Issue of the overpowered units

[a4phantom]

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.

It seemed to me that he was indicating that the Mongols were notably, meaningly especially ruthless. Which for all I know they might have been, although the competition was fierce.

 

[yavoon]

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.

I somewhat remember a lot of very ruthless things he has done, like severing thousands of heads and burning them in a fire, salting fields, burning entire cities and slaughtering populations, including eliminating a mongol tribe in genocide. but this seems to sum it up nicely:

"It's difficult to know exactly how well-deserved that bad reputation was, but the Mongol Wars of the 13th century depopulated Asia by somewhere between 30 million and 60 million people. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese were said to have committed suicide in the face of approaching Mongol hordes."

addon from the same site: Given the amount of time that has passed, and Khan's profligate semen, it's estimated there could be as many as 17 million descendants alive today.

 

[Betafor]

Lurking, I happen to have a world history book on my bookshelf-

Hmm... turns out they skip over the mongols a lot more in this book- nothing on cruelty, though i remember seeing a movie about it - but...

Army less than 130,000, win = mastery of military tactics, surround and harrass, manuverability and flanking(looking at how the kelsheik is made now? NOT raw strenght is key))

book speculates that the only thing stopping an invasion of western europe is the death of Genghis.

Interesting fact - When the Kahn died, the empire was split. One of the rulers, supposedly one of the most brutal(no details i can see, imagine a really bad guy), ruler of the portion near the ottomans through the border of india, died. He was buried, as custom, in a secret tomb(they had slaves build the tomb. Then people kill those slaves. Then people kill those people). On his sickbed, one of his last words were to the effect of - "woe to the one who finds my grave, for my wrath shall go upon him." The site was so well hidden it was not found until centuries later by the soviets. It was made into an archialogical dig.

2 days later, Hitler moved east and attacked Russia.

 

[Watiggi]

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.

I think they are find the way they are. I see them as a builder civ, not so much as a military civ. Once the dominance of the Praetorian passes, that is all they become. That's my guess as to why they were given a powerful UU.

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.

They initially did have a strength of 6 before the game was released (as far as I know), but it was tonned down because it was too powerful. People don't seem to understand how much you can 'exploit' (in the legal sense) the resourceless aspect of it. There was a time where people had a problem with the Spiritual trait, figuring that it gave very little. That was until they discovered that they could really swap and change civics regularly. People could then maximise that ability and develop a powerful strategy around it. The same thing can be done with the Jaguars: Maximise its resourceless ability and mold the strategy around the Jaguars resourceless ability. You'll end up with a swarm of Jags after capturing (and keeping) several cities.

Re: Keshiks:

Do people realise now that the Horse Archers get 20% withdrawl now? The Mongols can spit out 3 promotioned Keshiks with Vassalage/Theocracy, give them Flanking I, Flanking II and Sentry. Then you have a unit with strength of 6, quick, very effective scout unit and pillager PLUS it has a 50% withdrawl rate. If it becomes a Warlord and has Tactics, it gets 80% withdrawl. A Keshik, strength 6, with 50-80% withdrawl, Sentry, 1 First Strike and -1 Movement bonus isn't bad and is in line more with Mongol feint tactics.

What the unit needs (to make it more inline and realistically comparable with the Praetorian) is to have the ability to disengage from war (both offensively and defensively) if its health drops below 75% - and yes, I did mean that if its health drops by 25% it then disengages. It would take a while for the Mongols to destroy the enemy, but it would have a more realistic form of unit longengivity for the Mongols. The Pretorian has pure strength, so I think the contrast would be nice. Basically, the focus should be on attacking early, moving and evading inorder to attain unit longengivity moreso that brute strength. I still think there should be 'unique promotions' for each civ or leader. That would work nicely

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?

The fact that it is obvious says to me that that is the effect they're after. Trying to find the logic I concluded the 'builder with a UU dominance civ' setup.

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.

I think in the end all conquerors were ruthless in one form or another. Many conquerors would stave a walled city. If you think about it, with the aggressor not being able to get it into the city, that would be the one thing the aggressor could control - what goes into the city. I don't think anyone will really know whether Genghis was more ruthless than the European attitudes or not, but the Mongols were solely pragmatists and lacked a lot of the European eithics and morales that had evolved in Europe. Essentially if it could work, then they could do it. They had far less stopping them from developing strategies because they were not held back by European civilized ethics and morals, valuing cities, valuing life, etc. They had an "if you can get it, then it's yours" attitude - arguably an attitude every conqueror has - but the Mongols really only valued practicality. This to me would point to people who maybe wouldn't think twice about using apparently ruthless tactics provided they worked. The thing is, that may not be ruthlessness in the Mongol mind. It may well be that westerners would see them as being more ruthless than they were, while at the same time, they may well have been more ruthless than normal conquerors.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Interesting fact - When the Kahn died, the empire was split. One of the rulers, supposedly one of the most brutal(no details i can see, imagine a really bad guy), ruler of the portion near the ottomans through the border of india, died. He was buried, as custom, in a secret tomb(they had slaves build the tomb. Then people kill those slaves. Then people kill those people). On his sickbed, one of his last words were to the effect of - "woe to the one who finds my grave, for my wrath shall go upon him." The site was so well hidden it was not found until centuries later by the soviets. It was made into an archialogical dig.

