Issue of the overpowered units

[moggydave]

I think Kesiks should be stronger. Or, if 2 UU's were introduced, Mongols should get quick moving siege equip. Mongol tactics were all about speed and suprise. Their reputation helped with the fear factor too.

I don't think the Romans are overpowered. A few axemen in cities should withstand Praets and Roman strategy is grossly dictated by getting lots of Praets quick. If you ain't got Iron your screwed too.

Keshiks, like in Civ3 arn't effective enough really. I think they should replace Knights instead of HA's too.

 

[AfterShafter]

Let me guess, if Preatorian has 7 strength or less, who use Rome?

Romans would be far from the worst Civ if you were to take their UU right away from them... As it stands, they're the last holdout point for players who prefer to win through blatently overpowered units rather than other means requiring a bit more thought, strategy, and ability.

If Praetorians are a necessary component to your playstyle, I'd strongly suggest moving down a difficulty, picking another civ, and learning to play the game. You're going to look pretty silly when you try a multiplayer game in which someone else picks the Romans before you and all of the sudden you're sitting at half the points of the other players for the rest of the game..

 

[a4phantom]

Mongols won through numbers and tactics, not because their cavalry was stronger than their opponents.

Oh buddy are you in trouble

 

[yavoon]

I think Kesiks should be stronger. Or, if 2 UU's were introduced, Mongols should get quick moving siege equip. Mongol tactics were all about speed and suprise. Their reputation helped with the fear factor too.

I don't think the Romans are overpowered. A few axemen in cities should withstand Praets and Roman strategy is grossly dictated by getting lots of Praets quick. If you ain't got Iron your screwed too.

Keshiks, like in Civ3 arn't effective enough really. I think they should replace Knights instead of HA's too.

I would say the mongols main tactic was fear. =D

 

[a4phantom]

Jaguars and musketers seems underpowered compared to all the other UU's

That said I love the cossacks and redcoats.
close second is the praetorians (but I feel cheap using them)

Jaguars are extremely lame, in most games (where you can get iron) worse than not having a UU. I don't have warlords, what did they do to the Redcoat?

 

[a4phantom]

I would say the mongols main tactic was fear. =D

Sure, but they had to do something to earn it first.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Jaguars are extremely lame, in most games (where you can get iron) worse than not having a UU. I don't have warlords, what did they do to the Redcoat?

Yeah, they are pretty horrendously bad. You'd think that not requiring iron and having bonus jungle defense would be fine, but someone had to be all...

"Praetorians are fine, but look! Jaguars get +25% jungle defense and you don't even need iron to build them! wtfbroken "

 

[yavoon]

what I dont understand about the overpowered units is its REALLY OBVIOUS they're overpowered. I actually didnt think they'd change the redcoat or cossack, because its so obvious they were overpowered that it had to be intentional....right? I mean they can't be so bad at civ that they didnt notice the power of cossack/redcoat/praetorian? right?

 

[Gumbolt]

I think Mongals invasion of Europe was halted due to the leader dying and having to travel back to their homeland to pick a new leader. They certainly had the strength to go on just not the leadership after the son of genghis khan passed away. Without a strong leader to lead the tribes things soon start to break up.

Not all of Mongals battles were using horse. The invasion of china involved attacking a city with walls. Seige weapons built, starvation used too. The mongols were certainly ruthless at times.

 

[a4phantom]

what I dont understand about the overpowered units is its REALLY OBVIOUS they're overpowered. I actually didnt think they'd change the redcoat or cossack, because its so obvious they were overpowered that it had to be intentional....right? I mean they can't be so bad at civ that they didnt notice the power of cossack/redcoat/praetorian? right?

It's been argued that the cossack and redcoat come so late in the game that they deserve to be very powerful, although the SEAL is much later and not nearly as dominant. Of course, both units came with at least one leader who had excellent traits, adding to the Overpower factor. But Praetorian is one of the earliest UUs, so there's nothign like that excuse. I remember playing Civ1 and how sometimes when you played as Rome you started with 2 settlers (this was long before traits or unique units), and suggest that Jimbob's suggestion of Romaphilia is an accurate one. 7 str with the normal +10% against cities would be a lot better.

Someone said that RCs got nerfed, how?

 

[a4phantom]

I think Mongals invasion of Europe was halted due to the leader dying and having to travel back to their homeland to pick a new leader. They certainly had the strength to go on just not the leadership after the son of genghis khan passed away. Without a strong leader to lead the tribes things soon start to break up.

Another problem was assimilation, the Mongols tended to settle down and adopt much of the culture of their conquered subjects, which caused them to lose touch with the center of Gengis' empire. Finally, there was just too much distance to administer when the fastest form of communication was a messenger on horseback over rough terrain.

Not all of Mongals battles were using horse. The invasion of china involved attacking a city with walls. Seige weapons built, starvation used too. The mongols were certainly ruthless at times.

Not to be politically correct but were they more ruthless than European conquerors?

