Cyrus: You GOT to be kidding me!

[Phrederick]

I am really loosing the point of this game. It is one smack in the teeth after another with the f****d up choices that have been made. It pretty much kills the game in my opinion.

Sorry, but I am just getting frustrated with this game.

I've got two VERY simple ways to improve things for you:
1) Up the difficulty
2) Don't play as Cyrus

If you're going to whine about the game, have a real reason to do so. A good UU on an easy map/gamespeed/difficulty isn't a real reason.

If I want an easy game to just dick around, I'll choose Rome or Inca. If I want a challenging game, I'll play as someone else. Also, the immortals really aren't overpowered at Emperor level, in my opinion. Too many spears.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well to fix it they could do a game balance, historical accuracy combo and make Immortals a UU Axeman (say exactly like regular Axeman but with +25% v. Mounted to balance out their Chariot Weakness)

 

[Watiggi]

You've got to be kidding me? Your arguments for defending Cyrus are the difficulty level and the map type? So what you're saying is that *if* there was water in between the land, it would be fair then? What a solution! I allways play either lakes or pangaea and so have played with different types of rushes. The Immortal rush just absolutely craps on the others.

As for the difficulty, Noble is my difficulty. I couldn't do this with any other leader, including the Romans - certainly not this quickly, on this map, with this difficulty.

If you're going to whine about the game, have a real reason to do so. A good UU on an easy map/gamespeed/difficulty isn't a real reason.

Then what is? A bad UU on a hard map/gamespeed/difficulty? The point with this IS the effectiveness of the Immortal. If I have to change the map types in order to put water inbetween so that I can't do a rush, then that says alot about the Immortal itself. Likewise - as stated above - Noble IS my difficulty. I couldn't do this that well with another leader. As for gamespeed, this is the 4rd start I have had on Marathon, with 3 failed starts prior. I pretty much allways play on Normal and Marrathon is new to me. The mere fact that I can come out of the blocks like this on Marrathon is testiment to how over the top the Immortal is - something of which I haven't been able to do with other leaders, like the Romans, Aztec or the Mongolians. The Romans and Aztecs need Iron Working (expensive) and the Mongols need Horse Breeding (exxxpensive). Cyrus just needs one tech, hook up horse with his Imp trait and wham! You got Immortals for the cost of 25 hammers (cheaper than Axemen) each on Normal speed.

IF map type and gamespeed is what holds the unit back, then MAYBE it's a little too strong. I have never been able to do a rush like this with anything else, and that is with the same difficulty, same speed, same map type. The Immortal IS a little over the top.

And in response to just not playing as Cyrus. That isn't the point. What if I wanted to play as Cyrus? The ****** up choices that have been made, that I refered to, were related to this idea of making distinctly unbalanced leaders. I am not a player who chooses my leaders based on their abilities/inabilities. I like to play as the leader, regardless of the traits/UU. Making the leaders this unbalanced just, imo, screws up the game. The Romans being the way they are: So be it. They don't have an Aggressive trait and so the Praetorians compensate for it. As such, I just accept the Romans for that, but I keep clear away from them. But the Immortals? Apart from being fast, strong and effective at anti Archer and NOW anti Axemen, they can also promote quickly, get GG's faster and be built quickly and cheaply.

Basically, to not play as Cyrus because of how unbalanced he is, is to just eliminate yet another choice in the game for me. That is what's killing the game imo.

 

[Mutineer]

I do not think Cyrus is unbalanced mach. May be a little.
If some one unhappy with a game, it only because they are unhappy about everyhting, not a one particular feature of the game.

Spears still counter Immortals.

All this whine about Immortals or Praetorians is baseless.

Theyare strong, but they have erly-same time counters.

Axes counter Praetorians shild-shiled.
Spears counter Immortals.

Vanilla Cosaks and redcoats did not had any early=same time counter.
Well, actially Pikes did counter Cossaks shield to shield, but was lucking mobility. There was no what so ever counter to Recoats.

