As if protective couldn't be more overpowered...

[Re/\/\eDy]

For those who already read (and somehow remember) an earlier topic of mine, you'll know I'm a staunch opponent of the protective trait. In short, it sucks and I think Firaxis should tone it down or get rid of it altogether. Outnumbered archers killing prateorians is a joke and the trait does very little for us aggressive human players who enjoy expanding. It's a trait meant primarily for the cpu's and its sole intent is to drive human players crazy and cuss at probability margins.

I was hoping the protective trait would somehow be toned down in BTS. Imagine my surprise when I find it wasn't toned down, it was made even stronger! Enter Sitting Bull and his Native American casino swindlers. As many probably know, Sitting Bull has the protective trait. In addition, his special building, the Totem Pole, gives +3 xp to archer units. Let's do the math..... 3 str (archer's strength) + 50%(archer city defense trait) +25%(fortify bonus) +20%(city gar I) + 25%(city gar II with Totem Pole) + 25%(if city is on a hill) + 35%(the usual average city defense). That's 180% total, meaning each archer has a strength of 8.4, which is more than a praetorian! If it's a Longbowman, each has a strength of 16.8, which is more than a rifleman! The worst part? The archers have low starting strength, so they heal close to full health if left unchecked for just ONE turn, so a city pretty much has to be captured in one turn or your entire offensive is over, period.

Oh and don't even get me started on his special unit, the "Dog Soldier." 4 strength with a 100% bonus to infantry. Why that's, *gasp* 8 strength! The same as a praetorian and that's not even counting the city bonuses! Talk about a slap in the face to Rome's finest!

My god, with a defense like this, it's a miracle the United States even managed to conquer the Indians at all . Did Native Americans have machetes to the Firaxis developer's throats? What was Firaxis thinking? Now I'm being forced to handpick all my opponents out of fear Sitting Bull will randomly take a crap on my starting continent.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

There is the slightest tinge of racism in this thread...

 

[slightlymarxist]

Sure I agree it's mostly an AI boon as most human players will know better than to hole up units in cities during wartime.

I think it's good the Protective trait is in the game though, it makes me think twice about attacking which is otherwise usually a non-brainer against any non-Prot leader on my continent. Adds another element of balance and strategy, the best way to handle these guys might be to make friends with them, tech-trade, spy and such.

And still: even if you can't take their cities, you can still pillage their land and sue for peace...

 

[jackdog]

Yea its not overpowered just makes things a bit harder a few more cats and trebs necessary for city attack, but its equalled out by the agg and charismatic traits when used properly so you can go in with highly promoted units yourself, obviously when the whole lot, as you describe is stacked up defense wise its a bit of a problem, but if he techs more slowly and expands less then soon you will be facing his longbows with cav or even infantry and cannons at which point game over. Also yes use espionage cripple his towns etc etc,

These are the rules, learn adapt, resistance is futile....

 

[Egnarts]

There is the slightest tinge of racism in this thread...

No, that's called humor, lets not be oversensitive shall we?

Regarding sitting bull, it's not that bad, his axemen is pretty much useless for anything but defense, and his archers is easy to deal with. Just build a couple more swordmen and promote them with cover instead of CR..

 

[Lord_Azazel]

Ever thought about people wanting to play a non-aggressive game? Heard about Culture, Space Race, Diplomatic victories? For people who don't wish to warmonger everyone around them this is actually a good trait for humans too...

 

[AlessioCerci]

Protective is not overpowered, and i quite like it. But i do agree that attacking the Native Americans in the ancient/classical/(maybe medieval) era is not a good idea. Its not a bad thing though, rush someone else and take them out with gunpowder units.

 

[AriochIV]

"Boo hoo, there's someone I can't just stomp with my Praetorians. Boo hoo." Try using siege engines like everyone else. The Romans certainly did.

Regarding historical accuracy... well you're talking about a game here. Historically accurate Native Americans would be permanently stuck in the Stone Age. The Civ Barbarian state advances farther by the Middle Ages than the Native Americans (here meaning the Plains Indians) ever did. But I do think the United States had slightly better weaponry than the Roman Legions at the time they were fighting them, and those Stone Age savages killed a lot of Industrial Age Americans.

