Cyrus: You GOT to be kidding me!

[azzaman333]

The point is that the AI wont get a counter to the Immortal until after they've run through your land, and your neighbours, and your neighbours neighbours. First step to fix them would be to take away their defensive bonuses, then see how powerful they stay.

 

[anglosaxon]

They reduced Redcoat strength down from 16 to 14 though. And I bet they reduced Cossacks down from 18 too.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

And Tokugawa is underpowered. Japan is always in the top 3 least scoring civs.

With the ai, but not in human hands. Leaders like Toku, Izzy, and Monty seem weak because they usually do poorly in the ai's hands, but thats because of their programmed personalities. A human doesnt isolate himself and never trade (toku), or completely hate and attack someone simply because of a different religion (Izzy), or just randomly attack people (monty).

As for the thread, I get the point of there being no middle ground on your rush, but I chalk it up to two things...

1. Difficulty. You dont want to hear it, but its just part of reality. Noble for experienced players is not hard. There are several rushes that can just wipe out the ai on Noble, not just Immortal. Praet, War Chariot, and you could probably pull it off with Impi and Phalanx. Heck, pretty much every unit can be a rush unit on Noble. I played one game on Prince that I rushed the world with musketeers. Harder difficulties means more troops for the ai.

2. Circumstance. Lets say you were completely isolated to the world, touching only one civ...Alexander. Or Shaka. You can kiss your rush goodbye. Protective civs would give you fits as well.


Recently, I played a Monarch game where I tried to axe rush. The civ I attacked (Shaka) only had archers. I took two cities, but when I approached his next city he had axemen and chariots. Apparently he just hooked up iron and got horses with a cultural expansion. I was able to take one more before I accepted peace.

My rush wasnt a complete success, but it wasnt totally defeated either. I was able to get some cities and cripple Shaka for the game. There is your middle ground. Why? I think its the difficulty.

Ive had similar experiences with War Chariots and Praets on Monarch. More success, but eventually I hit a wall sooner then I expected. Even with the civs that dont have copper, its not long before they have the cursed longbowmen.

So, you can either step up and increase your difficulty, or stay at noble. Its up to you to decide what you truly want...a cakewalk or a challenge. But if you stay at Noble and keep complaining, I dont have any sympathy...its an easy difficulty and you know solutions but choose not to take them.

 

[azzaman333]

The point isnt immortal rush being too strong, the problem is the immortal is much better for a rush than any other unit.

 

[aelf]

Yes, yes, Immortal rush is very strong. I get the point. I'm sure we all do. Well, I have tried it on Emperor and found three possible outcomes: A) I do it moderately and it helped me carve out a nice chuck of territory that would translate to a mid to late game advantage B) I overdo it and end up with too much territory too early and fall hopelessly behind in techs C) I lose too many Immortals to spears and the whole rush is not worth the effort.

Therefore, the Immortal rush is not overpowered if you're not playing on easy difficulties, where the AI is often literally at your mercy no matter which civ you play.

 

[Arlborn]

The point isnt immortal rush being too strong, the problem is the immortal is much better for a rush than any other unit.

Exactely what the starter of the thread meant. He didnt talk anything about the difficult level..

But leave it, nobody from the Firaxis will hear it anyway, the dont hear the Preatorians thread do they?

As I told before, probably its their intention to leave this "unbalance" in the game..Probably they think its balanced by other things..Or they just want to reflect the real history, dont know

 

[Antilogic]

They reduced Redcoat strength down from 16 to 14 though. And I bet they reduced Cossacks down from 18 too.

They did--strength 15 now.

Overall, though, the Immortal receives +50% vs. archers when the War Chariot receives +25% against everything (because of its increased strength). The fact that the Immortal rush essentially works because the AI produces many archers is not so much the point of Immortals being overpowered, but rather the AI being ******ed. If the AI typically guarded cities with, say, 2 Spears and 2 Archers instead of 3 Archers and 1 Spear, in this particular example, you would be about as good off with War Chariots as Immortals.

I think the War Chariots tend to be a little underrated when it comes to rushes...and as Civtastic posted, it's largely dependent on the map, your neighbors, and their access to special resources. If your opponent happens to be metal-deprived and mass produces archers, then voilá, it played directly into the UU's strength.

@azzaman333: I played as Cyrus and Hannibal first after the expansion came out because I thought they would be strong fighters. I loved both games dearly, and was proven right.

 

[azzaman333]

@azzaman333: I played as Cyrus and Hannibal first after the expansion came out because I thought they would be strong fighters. I loved both games dearly, and was proven right.