That was fixed. Immortals are a bit strong, but not game breaking in MP.

 

[SLM]

After reading this thread I thought I'd try it myself (never played Cyrus before). The result was amazing. The AI just doesn't know how to counter an immortal rush, spearmen are few and by the time they've built them, you've got overpowering numbers yourself. Throw in a couple of CR promoted swordsmen and nothing's going to stop you.

Well... except when you've taken over half the world or more, are on 0% to 10% tech research and still losing money, keeping the war(s) going just to be able to get some money and sooner or later the AI is going to have grenadiers or riflemen and you're still using immortals/swordsmen.

In my game I had conquered almost half the world very very early with just immortals but fell to a very hard stop once the AI (2 civ's) got gunpowder. The AI didn't seem to grasp the advantage they now had so I was left to catching up in research, buildings and money. The things that helped were Pyramids to enjoy constitution early in the game and Stonehenge to pop those borders of cities that I took over. I also took 3 religious shrines and built one myself so that helped in the cash department, using the lull to rush build missionaries. Nevertheless, it took so much time since the immortal rush to get back on my feet that I didn't win the game until 1911.

During the immortal rush I took out Wang Kon and Hannibal and made a vassal of Tokugawa (he got gunpowder so I couldn't finish him off but taking his capital with a lot of units got him to capitalize) and took bits of land from Brennus.

After I researched grenadiers myself I attacked Brennus some more and also made him capitalize. What was left were Augustus and Roosevelt and Augustus was way above me on the power graph with his high tech units. I traded a lot with him so I guess that kind of kept him off my back. I also traded with Roosevelt to the point where he even had a friendly attitude.

Up till the end of the game I never agreed to Open Borders with anyone else but my vassals which gave me a unique advantage to keep those pesky settlers out while my Stonehenge and later on other buildings in the cities themselves secured the land I needed. I think it did have a big effect on my cashflow though. So around 1910 I attacked Augustus with tanks (he didn't have them) popping out of my capital with CR3 and collateral and gunships so in just a few turns I won the game by Domination with (the irony) my second Augustus Caesar rating on Prince/Epic/Standard/Ancient and my highest score so far.

I imagine that by playing a smaller map you could have a domination or conquest victory with Cyrus on Prince before 1 AD.

My own conclusion to this is that a human playing Cyrus in the game - playing only against AI - is indeed overpowered because the AI doesn't know how to deal with him. When Cyrus is an AI, I don't think he's overpowered because the AI doesn't use immortal rushes. When you play multiplayer I imagine he isn't overpowered either because the human player knows (or should know) how to defend himself against such a rush.

The best way to fix this is adjusting the AI to deal with an immortal rush, or any rush for that matter. It needs to be able to adjust his defenders by the civ's around him.

For me, I think I'll try a game on Monarch now. I'll probably get my *ss kicked by the AI, but hey, 'never shot is always a miss' they say in the Netherlands

 

[aelf]

How balanced do you want each leader to be? Yeah, I buy the argument that Immortals are a little too strong now. Maybe they should nerf it. But complaining about how lame the game is while exploiting a strong unit on an easy difficulty is like complaining about how easy it is to beat up a 3-year-old.

Try the same strategy on the higher difficulties. Come back if you get the same results.

 

[kristopherb]

I do not think Cyrus is unbalanced mach. May be a little.
If some one unhappy with a game, it only because they are unhappy about everyhting, not a one particular feature of the game.

Spears still counter Immortals.

All this whine about Immortals or Praetorians is baseless.

Theyare strong, but they have erly-same time counters.

Axes counter Praetorians shild-shiled.
Spears counter Immortals.

Vanilla Cosaks and redcoats did not had any early=same time counter.
Well, actially Pikes did counter Cossaks shield to shield, but was lucking mobility. There was no what so ever counter to Recoats.

That was fixed. Immortals are a bit strong, but not game breaking in MP.

