Dog Soldier, seriously?

[Nicol.Bolas]

Dog Soldier is a UU, that actually makes you weaker.
Don´t bee fooled by thinking that he is extra strong vs melee. It´s a lie and simple maths.
The bonus vs. melee vs regular axemen is miniscule and costs are great:

converted strenghts vs melee:
axemen:
5 + (0,5*5) = 7,5
dog soldier
4 + (1 * 4) = 8

wow just a 0,5 bonus in the end
( whooping 6,6% bonus (repeating of course))
but at what cost?
dog soldier has these maluses compared to axeman:
-20% vs archers, mounted, artillery and all other units except melee
-40% vs chairots

the archer malus would be pretty horrible by itself, since you are guaranteed to almost only fight that unit
so how is that balanced at all, especially since that dog fighter just didn´t take over barb archer city, which will cause massive snowball (taken by runaway civ)
all these maluses and bonuses get even worse relatively to axemen, with each promotion or opponents bonus
it´s just freaking horrible. now I understand why Sitting Bull always does badly, everything about this leader and civ is underpowered.
no need for copper or iron is pretty miniscule. I have yet to be in this situation among over 100 games in various maps and difficulties.
civ4 has generally too many resources, there might as well be none in the whole game



the only way to make up fopr this are the archery units: consider this:
(giving the archechs drill is bad play)
archer straight out can have:
drill 1 + combat 1 + cover/shock or
drill 1 + cover + shock
eventually you can have 4 prom crossbows out of the production (totem+barracks+ both civics)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The no-resources part makes them really dangerous, especially in MP. They're certainly good defensively too, but the lack of offense really is a drag.

Some of the best sub-monarch HoF games ever involve NA though.

 

[whats a navy]

Because they are resourceless you can go for bronze working and have a guarantee that you will have barb defense. For other civs you have to go archery for a 3 strength unit if you want a guarantee for barb defense. They are not good for early rush though unless you go for a choke in MP.

 

[NihilZero]

NA is probably the only civilisation that I really don't like and usually reject when the randomiser gives me them, and the Dog Soldier is a big part of that. Everybody else has some kind of an upside, but the only positive thing about NA is the PHI trait (and potential for cute tricks with Machinery bulbs, I guess).

Yes, you can argue that a resourceless unit can be a potential lifesaver, but that doesn't really cut the mustard when you are PRO and have the Totem Pole, making your archers probably as good if not better than the UU.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

I actually kind of like Dog Soldiers because they make barb defense so easy -- for example, no need to tech AH just to check for horses if you don't have any livestock to improve. That said, there's also some disincentive to building them for defense given that SB has such stellar archers with Protective + Totem pole. But knowing you're covered for barb defense no matter what, with no strict need to tech archery, can really simplify the early game.

As for offense, it's true they're arguably worse than regular axes for a single unit-type rush. But straight up axe rushes aren't that great on higher difficulties anyway, and Dogs can be really great in combination with Swords and (optionally) Cats.

Overall I'd say they're a decent UU -- certainly somewhat situational regarding offense and nothing stellar overall, but not one that makes me groan a la ballista phants or numidian cavalry.

*edit: x-post with NihilZero. Agreed, SB's archers are good. But with respect to balancing early defense with development, you really need to factor in the non-trivial cost of teching archery rather than something else, particularly since SB doesn't start with hunting. In contrast BW is something you would need anyway, which can be teched as soon as needed since you start with mining, and which does not bear the normal risk of not having Copper. Thus I'd say that in 4/5 games I play with SB I end up using dogs rather than archers as earliest defense, and am glad to have them.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I think you underestimated the effect that Dog soldiers have. I don't remember all the UU's, but I think the Dog Soldier is the only axe UU that is more effective vs axes - axe vs axe is a draw - dog soldier vs. axe is a win for the dog soldier (5 vs. 6 (4*(1+1-.5)).

Sure, it's not as good vs. archers, but there is basically no counter to it if you add a spear or two to deal with chariots in the stack. It's not perfect, but is perfectly usable...