Good man. They are definately 2 of my favourite leaders, along with Montezuma and Mansa Musa.

 

[Watiggi]

Therefore, the Immortal rush is not overpowered if you're not playing on easy difficulties, where the AI is often literally at your mercy no matter which civ you play.

The difficulty level aspect of it is a subjective thing though, relative to each person. I am out growing Noble - it's starting to get a little boring - but I know Noble. I have done different rushes on Noble. For instance, I have a Jag rush started on the same settings. It is by no means anywhere near as close to the effectiveness as the Immortals. That is what motivated this thread: The fact that I got far further, more quickly and steam rolled far more, more easily than with other civ's UU rushes on the same difficulty. It is by far the most expansive, successful rush I have done at this difficulty and it was done with relative ease - moreso than with Keshiks and Praetorians. It just annoyed me greatly that yet again, there's another rather big imbalance in the game. Was it intentional? I don't know. But it's definitely noticeable and for me ruins the game. I don't consider upping the difficulty to be a solution because the setup will still be imbalanced: Cyrus has very strong trait synergery coupled with a very strong UU which I would place as #1 in terms of effectiveness in rushing.

Exactely what the starter of the thread meant. He didnt talk anything about the difficult level..

But leave it, nobody from the Firaxis will hear it anyway, the dont hear the Preatorians thread do they?

As I told before, probably its their intention to leave this "unbalance" in the game..Probably they think its balanced by other things..Or they just want to reflect the real history, dont know

Probably true. I dare say they have made 'stepping' stones with each civ so that you can progress within a difficulty level. Sadly though, I like to play as the leader him(her)self - not because of the trait/UU/UB bonuses they receive. The Immortal rush - when compared to other rushes - is just far more effective and as such feels very much out of balance.

Question to the 'up the difficulty or don't waste my time people': If I *have* to raise the difficulty level up one or two levels so I can play a particular leader in a game so that it feels balanced, would that suggest that the leaders trait combo, UU and what ever else is a bit over the top in the first place?

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..

Yeah, in vanilla civ, Cyrus had weaker traits and a strong UU. Now though, in Warlords, his UU has the +100% Axemen attack bonus plus the new trait combo Cha/Imp. I can't help but wonder whether the changes were made without him being tested.

What, someone other than me finally realised the power of the immortal? took you all long enough.

Hehe, yeah. I haven't played as Cyrus until now. I played an Immortal pillage rush in vanilla civ (very effective - completely cripples everyone without every having to take a city) but it took me a while to try Cyrus in Warlords.

The point isnt immortal rush being too strong, the problem is the immortal is much better for a rush than any other unit.

Exactly

@SLM: Appreciate the effort . Try a strategy on say a small lakes map where your aim is to cut off all your opponents resources. Iow, use the Immortals to pillage copper, iron and horses and then prevent them from linking it back up. Then create an attack force and then mow 'em all down. That is a pillage rush: The Immortal is the best at that too. The difference here is that it will drastically slow your opponents down in terms of teching and what not. They will only be able to build Archers and Warriors until they get Construction or Fedualism.

I think the War Chariots tend to be a little underrated when it comes to rushes...and as Civtastic posted, it's largely dependent on the map, your neighbors, and their access to special resources. If your opponent happens to be metal-deprived and mass produces archers, then voilá, it played directly into the UU's strength.

Interesting point. I have never done a War Chariot rush before. Immortals don't get a +50% strength bonus against Archers though, they simply take 50% from the archers defense bonus, ie, their +50% city defense bonus that they have.

Thinking about it though, wouldn't it be just like an Axemen rush, except you can move 2mp per turn and cannot get the city raider promotions?

 

[Antilogic]

Interesting point. I have never done a War Chariot rush before. Immortals don't get a +50% strength bonus against Archers though, they simply take 50% from the archers defense bonus, ie, their +50% city defense bonus that they have.

Thinking about it though, wouldn't it be just like an Axemen rush, except you can move 2mp per turn and cannot get the city raider promotions?

Essentially. But strength upgrades are pretty solid, and if only you could get Cover...the major difference is you are less vulnerable to axes attacking you--it's 1:1 in terms of strength. And when you attack them it's 2:1 your favor. Also, Shock-promoted War Chariots stand a chance (albeit, still not a good one) of surviving a spearman, whereas Immortals are even more vulnerable.

