PotatoOverdose
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 352
This is unfortunately a symptom of bad AI more than anything else. If the AI knew how to use the magic system properly for example, they could get Life II and your strategy would fail very quickly. Alternatively, if the AI knew how to use stack busting spells in general or could be taught not to park an entire stack near a stack of pyre zombies, what you describe would not happen.If it scales it's not noticeable
Also, my concern with the AI is not when they are controling the Sheaim but rather when I am. They have fun mechanics but in the end Pyre Zombie Spam trumps all and the poor AI civs have no chance to stop you when you're spitting out one per from several cities turn allowing you to create a stack of longbow slaughtering, champion stomping, hero bashing mayhem in what, 6 turns, maybe 7 or 8 if you want to be extra careful. .
I think the above post summarizes the problem with this discussion. In chess, if a player looses because of a fool's mate, they don't post "queens need to be rebalanced" on all the chess boards of the world and petition the world chess federation that the queen piece should be nerfed. Instead they look at the mistakes they made and try to learn from them. They may consult a better player or read a manual or some such and become better players that will not be the victims of a fool's mate again. However, for whatever reason this attitude does not transfer to strategy games like civ or video games in general. Instead, the common train of thought goes something like this:
Spoiler :
as opposed to a more enlightened approach:
Spoiler :
The reason I mention this in conjunction with Reverend Oats's post is because if he had consulted the strategy forums, he could have found a thread detailing a number of different approaches to easily acquiring the equivalent of 3
for use against pyre zombies. Exploration+Horseback riding is readily available in the first 120 turns (available before bronze in fact). That alone would give any units you chose to build a minimum of 2 moves + another 2 moves due to roads. Alternativeley, you can just use horseback riding. Or, if you start with body mana you can use knowledge of ether+exploration. Or...well I could list any number of permutations involving roads, mobility, horseman, hunters, haste, and probably a few other thing all available within the first 120 turns (before bornze in most cases and definitely before the sheaim would have enough time to build a large stack of pz's. Instead, of trying to improve his own technique, he decided to make a mildly sarcastic post in the thread...Horseman can easily win against a barb for a modest amount of xp to get high withdrawal. Even with little to no xp, mounted units can easily achieve 30-50% withdrawal.Furthermore, and more importantly, if you reread my description of the situation, you will see that when I described the situation as "parity" it was defined as you having more units available and more reinforcements available while defending for reasons given therein. If this is not the case, my post clarified on that as well. Working off the assumption that you have a moderate advantage in numbers and that you have 3 movement units, you can attack one by one, weakening all in the stack. Now some horseman will die, but a significant portion will live to fight another day because of their extra movement+withdrawal. Since you will have some minor advantage in quantity, your remaining horseman(or other mobile units) can move in and kill some of the weakened pz's. Given there low movement of 1 and your high movement in your own territory, you can repeat this at least once to dramatically reduce their quantity by the time they reach your city walls. So you see, I did address your point, though I elaborated on it here.
Incorrect, many are available at priesthood which may(or may not) be achievable before they rush you depending on how you've been teching/bulbing and the civ you are playing. More importantly, if you are attacked before priests are available, in a balanced situation(see my previous post) the pyre zombie stack will not be incredibly large. When the Ai does become capable of fielding truly massive stacks (in a balanced situation), you should be able to field some sort of stack busting units. Hell, catapults can do in a pinch.
This advantage is negligible given that it takes time for them to move from their territory to yours, giving you additional times to build units. Furthermore, due to the proximity of your own cities in your territory, you will be able to reinforce your armies much more readily during the conflict. If anything, the defender should have the advantage of production.
This is a map specific situation. Most maps are not +75% forest, however certain maps are. Mountains and oceans can nullify pz's too. Again, map specific. Map specific features have no place in a discussion that spans the epic game which covers all map types, from archipelago to erebus.
If you go into WB, you will see that the AI does not build a pz in every city because they can. Furthermore, standing against pz's directly is a bad strategy (just like standing against 20+ catapults, no?) You must adapt to the given situation. Catapults+Horseman may be the optimal build. Alternatively, you can build mobility promoted axeman which when combined with roads can serve just as well as horseman. Better possibly, given there better strength, though a combined arms approach is almost always best.
5-6 of them and all your defenders are pretty much dead? how many defenders did you have? Are we playing the same game? Pz explosive damage does not kill nearly that often. If your seeing a stack of 20+ and you do not have a comparable or slightly larger stack (being on the defensive), the situation may be influenced by:
a) They have a larger empire then you. They should have a high degree of success when attacking you.
b) You are playing on a high difficulty. They should have a high degree of success when attacking you.
c) They are out-teching you(they got to bw much earlier then you did for a comparable tech). They should have a high degree of success when attacking you.
If any of the above are true, then it is not a proper discussion of the balance of pyre zombies, as there are external influences and all things are not held equal which implies a poor analysis. Pyre zombies at deity should own. Pyre Zombies form an empire twice your size should own. Etc.
I think that the primary problem in the perception of Pz's as overpowered comes from a poor AI. The AI can use Pz's well. Pz's have a potent magic-like mechanic. The player gets a does of the stack busting spells that they are very, very fond of themselves. Compared to the other Ai's which use no such mechanic, they seem overpowered. Let us imagine a game where the AI is competent across the board. On higher difficulty levels, the AI has a considerable tech advantage. Let us consider a hypothetical situation in which a civ, such as the malakim, is led by a competent AI on just such a high difficulty. If the AI was intelligent, it could beeline a powerful tech in combination with a religion, cast its worldspell and rush a player with ritualists or cultists or some such religious stackbuster. The player would be unable to fend off the stackbusters and loose. It would seem overpowered. However, the combination of an AI that knows what its doing, difficulty bonuses, and civ specific advantages would be quite potent indeed. Then we would have civs other than the sheaim that seem overpowered. My point in the above analogy is very, very simple. At the moment, Pz's are one of the few advantages the AI can use properly. If other civs could leverage their advantages properly when combined with difficulty settings, they might be able to rival or surpass the Sheaim. This being the case, it would be unwise to make any balance decisions until further AI work allows most civs to make proper use of their unique mechanics, particularly the magic/religious oriented civs, as at the moment few can, and those few seem comparatively powerful.
Gah, wall of text.
is too strong, but giving them a "doused" promotion for a few turns that stops them from exploding sounds good. Would be even better if it showed in the graphics 
.
? The do have to counter advantages held by other civs. "The entire "nu-uh" argument" as you call it is called finding a counter. Every civ has to do it to every other civ or they loose. That's called strategy. The Sheaim have to counter Sidar hidden pillagers, they get hunting. The sheaim have to counter an OO water walking army, they build boats, or later on tier 2 casters. Specific Counters to specific threats, otherwise you loose, that is present in every game in the civ franchise. The Sheaim have just as much to counter against competent opponents as anyone else.