 

[yavoon]

I think keshiks should get city raider promotions. thats my new awesomesized idea. it'd make them powerful, it'd be unique and it'd tie in w/ the aggressiveness of the mongols. and allow them to be the best civ to attack w/ horse archers(as they should be).

 

[snipafist]

I think every unique unit should have something about it that highly reccomends its use in the time period, even if it replaces a support-ish unit. In this regard, they succeeded with units like the Korean Hwacha and Egyptian War Chariot, but utterly failed with the Greek Hoplite. I would strongly support any move to re-examine unique units and try to balance them all out as "above average, but not amazingly broken." I can't imagine anybody would really disagree with that.

On the subject of praetorians, I'm okay with them as they are, but wouldn't be horribly opposed to them dropping down to 7 with +10% city attack, and perhaps some other minor advantage.

Re: Jaguars, I wish they'd just make them strength 6 with a Woodsman I upgrade (for normal swordsman cost, no iron neccesary). I think that would be pretty swell, but not horribly overpowered. They're really cool-looking units that should be used to dominate against other infantry, but as it stands, they're hopeless.

Re: Keshiks, I would make them replace knights. They fit the time period far better, even if they were mostly horse archers to begin with. Keep their other abilities the same and you've got one mean unit. Perhaps a small bonus against melee units and cavalry would be in order as well?

 

[a4phantom]

Re: Jaguars, I wish they'd just make them strength 6 with a Woodsman I upgrade (for normal swordsman cost, no iron neccesary). I think that would be pretty swell, but not horribly overpowered. They're really cool-looking units that should be used to dominate against other infantry, but as it stands, they're hopeless.

That'd do. No UU should be weaker than the unit it replaces regarding its primary role (city taking in the case of swords/jags). I'd've liked to see Jags (and also woodsman and guerilla units) get no terrain penalty when attacking into woods/jungles or hills, respectively. You build marines or promote amphibians to make attacks crossing rivers or storming beaches, you should be able to build jags or promote woodsmen and guerillas to go after those resources on hills or (rarely but sometimes) on uncleared forest/jungle.

 

[·Imhotep·]

In Vanilla Civ IV the Redcoat is 16

with +25% vs. Gunpowder units & +25% vs. Mounted Units. That is of course insane. If he has Gunpowder Units to fight against the Redcoat has the base strength of an Infantry ! Any other unit is naturally no contest whatsoever, all the medieval units are just breakfast for the Redcoat (and they still are in Warlords). In Vanilla Civ IV it is almost sad when Infantry arrives because your strong Redcoats go obsolete.

In Warlords now the Redcoat was set back to 14

which is as strong as a normal Rifleman. But he still gains +25% vs. Gunpowder Units and +25% vs. Mounted Units. So now the Redcoat is base strength 17.5 when battling Gunpowder Units - making him really good against those units but weaker than an Infantry.

I must say that I like this change. The Redcoats are still very good, especially with Churchill's Protective Trait. The change makes Infantry a worthwile unit again and balances the Redcoat better. This was well done in my opinion.

Imhotep

 

[jimbob27]

This is how it went.

Warlords head tester: Dude, omfg the redcoats cossacks and preatorians are broken to buggery.

Soren Johnson: Hmm, I suppose you're right. I'll go talk to Sid.

Soren Johnson: Hey Sid, I was thinking... how about we tone the the redcoats and Cossacks?

Sid Meier: Yeah, why not. They've already got good traits.

Soren Johnson: What about the preatorians?

Sid Meier Touch the Romans and I'll eat your children.

 

[Pantastic]

Not to be politically correct but were they more ruthless than European conquerors?

I'm not sure what part of him saying the Mongols were 'ruthless at times' equates to him saying 'more ruthless than European conquerors' or whatever you think he said that prompted you to say this.

 

[yavoon]

I'm not sure what part of him saying the Mongols were 'ruthless at times' equates to him saying 'more ruthless than European conquerors' or whatever you think he said that prompted you to say this.

the mongols were vastly more ruthless than almost anything I can think of. really, its fantastic the things the mongols did to resisting populations.

 

[a4phantom]

In Warlords now the Redcoat was set back to 14

which is as strong as a normal Rifleman. But he still gains +25% vs. Gunpowder Units and +25% vs. Mounted Units. So now the Redcoat is base strength 17.5 when battling Gunpowder Units - making him really good against those units but weaker than an Infantry.

Imhotep

That's the change I wanted them to make, good.

 

[a4phantom]

the mongols were vastly more ruthless than almost anything I can think of. really, its fantastic the things the mongols did to resisting populations.

Do tell. Unusual as it may be around here, I'm actually asking for information not picking a fight. I do remember something about them throwing corpses into beseiged cities to cause plagues, though that could be a myth for all I know. But I believe sacking and massacring population centers that resisted easy conquest was pretty standard operating procedure from Alexander the Great to the Treaty of Westphalia, if not before and after. Also remember that the history we read was mostly written by the Mongols' enemies.