camel archers/polls/other

[woodshadows]

p.s. if you like ranged units with 5 movement points you must _love_ the egyptian war chariot.

 

[chazzycat]

except that war chariots lose all movement points upon entering rough terrain

 

[woodshadows]

the ability to withdraw with hit and run tactics is also only useful when you have a place to run to. most maps have coast lines and mountain ranges and other civs borders which extremely limit just how far and how often you can continue running.

in any matchup of camels vs keshiks, the camels will keep being produced faster than the keshiks and will be doing more damage. even assuming the keshiks hit and run and kill a few camels in the early stages of any war like this, the camels will in short time push the keshiks back to a point at which they can no longer run away and at that point it's game over for the mongol player; they will either be pushed into a mountain range and slaughtered, thrown into the ocean and made impotent, or have to run into another civs territory (assuming they can get open borders). in any event their citys are left undefended to be taken out by the camels. the keshiks trying to push into the camel archers territory will find it much more difficult, the use of roads and full visibility will completely negate the keshik movement advantage and the camels higher strengths and quicker production speed will prove the decisive factor in victory.

 

[chazzycat]

as far as a place to run to, the rough terrain that you just retreated from has the side benefit of being perfect protection.

I'm not sure how camel archers are supposed to indefinitely push Keshiks back when Keshiks can just go around them and hit & run at will. The small damage advantage that Camel Archers enjoy is easily negated by double experience.

 

[woodshadows]

You're talking from theory, I'm talking from in-game experience. You can't just "run around", not when the camel archers will have numerical superiority of 50%. Try that and you will constantly be getting hit, your only choice will be to move back, but eventually you will hit a wall, depending on how skilful the camel archer player is, will determine how quickly you reach that wall. Once you've reached that wall, superior strength and numbers will dominate you.

 

[chazzycat]

Again, that 50% doesn't make any sense. As other have noted, strategic resources are much more limiting than production times.

I can keep arguing, but I don't think it will get through so I'm going to stop at this point. It's pretty clear from the poll numbers what the consensus is in the community. You have the answer for the question you asked.

 

[woodshadows]

Again, that 50% doesn't make any sense. As other have noted, strategic resources are much more limiting than production times.

I can keep arguing, but I don't think it will get through so I'm going to stop at this point. It's pretty clear from the poll numbers what the consensus is in the community. You have the answer for the question you asked.

You must be playing on a difficulty level below your playing ability if you can remain in a peaceful situation building up military units to the point at which you reach your strategic resource cap. Generally if you are playing at a reasonable difficulty level you will be involved in many wars which will involve losses and/or will gain you more resources through conquest of resources or money gained in conquest used to buy resources.

Try to deny production speed all you like, 50% is a huge difference.

Also, with the arabian bazaar and all the excess luxuries you'll have, gaining more horse resources over the mongols will be easy, meaning again a bigger, faster building, stronger army. Yet you say 2 movement spaces is going to be the determining factor in which unit will come out on top? ha

And the argument that I should "look at the poll numbers" .. because the majority are always right?

 

[chazzycat]

You must be playing on a difficulty level below your playing ability if you can remain in a peaceful situation building up military units to the point at which you reach your strategic resource cap. Generally if you are playing at a reasonable difficulty level you will be involved in many wars which will involve losses and/or will gain you more resources through conquest of resources or money gained in conquest used to buy resources.

Try to deny production speed all you like, 50% is a huge difference.

Also, with the arabian bazaar and all the excess luxuries you'll have, gaining more horse resources over the mongols will be easy, meaning again a bigger, faster building, stronger army. Yet you say 2 movement spaces is going to be the determining factor in which unit will come out on top? ha

And the argument that I should "look at the poll numbers" .. because the majority are always right?

87% of a well-informed community is a very strong majority. And I thought this wasn't about bazaars or Arabs vs. Mongols, just a comparison between two units. I play on immortal.

 

[woodshadows]

and I thought you said "I can keep arguing, but I don't think it will get through so I'm going to stop at this point." tsk tsk.

any comparison of units has to involve the other uniques too, otherwise the mongol unique ability of increased movement for mounted would have to be taken off the table as well, in which case the keshik really loses all advantage.