And on the archery units..."+50% vs. Archery Units" from the Civilopedia. I'm not sure what I'm missing here, but the archers may be outside a city...and you still get that bonus. This seems to be a moot point on how the bonus is actually implemented, though.

 

[aelf]

The difficulty level aspect of it is a subjective thing though, relative to each person. I am out growing Noble - it's starting to get a little boring - but I know Noble. I have done different rushes on Noble. For instance, I have a Jag rush started on the same settings. It is by no means anywhere near as close to the effectiveness as the Immortals. That is what motivated this thread: The fact that I got far further, more quickly and steam rolled far more, more easily than with other civ's UU rushes on the same difficulty. It is by far the most expansive, successful rush I have done at this difficulty and it was done with relative ease - moreso than with Keshiks and Praetorians. It just annoyed me greatly that yet again, there's another rather big imbalance in the game. Was it intentional? I don't know. But it's definitely noticeable and for me ruins the game. I don't consider upping the difficulty to be a solution because the setup will still be imbalanced: Cyrus has very strong trait synergery coupled with a very strong UU which I would place as #1 in terms of effectiveness in rushing.

Well, each civ has its strengths and weaknesses, and at different times. Jaguars might not be the Aztecs' most prominent strength, but in the long run, for a warmongering game, I would rather play as Monty than Cyrus. Just because Cyrus has a strong early UU doesn't make me want to play him all the time. And, like I've pointed out, on higher difficuty levels, it's not a guaranteed win anyway. Charismatic is a very good trait, but some people might prefer the Creative and Expansive Cyrus in vanilla. It boils down to play style and individual preferences. Giving a leader a good trait and an effective early UU doesn't make everybody want to play as him. The issue of 'balance', as you call it, is actually quite irrelevant.

 

[futurehermit]

Immortals are a VERY powerful UU against the AI. But they pretty much suck in MP. The problem is the AI doesn't build enough spears. In fact the problem with the AI is that they build primarily archers, and not enough of them to boot. This results in units with a bonus vs. archers being highly effective (i.e., immortals, quechas, etc.). Imagine if the AI saw HC nearby and built 1/2 warriors 1/2 archers early on (all warriors might make it vulnerable to another civ). A quechua rush would be much harder to pull off. Same with immortal rush. How would I counter an immortal rush as a human player? Hook up copper, build spears, with 2-3 fortified on top of the copper.

Sure, with just archers defending, the immortal is very strong.

I played a monarch game the other day with the improved ai mod. Cyrus, continents map. Had horses and stone in 2nd city. Build pyramids and massed immortals. Crippled two civs very early and yet still had tech lead using SE. VERY powerful, no doubt, and this isn't noble difficulty.

But, imo, Cyrus isn't that OP on paper. Imperialistic kinda sucks frankly. Charismatic is VERY powerful, but it's not like he's the only one who gets that. His starting tech combo is subpar imo. If the AI wasn't AI then immortals wouldn't be op. When I play multiplayer I rarely see cyrus as an opponent.

 

[Phrederick]

The point isnt immortal rush being too strong, the problem is the immortal is much better for a rush than any other unit.

How is that a problem? If you think that immortals are too powerful and make the game not fun, just don't use them or don't use many of them. Problem solved.

Question to the 'up the difficulty or don't waste my time people': If I *have* to raise the difficulty level up one or two levels so I can play a particular leader in a game so that it feels balanced, would that suggest that the leaders trait combo, UU and what ever else is a bit over the top in the first place?

Yeah, I'd agree that Cyrus is a very powerful leader, and when played by the human player in SP, gives the human a very solid advantage. Now explain to me why that's bad. The only difference between difficulty levels is the contrasting advantages to AIs and the human. If you give the human an advantage via choosing a strong leader, then if you want a challenging game, up the difficulty to counteract that advantage.

If anything, I'd argue that having the leaders have differing amounts of power is a good thing, because it lets you fine-tune your difficulty level a bit. Is leader y too easy? Try the harder leader z on the same difficulty, or the easier leader x on a harder difficulty.

Anyway, what did you think of my suggstion:

Try this: Build a bunch of immortals, then wait until you get bronze working. Use the immortals to conquer the nearest source of copper, or mine your own. Build axes. Use axe/immortal combos to pillage, and take cities with axes (if there's a spear) or immortals (if there's no spears). Now you'll be able to do an immortal rush if they have spears. Up the difficulty so that you can't use just immortals, and only conquer the nearest neighbor or two. Then settle back, build up your lands, and start another wave of invasion with maces/trebuchets.

