Unbalanced created unit?

[Everkane]

Hi,

I've created this thread to ask you people some simple question.

I made a civilization for me to play because I did not want to go persians over and over and ind/sci works better for my kind of playing. Ok, I went all the way to customize city names, leaders, etc, all the basic stuff, nothing really special.

The thing is I made a unique unit for this civ based on Swordman, like romans legionaire, gallics from celts or immortals from persians. They all have 7 points at their status (3/3/1 for legionaires, 3/2/2 for gallics and 4/2/1 for immortals) then I went for 5/1/1 in this unit.

They are very hard to start a war for territory domination because they can't defend the cities they conquest with only 1 point in def, and very slow to walk through enemy's territory due the only 1 point in mov, which makes them really easy to be surrounded and even attacked by warriors and bowmen and falling like flies.

Although all of this, when they attack, at that point of the game (only with iron resource needed and 40 shield to create them), it's almost impossible to make a defense against a unit with 5 points in attack. They destroy every city when they attack because the spearmen can't handle them at all and that's all they got at that point.

My question is, are they trully unbalanced like I think they are or it's ok because they are full of weak points? I can't put 4/2/1 on them because they would be just like immortals and it would be very silly, and immortals theirselves are really strong when they attack and besides they can keep a town or handle attacks at enemy's territory due their 2 points in def, which my units can't.

So, is 5/1/1 iron required 40 shield unbalanced or it's ok? I don't want to feel like I'm cheating somehow, but like I said, all of the iron required unique units are already created and I really don't know what to do if it's really unbalanced.

 

[Suisami]

Really, its up to you. In my personal opinion, yes its unbalanced, because unless you up the difficulty level it hard for the AI to mount a counter attack worth a damn. So you're units weakness becomes almost irrelevant. My advise is that if you want a unique unit that's different form everyone elses, then give it 3.1.2 and give it blitz. You'd still have the weak on defense, but it'll be fast, have the ability to retreat, and possible attack twice. But its 3 attack will limit its blitz because it'll be hard to have a strong enough unit after the typical attack.

 

[Everkane]

Really, its up to you. In my personal opinion, yes its unbalanced, because unless you up the difficulty level it hard for the AI to mount a counter attack worth a damn. So you're units weakness becomes almost irrelevant. My advise is that if you want a unique unit that's different form everyone elses, then give it 3.1.2 and give it blitz. You'd still have the weak on defense, but it'll be fast, have the ability to retreat, and possible attack twice. But its 3 attack will limit its blitz because it'll be hard to have a strong enough unit after the typical attack.

Thanks for posting.

The unit you said 3/1/2 isn't balanced at all, the Gallic Swordman himself is 3/2/2. I would have a weaker Swordman instead of a better one (which is the whole point of the unique units).

They can defeat very easy my 5/1/1 but of course they can't defend, I guess it's pretty much the same about the 4/2/1 immortals.

The thing is I need 7 points to put on my unique unit (like I said before), 3/1/2 has only 6 points and 3/2/2 already exists with celts.

I thought about having a 4/1/2, weak in defense, same attack as the immortals and one extra move. Again, they could break in and blitz at a very low point of the game, but can't handle their ground for theirselves and costing lots of casualties in campaign.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion!

I wait for more people to post here to think about changing or keep this 5/1/1.

 

[Suisami]

Again its whatever you prefer. However 4.1.2 with blitz I think would be a little too unbalanced. Because too often you'll be able to attack twice turning 10 units into 20.

3.1.2 would be weakened swordsman yes, but with blitz it'll still be able to be much more useful, but the 3 attack would limit it so that its blitz wont be overkill. 4 I think would be too far. Now yes the other uniques have 7 total yes, but that's not always the limiting factor. Take the ottoman's Sipahi for example. It's just got and extra 2 attack, but costs an extra 20 shield. The Russian cossack has normal stats, but blitz and has an extra 10 shields. Its not only the stats that balance the unit.

 

[Everkane]

Again its whatever you prefer. However 4.1.2 with blitz I think would be a little too unbalanced. Because too often you'll be able to attack twice turning 10 units into 20.

3.1.2 would be weakened swordsman yes, but with blitz it'll still be able to be much more useful, but the 3 attack would limit it so that its blitz wont be overkill. 4 I think would be too far. Now yes the other uniques have 7 total yes, but that's not always the limiting factor. Take the ottoman's Sipahi for example. It's just got and extra 2 attack, but costs an extra 20 shield. The Russian cossack has normal stats, but blitz and has an extra 10 shields. Its not only the stats that balance the unit.

I'm pretty sure I could create a unit 4/1/2 with only one attack per turn, like knights do for example. They can move fast and strike hard but with only one attack despite their 2 movs.