You forgot it needs the horse resourse which in my games its rare to get before feuldalism.

 

[Arlborn]

Now go to a high level and try a rush of Musketeer..Or Jaguars!
Then again, try a rush of Quachas or Preats or Immortals!

It's just not about his difficult level people.
But well, my guess is Firaxis likes to leave some things a bit unbalanced hehe. But I think that if a UU is too strong, the UB of the CIV should be a bit weaker for example, or the traits of leader..

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Well... except when you've taken over half the world or more, are on 0% to 10% tech research and still losing money, keeping the war(s) going just to be able to get some money and sooner or later the AI is going to have grenadiers or riflemen and you're still using immortals/swordsmen.

Reminds me of playing with Genghis Khan.

 

[Panda]

But well, my guess is Firaxis likes to leave some things a bit unbalanced hehe. But I think that if a UU is too strong, the UB of the CIV should be a bit weaker for example, or the traits of leader..

There are people who sometimes like to play a less demanding game with a less challenging civ. Including me.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I'm just saying they're a bit over-the-top, particularly against the AI. If the AI built some more spearmen in an intelligent manner, then it wouldn't be so easy, but....it doesn't....

 

[CivCorpse]

I looked at your game before posting. It may look like you rule the world now, but wait 2-3 turns until your cash is gone and you start losing units and they go on strike. The best you can do is 7 more turns at -16 gold per turn then you're broke. it will take you forever to get any tech....a couple hundred turns just to get the one you have now. Do you think the rest of the world will wait up for you? Your immortals are close to being obsolete and then what will you fight with? Oh that's right that's all you know how to build. I only play huge maps and have learned rushing only works on one MAYBE two opponents. After that you slowly crumble from within. Keep playing that game and post a save 100 turns later.

 

[HardCoder]

Vanilla Cosaks and redcoats did not had any early=same time counter.
Well, actially Pikes did counter Cossaks shield to shield, but was lucking mobility. There was no what so ever counter to Recoats.

There's always a counter. Use more units and/or use them more intelligently. The game's not about being fair; it's about winning when it's not fair.

I hated taking cities defended by Redcoats but it's just a matter of taking the right ones, or not having to take them. I don't think it was necessary to nerf Redcoats. It's just one of many things that the game does to make it hard for you.

The good thing about Redcoats is that the AI, the old AI at least, never used them offensively. A stack of overpowered riflemen can put a hurt on you.

 

[Wodan]

The problem with Immortals is: expand too much, too early

I agree with this, but the answers are easy:
1) SE
2) Don't capture, raze. Hamstring all nearby Civs by razing everything except their capitol (which Immortals probably won't be able to take until you get Cats)

Wodan

 

[Phrederick]

As for the difficulty, Noble is my difficulty. I couldn't do this with any other leader, including the Romans - certainly not this quickly, on this map, with this difficulty.

Then perhaps when you want to play as Cyrus, you need to play one difficulty above your standard level.

IF map type and gamespeed is what holds the unit back, then MAYBE it's a little too strong. I have never been able to do a rush like this with anything else, and that is with the same difficulty, same speed, same map type. The Immortal IS a little over the top.

And in response to just not playing as Cyrus. That isn't the point. What if I wanted to play as Cyrus? The ****** up choices that have been made, that I refered to, were related to this idea of making distinctly unbalanced leaders.

I'm not denying that the immortal is a really good uu, but I still don't see how there's anything worth complaining about. If you want to play Cyrus on Noble, either don't build immortals, or only build a few. Yeah, it sucks that abusing them makes the game too easy, I agree. You can get around that by not rushing with immortals. Then you can play a challenging game with Cyrus. Or, you can mod Immortals to be not as good.

 

[abuaftab]

CYrus actually needs to get 2 techs, animal husbandry and wheel before he can make the Immortals. I agree with Wodan, destroy the civs and then make your own empire as you like.