 

[chazzycat]

and I thought you said "I can keep arguing, but I don't think it will get through so I'm going to stop at this point." tsk tsk.

any comparison of units has to involved the other uniques too, otherwise the mongol unique ability of increased movement for mounted would have to be taken off the table as well, in which case the keshik really loses all advantage.

haha, well you got me there. I truly have nothing better to do at the moment...just waiting for 5:00.

The bazaar has nothing to do with camel archers. If you meant the question to be "which is better, Mongols or Arabs" well that's a totally separate thread. Keshiks always have 5 movement...it would not make any sense at all to separate the UA and consider them a 3 movement unit.

 

[jmick175]

otherwise the mongol unique ability of increased movement for mounted would have to be taken off the table as well, in which case the keshik really loses all advantage.

That's where things get weird, though. Mongolia's UA gives 1 extra movement to mounted units, but the DOCUMENTED movement of a Keshik is 5. Which means that technically it should have 6 moves, but this would be a ridiculous amount of moves.

 

[Rpger29]

In this case the consensus is obviously right. I respect anyone's right to rationally debate about a subject, but I think the overwhelming evidence is in favor the the keshik.

Unit vs. Unit, cost irrespective is a clear victory for the Keshik.

If we start looking at the "bigger picture" and including things like unit costs, then there's no point in limiting the discussion to that. At that point, we may as well compare civs. Clearly the Mongols are a better warmongering civ in the Ren. era.

Both of their UU's shine in this era. Half of their UA isn't that great, but the unique ability of Keshiks to make Khans faster really comes into play at this point in the game. The other half of the UA is obviously quite good.

If the Mongols lack horses, it's unlikely the player will warmonger at this time. If the Arabs lack strategic resources, their economic power will likely be the focus of the player.

Two different civs that have different strengths in different eras.

 

[woodshadows]

haha, well you got me there. I truly have nothing better to do at the moment...just waiting for 5:00.

The bazaar has nothing to do with camel archers. If you meant the question to be "which is better, Mongols or Arabs" well that's a totally separate thread. Keshiks always have 5 movement...it would not make any sense at all to separate the UA and consider them a 3 movement unit.

The bazaar has everything to do with camel archers if it allows more camel archers to be built/purchased. There's tradeoffs in which unique building/ability is given to each civ, it's not a fair comparison to say you are allowed to include your unique ability which gives keshiks their only real advantage yet I can't claim the same right to the bazaar for it's ability to increase camel archer production. Take all uniques off the table and the keshik is suddenly a 4 movement ranged mounted unit that is weaker than the camel archer, more expensive than the camel archer, and can move a whole whopping one extra space.

I'm unconvinced that the Mongols are more successful warmongers than Arabs. On paper that's what I see too, but anecdotal experience tells me otherwise. Time and time again it is not specialised niche units which create victories, it is more robust economies. The Arab economy will generate more gold. This gold will create more happiness, which creates more population, which creates more science, which creates more allies, which creates more buildings, which creates more production, etc. These advantages increase exponentially with every turn of the game. By the time keshiks come onto the scene the Arab player will be in control of a lethal industrial base with lots of allies, lots of policies giving military bonuses, lots of gold to quick-buy units or bribe others to attack the Mongols with you, etc. There are only sparse historical occurrences in which a nation with a more powerful economy has become dominated by one without. Niche units and highly specialised era-specific advantages can only get you so far. Economy Economy Economy.

 

[chazzycat]

The bazaar has everything to do with camel archers if it allows more camel archers to be built/purchased. There's tradeoffs in which unique building/ability is given to each civ, it's not a fair comparison to say you are allowed to include your unique ability which gives keshiks their only real advantage yet I can't claim the same right to the bazaar for it's ability to increase camel archer production. Take all uniques off the table and the keshik is suddenly a 4 movement ranged mounted unit that is weaker than the camel archer, more expensive than the camel archer, and can move a whole whopping one extra space.

I'm unconvinced that the Mongols are more successful warmongers than Arabs. On paper that's what I see too, but anecdotal experience tells me otherwise. Time and time again it is not specialised niche units which create victories, it is more robust economies. The Arab economy will generate more gold. This gold will create more happiness, which creates more population, which creates more science, which creates more allies, which creates more buildings, which creates more production, etc. These advantages increase exponentially with every turn of the game. By the time keshiks come onto the scene the Arab player will be in control of a lethal industrial base with lots of allies, lots of policies giving military bonuses, lots of gold to quick-buy units or bribe others to attack the Mongols with you, etc. There are only sparse historical occurrences in which a nation with a more powerful economy has become dominated by one without. Niche units and highly specialised era-specific advantages can only get you so far. Economy Economy Economy.