I know immortals are a very hard unit and they cost only 30 shields with 4/2/1 iron required and iron working, I mean, they can rule the age against nothing but spearmen. The idea is to create something like immortals, that's why I thought about a 5/1/1, still agressive but weaker in long campaigns due casualties.

Thanks again for posting, man!

 

[Suisami]

I'm pretty sure I could create a unit 4/1/2 with only one attack per turn, like knights do for example. They can move fast and strike hard but with only one attack despite their 2 movs.

I know immortals are a very hard unit and they cost only 30 shields with 4/2/1 iron required and iron working, I mean, they can rule the age against nothing but spearmen. The idea is to create something like immortals, that's why I thought about a 5/1/1, still agressive but weaker in long campaigns due casualties.

Thanks again for posting, man!

No prob. Lol when you said blitz I though you were going to give it 'blitz'. Just as 4.1.2 that would be fine. I wouldn't consider that unbalanced. Maybe a little, but not enough to be my concern.

 

[MPK]

What is your new civilization? this might help us in thinking of a proper unique ability. I always play Aztecs and I changed the UU here to a proper (2 units) Jaguar/Eagle Warriors. They ignore jungles and Forests(x2 movement)/ Enslave/ Golden Age. The cost of them is 40 shields + techs + resources.

Att: 4 \ Def: 2 is ok..... as a bonus you could add the Blitz as mentioned. Other options you could use are a 'Hit Point Bonus' or 'Zone of Control'. You could assign an 'Ignore Movement Cost'(increase unit movement value to 2) on a particular terrain/terrains. You could have your unit build 'Outposts' or 'Barricades' etc. Even have an 'Enslavement' ability.

 

[Everkane]

What is your new civilization? this might help us in thinking of a proper unique ability. I always play Aztecs and I changed the UU here to a proper (2 units) Jaguar/Eagle Warriors. They ignore jungles and Forests(x2 movement)/ Enslave/ Golden Age. The cost of them is 40 shields + techs + resources.

Att: 4 \ Def: 2 is ok..... as a bonus you could add the Blitz as mentioned. Other options you could use are a 'Hit Point Bonus' or 'Zone of Control'. You could assign an 'Ignore Movement Cost'(increase unit movement value to 2) on a particular terrain/terrains. You could have your unit build 'Outposts' or 'Barricades' etc. Even have an 'Enslavement' ability.

I created the civilization, it doesn't exist in any of the original games, it's the Aborígenes.

Industrious/Scientific (just like the persians) and the UU is a Swordman replacement, iron resource and iron working tech 40 shields required, 5/1/1, very much similar to Immortals of the persians.

But I begin to think this 5 points in attack is giving the AI no chance at all to defend themselves, although they kill more than a half of my troops in a singular campaign till I need to start over rebuilding to go to war again yet in the first age. In medieval age I go knights so I don't need the UU anymore, as you can see they have a very limited domination period but they are causing lots of damage.

I don't think they are unbalanced because IMO the Immortals are very best because 4/2/1 can hold the ground and 5/1/1 just can't because even a warrior can beat them (and it happens all the time).

But I need opinions because it's too easy to conquer the civs around me in the very beginning of the game (with immortals it was too...)

 

[MPK]

the Abo's,,, very good.. there is a few Aboriginal units available. can't remember seeing a Swordsman. But i'd be into having an Aborigine Civilization in my Civ game. I'm all for real Cultures in my game. I am happy to rid my game of all the non-cultured civilizations and replace them with real ones like you have created. I have already replace America with Native America, but even that may need to be divided up some more. Hopefully soon we can get an Editor that allows more Civilizations than we currently have.

I might lean toward giving your unit x 2 movement and Invisible abilities.

 

[Everkane]

the Abo's,,, very good.. there is a few Aboriginal units available. can't remember seeing a Swordsman. But i'd be into having an Aborigine Civilization in my Civ game. I'm all for real Cultures in my game. I am happy to rid my game of all the non-cultured civilizations and replace them with real ones like you have created. I have already replace America with Native America, but even that may need to be divided up some more. Hopefully soon we can get an Editor that allows more Civilizations than we currently have.

I might lean toward giving your unit x 2 movement and Invisible abilities.

I play better with the 5/1/1 due my game style which is go very hard to war at the beginning of the game and clean all the continent in the middle of medieval age, then go cavalry to stand the ground just in case of an invasion from outsiders.

The other continent I just surround with battleships, transports full of tanks and armies and carriers with bombers, but I rather not to go to war with any of the civs anymore cause I already have a full continent, so I stay clean with diplomacy and trade routes but ready to war if that will be the case.

That's why I need an UU for the beginning of the game, like (again) the immortals of the persians. I begin to realize 5/1/1 is not unbalanced, but maybe I change to 4/1/2 or even 3/1/2 with blitz (but I believe this one is very weak, maybe costing 20 shields it may be worthy).