 

[axident]

For those who already read (and somehow remember) an earlier topic of mine, you'll know I'm a staunch opponent of the protective trait. In short, it sucks and I think Firaxis should tone it down or get rid of it altogether. Outnumbered archers killing prateorians is a joke and the trait does very little for us aggressive human players who enjoy expanding. It's a trait meant primarily for the cpu's and its sole intent is to drive human players crazy and cuss at probability margins.

I was hoping the protective trait would somehow be toned down in BTS. Imagine my surprise when I find it wasn't toned down, it was made even stronger! Enter Sitting Bull and his Native American casino swindlers. As many probably know, Sitting Bull has the protective trait. In addition, his special building, the Totem Pole, gives +3 xp to archer units. Let's do the math..... 3 str (archer's strength) + 50%(archer city defense trait) +25%(fortify bonus) +20%(city gar I) + 25%(city gar II with Totem Pole) + 25%(if city is on a hill) + 35%(the usual average city defense). That's 180% total, meaning each archer has a strength of 8.4, which is more than a praetorian! If it's a Longbowman, each has a strength of 16.8, which is more than a rifleman! The worst part? The archers have low starting strength, so they heal close to full health if left unchecked for just ONE turn, so a city pretty much has to be captured in one turn or your entire offensive is over, period.

Oh and don't even get me started on his special unit, the "Dog Soldier." 4 strength with a 100% bonus to infantry. Why that's, *gasp* 8 strength! The same as a praetorian and that's not even counting the city bonuses! Talk about a slap in the face to Rome's finest!

My god, with a defense like this, it's a miracle the United States even managed to conquer the Indians at all . Did Native Americans have machetes to the Firaxis developer's throats? What was Firaxis thinking? Now I'm being forced to handpick all my opponents out of fear Sitting Bull will randomly take a crap on my starting continent.

The answer to all of your problems is bombardment + collateral damage. Woe unto those without catapults or better, though! In my current game, it's early, I'm Qin, and I don't want to attack Genghis, as he and a ton of other people are Buddhists like me, but my only other option is to attack Sitting Bull. Actually there is a third option--go after barb towns. I'm doing that right now, but right as I was going to axe-rush the last available barb town nearby, Sitting Bull bum rushes me. I let him take a city so my once-offensive army can use its CR-promos to attack my own city... and then I whip a ton of Swords and send my chariots over as well. As defense. Lmao. I hope he sues for peace soon, or this can get ugly.

 

[Dnomal]

Protective leaders are indeed dangerous enemies to face. How can you win a war when you expend 3 times the troops to capture each city.....

I've only ever played one protective leader, (i used to think it was weak), wow I was wrong, Drafting gunpowder units that automatically start with Drill I and City Garrison I is a damn powerful advantage.

When I see a protective leader my first reaction is *sigh another hard game*, protective leaders do have one disadvantage, they tend to be unpopular, so uniting the world against them is a good idea, as is stalling them technologically. A 15 strength cavalry against an entrenched longbowman is a damn close fight, all you need is some city bombardment...

 

[AlessioCerci]

No, that's called humor, lets not be oversensitive shall we?

Regarding sitting bull, it's not that bad, his axemen is pretty much useless for anything but defense, and his archers is easy to deal with. Just build a couple more swordmen and promote them with cover instead of CR..

Erm Swordsman with cover/comabt 1 (which isnt that easy to get w/o aggressive leader) will incurr serious losses to dog soldiers or archers defending cities.

Assuming defences have been bombarded:
Swordsman vs dog soldier:
100% vs melle + 25% fortify - 45% swordsman abilities = +80%
4*1.8=7.2
Thats 7.2 versus 6 in favour of the dog soldier

Swordsman vs Archer
20%+25%+30% city garrison promos + 50% city defence +25% fortify - 45% swordman abilities = 105%
3*2.05 = 6.15
Not much but advantage to the archer (thats not including first strikes)

Edit: the dog soldier is good at defending one's SoD as well

 

[PieceOfMind]

The worst part? The archers have low starting strength, so they heal close to full health if left unchecked for just ONE turn, so a city pretty much has to be captured in one turn or your entire offensive is over, period.