I get what you mean about the economy, that's totally valid. But you have phrased the question to be a comparison of units, not civs. Perhaps another poll is in order?

 

[ShahJahanII]

Yes, give me a troop I can have 50% more of and that dishes out more damage over one that is 'faster'. You say "more prone to take damage", I don't seriously understand how you are taking damage with a unit that has a ranged attack of two spaces and can move three spaces a turn Again I think if you were more tactical (as you should be) you would find those extra two movements on the keshik unnecessary luxuries which don't provide any benefit except in allowing you to correct mistakes you shouldn't have made in the first place. If you have barracks etc, logistics doesn't take extremely long to get to, plus if you're getting hit as often as you claim you may need to use the auto-heal instead of the promotion on your units.

I'm not sure whether a patch has changed this, but no one has mentioned the fact either that not only does the camel archer have a stronger ranged attack, it also has a stronger strength in being attacked. I wasn't aware of this until I double-checked the stats I have here: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_medieval_units.html#keshik

Keshik
Movement: 5*; Strength: 8; Ranged Strength: 13; Range: 2; Cost: 225; Required Resources: Horses

Camel Archer
Movement: 3; Strength: 10; Ranged Strength: 15; Range: 2; Cost: 150; Required Resources: Horses


Just keeps getting better for the Camel Archer.

Do the poll a favor, play as both Mongols and Arabs on your favorite difficulty, map, etc. and then come back and tell us Keshiks are better.

Really, the 2 extra moves and experience bonus (not to mention synergy with Khans) make the Keshiks the better unit.

And I don't see people really agreeing with you here, so don't makes statements like "it just keeps getting better for the Camel archers".

 

[woodshadows]

I get what you mean about the economy, that's totally valid. But you have phrased the question to be a comparison of units, not civs. Perhaps another poll is in order?

Well, I have to mention the other aspects of the civs for consistency sake as other people are claiming a 5 movement keshik and I would argue that if we removed all other civ specific traits from the table then the real comparison would be a 4 movement keshik vs camel archer, in which event I think a lot of people might change their mind about which is the superior unit.

 

[chazzycat]

Well, I have to mention the other aspects of the civs for consistency sake as other people are claiming a 5 movement keshik and I would argue that if we removed all other civ specific traits from the table then the real comparison would be a 4 movement keshik vs camel archer, in which event I think a lot of people might change their mind about which is the superior unit.

But the thing is, Keshiks ALWAYS have 5 movement. Yes technically, it's part of the UA. But since the Mongols will always have that UA, and you can't build Keshiks as another player, effectively it's a 5-movement unit. To consider them to be a 4-movement unit just for argument's sake seems silly.

 

[Rpger29]

It really boils down to the experience points/promotions. I'd rather have a keshik built with no promos than two camel archers built in a city with barracks/armory.

A small group of keshiks fielded as early as possible will have logistics before camel archers even have the third terrain bonus. Someone want to do the math (can't right now)?

You also make repeated mention of tight terrain being in favor of camel archers. If a camel archer gets caught in a tough spot and gets hit by two pikes because he can't retreat, he's toast.

The keshik will probably at least be able to retreat to be attacked by only one unit at worst.

 

[ShahJahanII]

But the thing is, Keshiks ALWAYS have 5 movement. Yes technically, it's part of the UA. But since the Mongols will always have that UA, and you can't build Keshiks as another player, effectively it's a 5-movement unit. To consider them to be a 4-movement unit just for argument's sake seems silly.

That would actually apply if you get gifted a Keshik...
But that rarely happens.

 

[woodshadows]

But the thing is, Keshiks ALWAYS have 5 movement. Yes technically, it's part of the UA. But since the Mongols will always have that UA, and you can't build Keshiks as another player, effectively it's a 5-movement unit. To consider them to be a 4-movement unit just for argument's sake seems silly.

Yes and like I said, camel archers will ALWAYS have a robust economy behind them thanks to the bazaar and traderoutes. To use your words "Yes technically, it's part of the UA. But since the Arabs will always have that UA, and you can't build Camel Archers as another player, effectively it's a unit supplemented by a strong economy. To consider them to be a unit not supplemented by a strong economy just for argument's sake seems silly."