Click to expand...

Don't even need to wait for Chivalry, having a Great General that can keep pace with horsemen is pretty obscene. Lets not forget about the extra healing which makes early horsemen rush just silly. One horseman and your initial warrior + honor tree for free Khan = gg closest AI.

why you keep talking about ai

that doesnt matter at all since its just a bunch of bugs to cheat

ai never matters in serious games, if you want to argue about how good or bad a tactic is just try it with humans

To be fair, pikes can kill keshiks in close range. Just keep them in cities. For balance purposes it might be worthwhile to give pikes some more speed though, to catch up with those hit-and-run Mongols. For what it's worth though, the Mongols play as I expected them to: devastating, fast, and can use Parthian tactics (like the camel archer sorta does).