I agree. Not that every UU sucks since the 2.08 patch, but UU's should indeed be period dominating units. As an opponent without a good counter you should be left to trying to survive in that period of time. Of course, the UU's were probably nerfed because the AI can't effectively (ab)use them theirselves, so it'd be better to focus more on AI capabilities than on nerfing UU's.
How Would You Nerf The Praetorian?
- Thread starter kniteowl
- Start date
I agree. Not that every UU sucks since the 2.08 patch, but UU's should indeed be period dominating units. As an opponent without a good counter you should be left to trying to survive in that period of time. Of course, the UU's were probably nerfed because the AI can't effectively (ab)use them theirselves, so it'd be better to focus more on AI capabilities than on nerfing UU's.
The problem with saying the UU should be a period dominating unit, is that units that dominate the early period of the game are going to be considerably better than units that dominate the late game.
This is all very obvious and I dont have problems with some civs being more militarily powerful in the early game, but presumably an early game UU can not be overly powerful with out completely tipping the balance of play to that civ.
Everyone seems to think the Praetorian is the best UU (ie +2 to normal power), but it is also an early unique unit, with a extremely long life span, surely this combination is overly powerful.
This might be expected if all UU's were period dominating but their not, so unless you want to update all of the UU's would it not be more appropriate to nerf the praetorian slightly ?
This is all very obvious and I dont have problems with some civs being more militarily powerful in the early game, but presumably an early game UU can not be overly powerful with out completely tipping the balance of play to that civ.
Everyone seems to think the Praetorian is the best UU (ie +2 to normal power), but it is also an early unique unit, with a extremely long life span, surely this combination is overly powerful.
This might be expected if all UU's were period dominating but their not, so unless you want to update all of the UU's would it not be more appropriate to nerf the praetorian slightly ?
I wouldnt so much as nerf but redesign them...
Praetorians were the Bodyguard of the Senate, so they should have a guarding function:
S6, Garrisson I
Or, should the represent the roman Legions, they should start with +25% vs. Archers (form Testudo!) at Strength 6.
S8 is just... lame for a UU.
Praetorians were the Bodyguard of the Senate, so they should have a guarding function:
S6, Garrisson I
Or, should the represent the roman Legions, they should start with +25% vs. Archers (form Testudo!) at Strength 6.
S8 is just... lame for a UU.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
I believe that Robo Kai's point may be that countering Praetorians requires a tactical, not a logistical solution. That is to say, it's not what you bring to the fight (logistics), it's how you choose to fight them and when (tactics). You know you're fighting the Romans? Hit them before they get Iron Working or before they get their Iron hooked up. Pillage their Iron; camp out on their Iron.
There is not a single UU that the AI can deal with (or use effectively), so the single player argument is a moot one: In the hands of the player they are all overpowered (except the Jaguar).
In multi player the Romans will get eaten or at least choked by the Persians and the Egyptians before they can get their metal hooked up. The French and the Ottomans are ealy threats, too since they are only one tech from chariots.
The Germans and the Russians can both choke better than anyone else as they start with Hunting (one tech from Archery) and Mining (one tech from Bronze). Research Archery, build some Archers and head towards Rome while researching Bronze. Park your archers on their metals and wait for your own axes to show up for the party.
Your opponent has better troops than you? Better out think him then.
Why should they be period dominating units? Rome got its arse kicked by hannibal and then later, the tribes of europe during the reign of the preatorians, Russia's cossacks got beaten in the crimean war. The German panzers got whooped pretty badly. The french musketeers got their butt's kicked by the English, and in turn, their redcoats were rubbish against the american rebels. I'm sure theres more than can be added to the list.
They've got a choice to either make the game historically accurate, or balanced. Unfortunately it seems they've chosen neither. If they chose balance, then there shouldn't be a UU which is vastly more effective than any of the other ones. If they chose historical accuracy, then the keshik should have a strength of about 14 and 4 movement points.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well I'd say either
Str 7 cost 40
or
Str 8 cost 50
so slightly more cost or slightly less dominance (and I do think the Keshik needs to be beefed up.. at least Str 7 OR let it keep Ignores first strikes)
Str 7 cost 40
or
Str 8 cost 50
so slightly more cost or slightly less dominance (and I do think the Keshik needs to be beefed up.. at least Str 7 OR let it keep Ignores first strikes)
azzaman333
meh
[rant]
NO ONE CARES ABOUT GETTING KILLED BY PRAETS, BECAUSE HUMANS KNOW TO COUNTER THEM WE NEED SHOCK AXES AND LOTS OF THEM. THE AI CANT COUNTER PRAET, OR IMMORTAL, OR QUECHA, WHICH LEAVES THESE EARLY UNITS TOO POWERFUL. EITHER FIX THE AI OR BALANCE THE UNITS, AND ONE IS MUCH EASIER AND MORE PRACTICAL TO FIX. (units)
[/rant]
And for the record, Jaguars are a very potent force if used correctly.