 

[NihilZero]

@ ABCD - Fair enough, but even for barb defence they are inferior to chariots (which are fast) and regular axes (since you will mostly have to deal with archers). This pretty much negates any advantage that their resourcelessness gives. So, the best you can say about Dog Soldiers is that they occasionally achieve mediocrity.

Oh, and NA don't have mining, as far as I recall, thay have AG and Fishing...

 

[ABCDPuppies]

@ ABCD - Fair enough, but even for barb defence they are inferior to chariots (which are fast) and regular axes (since you will mostly have to deal with archers). This pretty much negates any advantage that their resourcelessness gives. So, the best you can say about Dog Soldiers is that they occasionally achieve mediocrity.

I agree chariots are ideal for barb defense, but teching AH is a big investment if you don't need it anyway, and having horses is not something that can be counted on.

I guess dogs might technically be "worse" than regular axes against barb archers, but they are still plenty strong enough to beat them in the field, which is all that really matters. So I would maintain that the advantage of their resourcelessness is not negated after all.

Oh, and NA don't have mining, as far as I recall, thay have AG and Fishing...

woops.

I think you underestimated the effect that Dog soldiers have. I don't remember all the UU's, but I think the Dog Soldier is the only axe UU that is more effective vs axes - axe vs axe is a draw - dog soldier vs. axe is a win for the dog soldier (5 vs. 6 (4*(1+1-.5)).

Sure, it's not as good vs. archers, but there is basically no counter to it if you add a spear or two to deal with chariots in the stack. It's not perfect, but is perfectly usable...

This is a great point -- I forgot about their nice pairing with chariots.

 

[vranasm]

well usually when I have horses and not metal I get pretty hardly owned with spearmen.
DS are actually good on defense against axes in favorable terrain (which you should use anyway), the only problem being they lack a bit on offense (strictly speaking about barbs).

It's the reason why the early game with SB is for me usually much easier and I don't understand the hate... I played SB in TES 1 and just remember how much fun I can get with SB.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

It's basically a defensive unit. Better then chariots because of barb spears.

This is great if you don't want to tech AH or Archery and will tech BW for chops ( which usually you will at some point ), then you have instant barb defense which is great on higher levels where barbs come really quick.

No you don't want to rush with only dogs, but a rush stack with a few dogs to counter melee units works great. Really, I don't much like the axe rush either so it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Firstly NA is historicaly not such a impressive civilization. So to give them DS kinda fits..
I am always playing rage barbs and as it was pointed above DS are blessing in that situation.
Since you discover BW realy early u can definitely make very efective suprise attack on the neighbour (rather Maya then Mali) maybe even before second culture pop...
So I guess if you are rushing Germans u can safely say that DS>Panzers in that scenario

 

[Gwaja]

It's not that simple though. The game does its funky calculations on net strength of each unit in battle and it is not as clear cut as you state.

The game always compares the promotions and bonuses before factoring in the base strength. When there are comparable promotions and bonuses on each side, it gets simplified and then the AI's strength is adjusted accordingly. Then all the non-comparable bonuses get added into both parties, to finally determine the net strength of both units.

I will give you some examples.

1. My Dog Soldier attacking Boudica's Axeman on a flat tile with no defense bonuses:

Both of these units have melee bonuses. Since the game compares the bonuses and promotions first, they compare the 100% bonus on the Dog Soldier, and the 50% bonus on the Axeman, and determine that the Axeman gets 50% penalty in battle against the Dog Soldier. And then it looks and sees that Boudica's Axeman comes with default Combat 1 promotion from being Aggressive and gives the bonus to the Axeman AFTER the penalty has been taken into account:

So the Dog Soldier keeps his base strength of 4, since his only promotion/bonuses/penalties is the melee bonus that has already been taken into account.

Boudica's Axeman's net strength ends up being something like this:

First, the comparable stat of melee bonus is compared and simplified:

5 base strength / (1 + (1 - 0.5)) = 3.3333...

Then, the 10% combat bonus is applied.

