How Would You Nerf The Praetorian?

[kniteowl]

Currently Some People Believe the Roman Praetorian is overpowered

Right now they have:
8 strenght, 1 movement, cost 45 Hammers amnd require Iron as a resource to build them.

So if you had to nerf the Praetorian how would you do it? Increase cost? Decrease strenght?

Here are a Couple of Ideas I have:

A) Praetorian - 6 str + 50% City Raider
Their basically get 9 str when attacking Cities and ONLY attacking Cities, so better knocking them out with your Axes before they coming overwhelm you

B) Praetorian - 6 str + 50% Attack
Also get's 9 str but only when attacking, when defending they only have 6 str (similar to a normal Swordsman) so Axes can properly counter them.

if 9 str is still overpowered then change the 50% to 33% and they'll have 8 str in what they specialize in.

I also had another Idea which was much weaker, 6 str + 50% against archers because most of the defenders in AI citys in the Praetorian era are generally archery units but that seemed quite underpowered. Crossbowmen wouldn't be able to counter them in the Middle ages though.

 

[kristopherb]

Double post with me.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=194757

 

[majk-iii]

"How Would You Nerf The Praetorian?"

Not at all.

 

[Mutineer]

execly, they are jsut good UU with direct counter (axes).
I am ties of this posts.

 

[Thedrin]

A is too powerful. B is interesting but 50% is probably too much. Extra hammers might work (or increasing the maintenance cost for individual praetorians). Best alternative I've seen so far is strength 7 with 10% city attack.

 

[azzaman333]

Strength 7, 10% city raider, normal shields for a swordsman would be the way I would have it.

 

[Panda]

Some People Believe the Roman Praetorian is overpowered.

I don't. Leave them as they are.

 

[Mark Jenkins]

Ok, this might seem pretty obvious or pretty ridiculous, depending on who you ask. But does anyone agree that the Romans are completely overpowered and/or incredibly fun to play? I mean, by the time you get iron your civ has some pretty good production capabilities, you'll have praetorians by the time most comps are still using archers and some axemen, depending on what order you choose your techs. So you can easily wipe one person out quick with praetorians at the start of the game.

I mean these things have what, like 8 attack? Thats far better than anyone elses unique unit correct? Beyond that, they dont take that long to build, and because of their 8 attack they have ridiculous longevity. I was using these things until like late Middle Ages! Granted once macemen make an appearance en masse, it takes like 2 praetorians to take one down, but still, cmon.

Whats more, both leaders have excellent traits, with Augustus Caesar probably being my favourite ruler in the entire game. Anyone else see this? I think Romans naturally have to be better than everyone else, its been a trend in Civ hehe

 

[Xanikk999]

I wouldnt nerf it. Instead i would make other unique units stronger that deserve it.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

If we had to nerf them, I like strength 7 with a 10% cr.

 

[Duuk]

Personally, I feel the Roman UU is how UUs should be. Since the 2.08 patch (and warlords expansion), UU have sucked all around. They're not significantly better than their replacement (except for the Aztecs: theirs is worse).

A UU should be a period-dominating unit since they're the height of effective units!

After all, if you let the English get Redcoats, you deserve everything you get. The same should go for all the other conquering empires. The UU should be something that the best way to counter is to advance your techs past it.

 

[Drake007]

upgrade other UUs and put even more focus on warmongering? no thanks.

7 strength seems like the simple, no non-sense solution to me. i'd make them cost what a regular swordsman does then.

 

[Duuk]

upgrade other UUs and put even more focus on warmongering? no thanks.

7 strength seems like the simple, no non-sense solution to me. i'd make them cost what a regular swordsman does then.

Honestly, I'm more of a builder. But until they have UUs that are non-combat, the UUs should be able to give the Civ the a decisive advantage for the 20 or so turns of the unit being a core of the army.

Civ is a wargame. I'd LOVE to see an expansion focusing more on religion, diplomacy, and culture. But that's not gonna happen in a world where Medieval Total War has cannon elephants and is a top seller.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

But until they have UUs that are non-combat

Unfortunately there arent that many available. UU settlers that make better starting cities could be cool, or a scout with movement 4? Or missionsaries that can spread said faith to two cities instead of one?

This is where I wish civ had some of the non-combat units from CtP.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I would give them 6 strenght, and the 10% city attack bonus, plus:
+25% against archery units
+25% against melee
1-2 first strikes (javelins)

They would still be very good city raiders and stand a chance against axes, but not better against mounted units than ordinary swordsmen.

 

[wioneo]

They should not nerf the praets, they should un-nerf(concrete?) the redcoats and conquistadors. You are supposed to fear the unique units.
Workers running away can be scary.

 

[Meatbuster]

Even with the nerf, Redcoats and Cossacks are still quite good. Same with the Praetorian and their additional hammers cost on 1.52.

Praets don't need nerfing. Build more Axemen and roads than you usually do (instead of Temples and Libraries and extra farms). Tech to Construction. Build more Catapults. Build Elephants if you can.

We're talking about Multiplayer here (where for fairness resource division is often set to Balanced)... assuming an Ancient era start, you should be picking only the Romans, or an Aggressive (or Charismatic) civ to counter the Romans. Don't even count on your Financial trait to tech far enough to Crossbows. Pick Alexander for best results. Build 4 warriors, threaten their capital and copper/iron deposits with your first warrior, reinforce with additional warriors. Build all your cities on hills. One Phalanx and a couple of Axemen per city (2-3 cities are enough for BC). Shock Axemen + Phalanx on your copper or iron. Almost impossible to dislodge.

If you can force the Roman player to detour to Animal Husbandry or Archery to try and remove your initial 3 warrior rush from their metal deposits, you have succeeded and can probably rush them with a stack of axes and phalanx. If forced on the defensive...

Seriously, build more Catapults. Stay in your border, and let the Praets come, then slap collateral damage on their Stack of Doom. If they split stacks, that only makes them more vulnerable to Shock Axes.

Maybe instead of figuring out how to counter Praets, how about figuring out how to prevent Praets from coming out? How about: "I could tech to Animal Husbandry now so I can chariot rush their copper (so they can't build spears), steal their workers and pillage their roads right away..." in this case, pick Napoleon (or Rameses), get Animal Husbandry as the first tech, connect your horses and if they're nearby, rush and pillage! They're guaranteed to quit.

An idea here is to build a city ON TOP of a strategic resource, making the resource impossible to pillage and letting your city get the first Axe/Spear/Chariot faster. That's also one less tile to guard.

 

[Jaybe]

For builders the Praetorian is a great unit. Good strength in both offense & defense. Apply city raider promos for offensive use, others for defense.

Don't nerf it, play WITH it!

 

[azzaman333]

2 problems.

The AI isnt great using it, and the AI doesnt know how to counter it (that I;ve noticed)

 

[Thedrin]

Build more Axemen and roads than you usually do (instead of Temples and Libraries and extra farms).

Units cost maintenance. If, by playing the Romans, I force my opponents to build more units to protect against a possible attack than they would against a non-Roman opponent I already gain an advantage - even if I don't actually use the praetorian. This advantage is increased if my opponent is building extra maintenance instead of building things that advance its economy (such as temples and libraries and extra farms).

We're talking about Multiplayer here (where for fairness resource division is often set to Balanced)... assuming an Ancient era start, you should be picking only the Romans, or an Aggressive (or Charismatic) civ to counter the Romans.

I don't use multiplayer but if a civ which is neither Roman, aggresive, or charismatic can't expect to survive against the Romans (assuming equally skilled human players) that would indicate to me that some aspect of the Roman civ is overpowered.