For every other unique unit an alternative solution is to build spears, build axes, build elephants, build horse archers, etc. That the only fair solution* to stop praetorians so far offered is to stop the Romans from getting praetorians in the first place is surely another indication that the unit is overpowered.
I was speaking of multiplayer. That quote of mine was not a response to the quote of RoboKai. It was a response to RoboKai's claim that in multiplayer you should only pick the Romans or a civ that can overrun the Romans before praetorians are available.
Strength 7 with a 15% bonus to city attack.
I'm fairly certain that this would make it a more powerful city attacker than the current praetorian in all circumstances. While not as good a city defender, it would still (before taking account of attacker bonuses) be a better defender of a flatland city than a city garrison III archer. But it would also be vulnerable to equally promoted axemen in open land.
* Only solution that doesn't put the defender at a greater economic disadvantage than it would have when faced with other invaders.
who would think Pratos are the best UU? someone who is on his 3rd game of civ probably. Nerf them LOL!! Pratos suck unless backed up by cats. Rome sucks. You noobs wanna nerf something why not nerf this forum thread.
You make 30 pratos. Ill make 8 - 10 cats and 15 axemen. All your SUPER OVERPOWERED Pratos are dead. You lose.
You make 30 pratos. Ill make 8 - 10 cats and 15 axemen. All your SUPER OVERPOWERED Pratos are dead. You lose.
azzaman333
meh
AI cant do that, so AI gets mauled. AI lose.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
So people who don't believe Rome is underpowered are stupid n00bs.
If I am dumb enough to have all prates in one stack, and give them all city raider promotion this could work. But everyone with half a brain would have several smaller stacks to avoid collateral damage, and keep a few shock Praets to counter axes.
Instant_Cereal
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 264
Even if praets do get nerfed I'll just go and change them back to what they formally were. Seriously, they are fine as they are. Diminish the praets and what else is there to Rome? Praets are generally the sole reason many people play Rome in the first place.
notagoodname
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 89
You won't see rome used successfully in any 1v1 multiplayer games.
The chariot, impi and the skirmisher can typically be built before rome gets iron and praetorians come into play, thus giving you the ability to cut off rome before they get to iron.
Sure the computer isn't smart enough to cut off your iron but humans are and the risks of not starting close to iron makes rome a poor choice.
The chariot, impi and the skirmisher can typically be built before rome gets iron and praetorians come into play, thus giving you the ability to cut off rome before they get to iron.
Sure the computer isn't smart enough to cut off your iron but humans are and the risks of not starting close to iron makes rome a poor choice.
I wasn't calling you Rome lovers noobs in a derogatory sense...just a little fun sometimes poking sleeping bears 
And even if all your units are split up into various stacks.....a roaded front with no defense tiles is not good for the invader's health
And even if all your units are split up into various stacks.....a roaded front with no defense tiles is not good for the invader's health
aelf
Ashen One
The Royal Musketeers got their butts kicked by the English? When?
Bushface
Deity
Schoolday memory :-
The Duke of Marlborough took a broom and swept the French away
At Blenheim and at Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
B-R-OU-M, broom.
So that's when.
The Duke of Marlborough took a broom and swept the French away
At Blenheim and at Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
B-R-OU-M, broom.
So that's when.
aelf
Ashen One
Wikipedia said:
I read about the Musketeers being disbanded elsewhere, but Wikipedia is the most convenient place to get a quote from.
I thought that this part of the article confirms my knowledge, until I read the part after that, which says Musketeers reappeared afterwards. So I was wrong.
1. Agree axemen are the counter to praetorians.
2. Cut off the resource and they are gone.
3. Why did you let the Romans build so many in the first place?
One idea i read on forum was to change the upgrades for units. Perhaps extra 5% on city raider per bonus or 15% instead of 10% on strength per bonus. Although i would lower strength back to 6 if they did this. So an untrained praetorian would be average. But with 2-3 promotions a killer unit.
Dont see point in giving them city garrison. Why build a strong unit if its gonna sit and defend. I would rather use a cheaper unit for that and get on attacking.
2. Cut off the resource and they are gone.
3. Why did you let the Romans build so many in the first place?
One idea i read on forum was to change the upgrades for units. Perhaps extra 5% on city raider per bonus or 15% instead of 10% on strength per bonus. Although i would lower strength back to 6 if they did this. So an untrained praetorian would be average. But with 2-3 promotions a killer unit.
Dont see point in giving them city garrison. Why build a strong unit if its gonna sit and defend. I would rather use a cheaper unit for that and get on attacking.
Afterthought. You would think on a multi player any sensible Roman would use a few chariots to clear any pesky axemen. Assuming you can get praetoriand and chariots out that quickly. Always use a few warriors to scout out the defences. Although Praetorians dont need too much help on their own ;o)
Similar threads