3.3333... x (1 + 0.1) = 3.67

So it is 4 vs 3.67 in favor of the Dog Soldier.

2. Now consider the opposite scenario where I am playing as Boudica, and is using my Axeman to attack Sitting Bull's Dog Soldier on an open flat tile with no defense bonuses.

Then the calculation goes something like this:

The game once again compares the comparable bonuses/promotions and adjusts the AI's net strength accordingly. This time, Sitting Bull's Dog Soldier gets the 50% bonus over my Axeman. And then, my Axeman gets bonus for the default 10% combat bonus. So this is what happens:

Sitting Bull's Dog Soldier = 4 x (1 + 0.5) = 6

My Axeman = 5 x 1.1 = 5.5

Notice that the Axeman only got the 10% bonus applied because that 50% melee bonus has been cancelled out effectively when the game just gave the Dog Soldier the flat 50% net bonus.

As you can see, in both cases, it is far from the simple 8 vs 7.5. It simply doesn't work that way.

Now when there are other factors like defense bonuses, and first strikes, it gets a bit more complicated than that, but at least this shows how the game calculates the net strength of units in the game.

Dog Soldiers serve their purpose though. Consider them unique in doing a bit better against melee, but not desired to be served as a general purpose unit. The fact that they require no metals at all is also a plus as well. I don't like Sitting Bull either, but the Dog Soldier is definitely not terrible as you claim.

 

[ahcos]

NA is probably the only civilisation that I really don't like and usually reject when the randomiser gives me them, and the Dog Soldier is a big part of that. Everybody else has some kind of an upside, but the only positive thing about NA is the PHI trait (and potential for cute tricks with Machinery bulbs, I guess).

Yes, you can argue that a resourceless unit can be a potential lifesaver, but that doesn't really cut the mustard when you are PRO and have the Totem Pole, making your archers probably as good if not better than the UU.

You should try out the X-bow rush, quite awesome with NA. That's the only reason for me to play him though, but x-bows are really alot of fun with SB

@topic: maybe not that strong, but resourceless. That's always great, no matter what. That gives you the ability to get your second city out just as a blocker no matter what, and that gives you alot more land which in return gives you a much better start. As a unit itself they're indeed very crappy, but they're still very useful. And btw, SB is pretty much underestimated, there are alot of games where you can make really good use out of his unique abilities on higher level.

 

[Gwaja]

Another fun scenario, my Boudica vs AI Sitting Bull:

Attacker: Gallic Warrior with Guerilla 3 and City Raider 3

Defender: City Garrison 3 Archer, NOT fortified, on a hill city with 40% culture defense bonus

Time to compare the bonuses/promotions.

Gallic Warrior:

+10% Strength (Combat 1 Default)
+20% Hills Defense (Guerilla 1 Default, does NOT apply in this situation)
+30% Hills Defense (Guerilla 2, does NOT apply)
+25% Hills Attack (Comparable Multiplier)
+10% City Attack (Comparable Multiplier, Swordsman Class Unit default)
+20% City Attack (Comparable Multiplier, City Raider 1)
+25% City Attack (Comparable Multiplier, City Raider 2)
+30% City Attack (Comparable Multiplier, City Raider 3)
+10% vs Gunpowder (City Raider 3, does NOT apply)

+50% Withdrawal Chance

Archer:

+20% City Defense (Comparable Multiplier, City Garrison 1)
+25% City Defense (Comparable Multiplier, City Garrison 2)
+30% City Defense (Comparable Multiplier, City Garrison 3)
+10% vs Melee (City Garrison 3)
+50% City Defense (Comparable Multiplier, Unit Default)
+25% Hills Defense (Comparable Multiplier, Unit Default)
+40% Cultural Defense (From City)

1 First Strike
1 Extra First Strike Chance

We are only interested in the net strength comparison, so let's take away the First Strikes and the Withdrawal Chances for now.

There are 2 comparable multipliers in hills attack/defense and city attack/defense.