The Swordman-based is just a refference, the icon doesn't even look like a swordman.

Anyway, thanks for the opinions so far, I'm waiting for some more, maybe to improve or to nerf my UU.

 

[Lanzelot]

I would say: try increasing the difficulty level by 1-2 levels compared to what you normally play. This will give the AI a better chance to defend against your 5-1-1 UU.
(And it will also teach you new tactics: for example if you find that the AI kills your expensive 40-shield units with cheap warriors or archers, you may "refine" your military tactics by including 2-3 cheap (20-shield) spearmen into the attack force, in order to minimize the losses that your precious but vulnerable 40-shield units would otherwise suffer. So you would experience new ways of warfare, e.g. that on higher difficulty levels "combined arms tactics" are necessary in order to be successful.)

 

[Everkane]

I would say: try increasing the difficulty level by 1-2 levels compared to what you normally play. This will give the AI a better chance to defend against your 5-1-1 UU.
(And it will also teach you new tactics: for example if you find that the AI kills your expensive 40-shield units with cheap warriors or archers, you may "refine" your military tactics by including 2-3 cheap (20-shield) spearmen into the attack force, in order to minimize the losses that your precious but vulnerable 40-shield units would otherwise suffer. So you would experience new ways of warfare, e.g. that on higher difficulty levels "combined arms tactics" are necessary in order to be successful.)

There's no way, I play in Sid, although with lots of edits in how the game works and units. I usually play with 3 or 4 civ traits as well. Yeah, I know, it probably would be for the best if I only start to play without any of those kind of things.

If there's a way to improve AI any further I'd like to know.

Thanks!

 

[templar_x]

not sure how this could ever work the way you describe it. i play Deity usually and Sid if i want it difficult, and 25-30 UU won't cut it on Deity under any circumstances, to conquer a whole continent. never ever on Sid.

so maybe it is not the weakness of the AI really. the only thing i could imagine is that you reload heavily. is that the case?

otherwise, you are maybe just too good for this game. use the editor, like some did in the past, and create your own uber-Sid difficulty. or go beat my Deity and Sid HoF-games by a few hundred years, which should easily be possible with the results you describe.

t_x

 

[templar_x]

btw, you heavily underestimate the speed factor. 4/1/2 is *significantly* stronger than 5/1/1, and 3/1/2 with blitz is probably just as strong. the latter would get its added bonus from the many elites which could create leaders and form armies - an absolute must for ultra fast conquest in my eyes.

t_x

 

[Everkane]

not sure how this could ever work the way you describe it. i play Deity usually and Sid if i want it difficult, and 25-30 UU won't cut it on Deity under any circumstances, to conquer a whole continent. never ever on Sid.

so maybe it is not the weakness of the AI really. the only thing i could imagine is that you reload heavily. is that the case?

otherwise, you are maybe just too good for this game. use the editor, like some did in the past, and create your own uber-Sid difficulty. or go beat my Deity and Sid HoF-games by a few hundred years, which should easily be possible with the results you describe.

t_x

I don't conquer the continent with 25~30 UU, it's the first war campaign till I conquer most of the territory I want then I wait to see how many I'm gonna lose. I takes 2 or 3 war campaigns to destroy a whole civ, if they don't flee to the islands or other continent. At this point I'm all the way with knights so the UU won't matter anymore.

Read my posts in this thread and you will find out that's exactly the way I do.

To rule the whole continent (at this point there's only me and another full civ), cavalry is needed.

Then I'm ready to colonization & buildings till unlock tanks and make my way through the other continent.

I play 70% water, normal size map, me plus 7 civs (which almost all the time spams 4 civs per continent, except rare games when somehow they end up in some island or stuff)

I never reload, never even thought about that.

I know I'm good, I'm 30 years old and I play since 1992 with civ I when I was ten years old, it would be a shame if I wasn't good, right?

But if you say 4/1/2 and 3/1/2 + blitz are more powerfull then my 5/1/1 it's ok, I keep my 5/1/1 because now I know it's not unbalanced at all.

Thanks so far!

 

[templar_x]

But if you say 4/1/2 and 3/1/2 + blitz are more powerfull then my 5/1/1 it's ok, I keep my 5/1/1 because now I know it's not unbalanced at all.

not quite. it is imbalanced in a way that there simply is no other 5-anything (a/d/m) unit in the AA. i am merely saying that those other units would be *even more* imbalanced.

playing for a long time does not tell one is playing good. but winning on Sid is a task to fulfill, even with made-to-measure units. many people even here absolutely discard measurably good playing as they do not consider it fun.
but if you really want to know where you stand, try a few games under HoF conditions (probably with Persia then).

i for myself, also after many years of playing civ, was *not* a good player before i learnt about this site. coming late into the community, i took a lot from others and contributed little. and nothing improved my game play more with regard to fast finishes than playing HoF-games. and hey, now you will have to compete with me for several #1-entries on high-level military games.

t_x

 

[bigFRANK]

Howabout 3/1/3 an ultimate skirmisher move attack and run away all in a single turn.