If that's the worst part then you're in luck, because you're wrong about that one. All units heal at a rate proportional to their own base strength. In a home city with no medic those archers will be healing at a rate of 20 hit points per turn. That means if you damage an archer to 1.5/3 ie. 50HP/100, then he'll heal to 70HP/100 which is 2.1/3.

If the archers are healing close to full health each turn it is probably because the archers that are winning are not getting damged much. Unit Healing is in my sig by the way.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

You are forgetting that the Dog Soldiers is weaker than a normal axeman against all units except melee. They beat Pratorians but are totally helpless against Chariots and useless as city takers. Sitting Bull has great defensive capabilities, but he is a weak attacker. You can just rush in with chariots and pillage his resources and cottages and later fight his Archers with Gunpowder units just like the colonists.
Protective was always one of the weaker traits and I welcome the slight bosost it got from improved Castles.

 

[civ4legs]

Enter Sitting Bull and his Native American casino swindlers.

...

Talk about a slap in the face to Rome's finest!

...

My god, with a defense like this, it's a miracle the United States even managed to conquer the Indians at all . Did Native Americans have machetes to the Firaxis developer's throats? What was Firaxis thinking? Now I'm being forced to handpick all my opponents out of fear Sitting Bull will randomly take a crap on my starting continent.

Slight tinge of racism?? Seems more like blatant (even if unintended) racism to me.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Protective leaders are indeed dangerous enemies to face. How can you win a war when you expend 3 times the troops to capture each city.....

I've only ever played one protective leader, (i used to think it was weak), wow I was wrong, Drafting gunpowder units that automatically start with Drill I and City Garrison I is a damn powerful advantage.

When I see a protective leader my first reaction is *sigh another hard game*, protective leaders do have one disadvantage, they tend to be unpopular, so uniting the world against them is a good idea, as is stalling them technologically. A 15 strength cavalry against an entrenched longbowman is a damn close fight, all you need is some city bombardment...

Agree with you; just a few(2-4!) well promoted units can probably stave off at least 50% of an attack force.

 

[Amagius]

Slight tinge of racism?? Seems more like blatant (even if unintended) racism to me.

Hardly. It's humor. I'm Native American and I certainly don't feel this inferiority that you're feeling.

As to the topic, Sitting Bull is a strong civilization-- why aren't we thinking about nerfing the Romans? The Incans? The game was made with the intention of challenging you, not telling you to Praetorian rush everyone and then profit.

 

[LlamaCat]

that was definitely a racist comment..

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

If you're having that much trouble against Protectiv civs, why not change your strategy when attacking one? Why not pillage their improvements to ruin their economy?. If this doesn't draw the defenders out from behind their city walls, camp you units around the city, making tiles unworkable, the city will quicky fall to pieces, forcing the defenders to attack you. This should help weaken the civ quite a bit.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, I can't say I feel any sympathy for you. The praet rush strategy I frown upon. So much so that I purposely avoid ever playing as Rome because I would feel bad for using so powerful an early UU. That's only my opinion of course - don't let me tell you how to enjoy the game.

Your concerns regarding not being able to take cities without taking the defenses down remind me of THE VERY FIRST CIV 4 GAME I EVER PLAYED. I did not realise why my strength 6 swordsmen were losing to archers. To think we've come a long way.

Try playing as a different civ.

EDIT
Besides, if you bring the realism argument into this, don't you see how sensible this sounds? Can you imagine a bunch of guys come running uphill to a city with swords (though they're very skilled I guess). They find a well fortified city with archers raining down hell on them. I don't think they'd last long.

 

[goonie61]

the protective trait is mainly a defensive bonus, which means that a prot leader will be more difficult to be destroyed early game. It doesnt let a civ take over the world early game, like, say, praetorians are able to do. thus praetorians are more of an advantage than prot trait