So when the Gallic Warrior attacks the Archer, game adjusts the Archer's net strength first.

1. Compare the Hills Attack/Defense factor:

Gallic Warrior has +25% attack bonus on hills, and the Archer effectively cancels that out with its own +25% defense bonus on hills. Therefore, no bonus is applied to the Archer.

2. Compare the City Attack/Defense factor:

Gallic Warrior has a total of +85% attack bonus on cities. The Archer counters that with a total of +125% defense bonus on cities. Therefore, the Archer gets a bonus of +40% to its base strength on this.

3. Calculate all the other bonuses for each unit:

The only other bonus that the Gallic Warrior can take at this point is the +10% strength from Combat 1.

The archer has 2 other bonuses to consider: The 10% bonus against melee, and the 65% bonus from tile defense (40% from city culture + 25% from being on a hill). That is another boost of 75% for the archer.

4. Apply all the bonuses to each unit:

Gallic Warrior has a total of +10% bonus to its strength, so his final strength will be:

6 x (1 + 0.1) = 6.6

Archer has a total of 115% bonus to its strength, so his final strength will be:

3 x (1 + 1.15) = 6.45

Of course, the withdrawal chances and the first strikes come into play in the outcome of the battle, but what I am interested here is purely the final strength for each unit. This was, of course, considering that the Archer has no fortification bonus. Had it been fully fortified, he would have had another 25% bonus, so it would have been:

3 x (1 + 1.15 + 0.25) = 7.2

I don't know why the game calculates the final strength the way it does. It certainly makes calculating all of this in our heads a bit more difficult. Oh well... ^_^

 

[NihilZero]

You should try out the X-bow rush, quite awesome with NA. That's the only reason for me to play him though, but x-bows are really alot of fun with SB

@topic: maybe not that strong, but resourceless. That's always great, no matter what. That gives you the ability to get your second city out just as a blocker no matter what, and that gives you alot more land which in return gives you a much better start. As a unit itself they're indeed very crappy, but they're still very useful. And btw, SB is pretty much underestimated, there are alot of games where you can make really good use out of his unique abilities on higher level.

SB is not unplayable by any means, and PRO + PHI is solid overall. But goddammit, I can't stand going into a game knowing that an axe rush is not an option. Sometimes the classic axe rush is exactly what you need, and SB fails at it.

Along with the Numidian, I resent a UU that is actually inferior in typical scenarios to the base unit.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

But goddammit, I can't stand going into a game knowing that an axe rush is not an option. Sometimes the classic axe rush is exactly what you need, and SB fails at it.

True, but I actually kind of like how it goes with SB's personality -- he's one of the most defensive, non-aggressive leaders in the game, so it makes sense that his UU would be more suited to fending off attacks than raiding your neighbor from the get go. Of course that can be frustrating as a human player since generally you don't want to be on the defense, but I enjoy the occasional splash of personality/realism.

 

[Iranon]

I consider them the weakest UU as welll and would be happy to hand them in for the default version more often than not (it would be a wash with most other leaders, but having 2 bonuses to archers makes me care less about the lack of resource requirements).

The only good thing Dog Soldiers did for me was draw my attention to just how fantastic Skirmishers are: Also resourceless, same base strength. No melee bonus, but 1.5 first strikes, city and hill defence, 30% cheaper, and a unit type that no non-UU has specific bonuses against.

 

[dirtyparrot]

If you plan on spamming wonders they are fine. If you plan on an axe rush, they're not so hot. Sort of depends on how you play. But, spamming wonders does come in handy with PHI. The thing that annoys me more is that the totem pole is basically overkill to having dog soldiers.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

The thing that annoys me more is that the totem pole is basically overkill to having dog soldiers.

I think totem pole is really better for the benefit it gives to longbows and crossbows, since (a) those units are better relative to their era, especialy LBs, and (b) you are certain to have archery at that point, which you may not in the very early game when Dogs are most prominent.

 

[Mylene]

I think it depends on the difficulty, on Deity they are probably better than Axes for the no copper, and you can usually forget an axe rush