 

[nyarmondt]

Hmm, I never really imagined the aboriginals as a "swordsman" people. If I were in in your place, I'ld rather go for 2.1.2 archer...

But since you decided for a swordsman, go for a 3.1.2 swordsmen that does NOT require iron... and maybe give him an extended line of sight or ignore movement cost in hills, forest jungle & marsh.

 

[Everkane]

not quite. it is imbalanced in a way that there simply is no other 5-anything (a/d/m) unit in the AA. i am merely saying that those other units would be *even more* imbalanced.

playing for a long time does not tell one is playing good. but winning on Sid is a task to fulfill, even with made-to-measure units. many people even here absolutely discard measurably good playing as they do not consider it fun.
but if you really want to know where you stand, try a few games under HoF conditions (probably with Persia then).

i for myself, also after many years of playing civ, was *not* a good player before i learnt about this site. coming late into the community, i took a lot from others and contributed little. and nothing improved my game play more with regard to fast finishes than playing HoF-games. and hey, now you will have to compete with me for several #1-entries on high-level military games.

t_x

Ok, I got it, but I play for more than 20 years since civ 1 came out so it's kinda impossible not to be at least OK about civ franchise.

About the HoF, I do not take this very serious. The guys have insane score but the thing I consider the most important thing in the game is to ALWAYS have control of the situation. Even if you are somewhere at the game tech backwards or without a territory plenty of resources, always make impossible to enemies to strike down. That, for me, is to be an excelent player. That's how I manage to win in Sid and that's how I'd probably destroy most of those score-whores in a multiplayer game. I mean, c'mon, victory by Historiographic, really? I considerer it a defeat.

I don't go persians anymore for the simple reason I grow tired about going over and over, then I made a persian-like civ. Now, for example, I started a game with the Vikings but guess what? I changed them to sci/ind bronze working/alphabet started and Bersekers are now Iron working Iron Resource 40 shield 5/1/1. I could put 4/2/1 but THAT would be exactly like persians, right? But maybe I put 4/2/1 in the next game so it won't be considered "modified" because it would be persians with another name.

I don't accept your challenge of beating your score (which I did not see there by the way) because the better games of my life I did not score that much and in the other hand the most boring ones I made incredible points. Again, I don't trust them. To be honest, the greatest score I ever did it was with United Nations victory in the exactly moment I discovered Fission. It was only 1060 AD in a medium size map and 8 civilizations. Now THAT was ridiculous.

Howabout 3/1/3 an ultimate skirmisher move attack and run away all in a single turn.

Yeah, maybe, but I guess I'm going to 4/2/1 just like immortals then I will be sure I'm not cheating.

Hmm, I never really imagined the aboriginals as a "swordsman" people. If I were in in your place, I'ld rather go for 2.1.2 archer...

But since you decided for a swordsman, go for a 3.1.2 swordsmen that does NOT require iron... and maybe give him an extended line of sight or ignore movement cost in hills, forest jungle & marsh.

Like I said, they are not swordman, the swordman is only the base of the unit. They don't even look like swordman. I made them swordman-based just to balance with immortals and gallic swords.
And an archer 2.1.2, really? So the Celts got a 3/2/2 and you want me to create a 2/1/2?

A 3/1/2 without iron requirement would be interesting, but I'd need to figure it out where to put it in the game. Maybe with iron working anyway but without iron needed. That will be kinda unexpressive, but it could work. But as I stated, I go for 4/2/1.

 

[nyarmondt]

And an archer 2.1.2, really? So the Celts got a 3/2/2 and you want me to create a 2/1/2?

That suggestion was only based on my suggestion that I don't think the aboriginals don't strike me as a swordsmen culture. And I was talking about creating that fast archer as a replacement for the normal archer. Don't forget that the Babylonians have a 2.2.1 bowman as their unique unit - in no way you should compare it to the gallic swordsman,. Apples & oranges, you know

Now, the problem you have with wanting a 4.2.1 swordsman UU for the aboriginals is that it is - as you stated- exactly like an Immortal, and thus not realy unique.
As it's a slow unit, you can't put movement modifiers on it. Giving it enslavement would make this unit way to overpowered, so there's only a few choices left.
Either give it a "defending bombardment" ability (ie, they let loose a barrage of javelins before they engage in melee) or you give them the option to perform certain worker jobs (build road, irrigate or...)
Thing is, as it's an extra on top of the already better stats compared to normal swordsmen, they will have to cost more in terms of producing them.