 

[napoleonbee]

Has anyone ever thought Praetorians and Immortals were added for the less experienced civ player? These units and civilizations can get a new player used to the game or an intermediate player get used to a new difficulty level. They are also there for just having fun. If you hate these overpowered civs-- guess what!-- you're not forced to play them. Some people might only want to play Mao on Deity, and some people might want to play Julius Caesar on Settler. The game wasn't designed just for you.

 

[Watiggi]

Has anyone ever thought Praetorians and Immortals were added for the less experienced civ player? These units and civilizations can get a new player used to the game or an intermediate player get used to a new difficulty level. They are also there for just having fun. If you hate these overpowered civs-- guess what!-- you're not forced to play them. Some people might only want to play Mao on Deity, and some people might want to play Julius Caesar on Settler. The game wasn't designed just for you.

The problem with that attitude is that it results in less choices for each player. I wanted to play as Cyrus and try out an Immortal rush. The game has been ruined for me because the Immortal is too effective. I couldn't even get close to these results with any other kind of rush. They can be built really early and really quickly and are very effective. Upping the difficulty level wont make it better, it will just make the Immortals ineffective because there will be spears everywhere, which will make an Immortal rush pointless (and defeats the purpose).

I looked at your game before posting. It may look like you rule the world now, but wait 2-3 turns until your cash is gone and you start losing units and they go on strike. The best you can do is 7 more turns at -16 gold per turn then you're broke. it will take you forever to get any tech....a couple hundred turns just to get the one you have now. Do you think the rest of the world will wait up for you? Your immortals are close to being obsolete and then what will you fight with? Oh that's right that's all you know how to build. I only play huge maps and have learned rushing only works on one MAYBE two opponents. After that you slowly crumble from within. Keep playing that game and post a save 100 turns later.

I agree with you. I haven't continued the game, but I am on Marrathon with -16 gold per turn at 0% research and little to no cottages being worked on. It doesn't look good for me (especially with my inexperience with Marrathong). BUT, as Wodan said, this could be compensated for by razing cities earlier. I got a little greedy here. I do disagree with you about going broke in 7 turns though. I can live off of the pillaging/city capturing. Ragnar is south of my units, so I would probably go down there and kill him off and raze and pillage everything for the gold and then move east in order to feed my deficit. Meanwhile I would shift everything into 'emphasize commerce' mode and go after any hit of gold I can find. I have no doubt it can be done. I have just never been in this position in a Marrathon game. I have many a time in a Normal game and it's no problem. Worst case scenario, my units go on strike and disapear and the rush ends. Yay!

 

[ds61514]

The problem with that attitude is that it results in less choices for each player. I wanted to play as Cyrus and try out an Immortal rush. The game has been ruined for me because the Immortal is too effective. I couldn't even get close to these results with any other kind of rush. They can be built really early and really quickly and are very effective. Upping the difficulty level wont make it better, it will just make the Immortals ineffective because there will be spears everywhere, which will make an Immortal rush pointless (and defeats the purpose).

You can immortal rush (or heck just a normal chariot rush) at the very least up to Immortal. Worried about spears? Don't attack the cities, start where the copper is and maybe tech IW to find out where iron is. There isn't any difficulty level where Immortals go from "good" right to "worthless."

So yes, the answer is: move up to a different difficulty level .

 

[Nay]

The problem with that attitude is that it results in less choices for each player. I wanted to play as Cyrus and try out an Immortal rush. The game has been ruined for me because the Immortal is too effective. I couldn't even get close to these results with any other kind of rush. They can be built really early and really quickly and are very effective. Upping the difficulty level wont make it better, it will just make the Immortals ineffective because there will be spears everywhere, which will make an Immortal rush pointless (and defeats the purpose).

Ok, so what do you want?

First, you complain that immortal-rush is too easy (on noble)
Then you complain that immortal-rush will be too hard on higher difficulty.

You want neither a walkthrough nor a challenge.
What is it then?