Now it's not too easy (because you've given them time to build spears and you've raised the difficulty) but not too hard (because you have axes to take cities when they have spears).

I think it might give you a good balance with using immortals. When you use them as part of a diversified attack force, it lowers the possible threat of them having spears, and lowers the effectiveness if they don't have spears. It should be a better compromize. Remember that you're playing a single-player game for fun, and make choices that give you more fun. That's why I occasionally open up the world builder and let my civ start with two settlers or with the pentagon or something: it can make the game easier and more enjoyable.

 

[azzaman333]

How is that a problem? If you think that immortals are too powerful and make the game not fun, just don't use them or don't use many of them. Problem solved.

Because I like random everthing, and then winning in the best way possible.

 

[aelf]

Because I like random everthing, and then winning in the best way possible.

I suggest this: write down the names of all the leaders in Civ except Cyrus on small pieces of paper. Crush them and mix them around in a jar. Don't look while you're doing it to ensure fairness. Pick a piece, unfold it and there you go, a random leader picked and it will never be Cyrus.

 

[azzaman333]

I suggest this: write down the names of all the leaders in Civ except Cyrus on small pieces of paper. Crush them and mix them around in a jar. Don't look while you're doing it to ensure fairness. Pick a piece, unfold it and there you go, a random leader picked and it will never be Cyrus.

I like playing as Cyrus, I just think his UU is a little overpowered. I also think that the Praet is also clearly overpowered. If the Panzer wasn't so late, it would be way too powerful as well.

 

[Sparta]

I suggest this: write down the names of all the leaders in Civ except Cyrus on small pieces of paper. Crush them and mix them around in a jar. Don't look while you're doing it to ensure fairness. Pick a piece, unfold it and there you go, a random leader picked and it will never be Cyrus.

- I like it. I've often wondered why they didn't include a simple option like this - like a 'set random possibilities' popup tab or something so you could get a random leader from all Charismatic or Financial leaders or something, or just "Not Cyrus" if you preferred.

I haven't played Cyrus in multi ever, but in SP, I do agree that he's a bit overpowered when contrasted to the other civs (except Rome maybe, but Rome has always been OP). It is a good point though (IMHO) about the human opponent being wiser in countering his Immortals.

 

[Antilogic]

- I like it. I've often wondered why they didn't include a simple option like this - like a 'set random possibilities' popup tab or something so you could get a random leader from all Charismatic or Financial leaders or something, or just "Not Cyrus" if you preferred.

I haven't played Cyrus in multi ever, but in SP, I do agree that he's a bit overpowered when contrasted to the other civs (except Rome maybe, but Rome has always been OP). It is a good point though (IMHO) about the human opponent being wiser in countering his Immortals.

I have wondered that as well...only in my case, it's "Not Roosevelt". He has been randomly selected for my last 5 games in a row. Now, I'm picking most of my opponents as people I haven't seen on the board recently...

Honestly, I would rather see the AI emphasize more spears than nerfing a unit that would relatively balanced if not for the lacking of AI. A human player can fend off an Immortal rush with relative ease so long as metal is available. The AI can't because it still produces dozens of archers, despite the fact it has perfectly good axes and spears to make as well. In my current game, Monty has both horses and copper in his borders, but still most of his units are archers and a handful of axes/jags. It's crazy--I've never seen Monty with spears in this current game--not once in thousands of years. Bad move on his part--my mounted troops are enjoying a one-sided bloodbath.

 

[pigswill]

With reference to the OP saying there's no point playing because immortal rush is too easy on noble and there's also no point playing because immortal rush is too difficult on e.g. emperor does appear contradictory.
If you're saying that the AI sucks at warfare (and playing a powerful ancient UU on noble on marathon accentuates that) not many people would disagree.
If you're saying that the immortal is now overpowered and unbalanced again not many people would disagree.
If you're saying there's no point playing Civ because the AI sucks at warfare and the immortal is overpowered then many people would disagree (and have pointed out alternatives which you seem to reject for no very obvious reason).

Edit: didn't read to the end of the thread before posting, oops.

 

[Wodan]

Interesting point. I have never done a War Chariot rush before. Thinking about it though, wouldn't it be just like an Axemen rush, except you can move 2mp per turn and cannot get the city raider promotions?

That, and the immunity to first strikes, cost of 25 instead of 35 for Axe, already having Agriculture so not having to research Mining, Animal Husbandry being 40 beakers cheaper than BW, and 10% retreat chance?

Yep, except for that, pretty much like an Axe rush.

Wodan