2 days later, Hitler moved east and attacked Russia.

I think that was Timurlane.

 

[Danicela]

7 would be fine

Hmmm... No Let it to 6 but give like a +25% bonus against smthg.

 

[MisterBarca]

Being stronger doesn't mean you're invincible. The Roman Legions were very well trained and organized, much more so than nearly all of their contemporary opponents (the Carthaginians and Parthians being notable exceptions).

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

The Mongols were almost always outnumbered in their major engagements.

 

[snipafist]

Genghis was calculatingly cruel. If a city would pose too much trouble, or resisted too strongly (indicating it would be a tough proposition to peacefully integrate into the Mongol Empire), Genghis usually razed it. He also displayed fierce ruthlessness in measured doses to decrease enemy morale. Was it horrible? Yeah. Was it a matter of ingrained savagery? I'd say no. It was clever and reasoned, despite it horrific qualities.

Tamerlane, on the other hand, is a different story. We're talking about a man who made minurets out of human heads as a conquest "theme," and debated theology while his men worked on a stone tower made out of 2000 live people dumped into wet cement to drown, forming the base of the tower. Creepy stuff. The historical accounts I've read of him indicate he was far less calaculating and far more cruel in his wanton maliciousness.

Something few talk about is the Mongol invasion of the Islamic world. Iran still has less agricultural production than it did before the Mongols invaded, as they tore up irrigation and returned much of previously rich farmland to desert. The Arab world took a heavy blow, and as a result, began its decline. The Crusades were absolutely nothing compared to the Mongols.

 

[a4phantom]

Genghis was calculatingly cruel. If a city would pose too much trouble, or resisted too strongly (indicating it would be a tough proposition to peacefully integrate into the Mongol Empire), Genghis usually razed it. He also displayed fierce ruthlessness in measured doses to decrease enemy morale. Was it horrible? Yeah. Was it a matter of ingrained savagery? I'd say no. It was clever and reasoned, despite it horrific qualities.

Fair enough, but that is the way of conquerors. Alexander was kind to people who were easily conquered, and slaughtered those who resisted too long. Hitler tried to starve Britain into submission, and the Soviets tried to starve West Berlin into submission. The United States used famine and disease to annihilate the native populations. The Japanese tried to annihilate the Korean language and culture. The English did about as bad to the Irish. Yavoon's statistics (30-60 million dead, which must have been a huge chunk of humanity in the 13th century) are compelling though, what's rotten.com?

 

[yavoon]

Something few talk about is the Mongol invasion of the Islamic world. Iran still has less agricultural production than it did before the Mongols invaded, as they tore up irrigation and returned much of previously rich farmland to desert. The Arab world took a heavy blow, and as a result, began its decline. The Crusades were absolutely nothing compared to the Mongols.

nothing has ever been like the mongols.

 

[gettingfat]

Genghis was calculatingly cruel. If a city would pose too much trouble, or resisted too strongly (indicating it would be a tough proposition to peacefully integrate into the Mongol Empire), Genghis usually razed it. He also displayed fierce ruthlessness in measured doses to decrease enemy morale. Was it horrible? Yeah. Was it a matter of ingrained savagery? I'd say no. It was clever and reasoned, despite it horrific qualities.

Genghis would likely make a good Civ player were he borned today

Back to the main topic. I actually don't understand why it's such a big deal for certain units or leaders being overpowered. OK, TOO overpowered is indeed a problem because it makes everybody use the same easy way to play the game, but it's perfectly OK to me to see some units or leaders relatively more powerful. I guess every player once in a while loves the feeling of leveling your opponents with an invicible stack of Praetorians. It's like watching Michael Jordan dunking in the face of his defenders or a young Ronaldo cutting thru 3 defenders like a hot knife thru butter. I just hope those game designers understand Civ IS A GAME people want to have fun. Balancing the game is a necessity, but PLEASE don't overdo it.

 

[a4phantom]

Genghis would likely make a good Civ player were he borned today

Back to the main topic. I actually don't understand why it's such a big deal for certain units or leaders being overpowered. OK, TOO overpowered is indeed a problem because it makes everybody use the same easy way to play the game, but it's perfectly OK to me to see some units or leaders relatively more powerful. I guess every player once in a while loves the feeling of leveling your opponents with an invicible stack of Praetorians. It's like watching Michael Jordan dunking in the face of his defenders or a young Ronaldo cutting thru 3 defenders like a hot knife thru butter. I just hope those game designers understand Civ IS A GAME people want to have fun. Balancing the game is a necessity, but PLEASE don't overdo it.

But Michael Jordan and Ronaldo play the same game with the same rules as their opponents, they win because of amazing talent. Using praetorians is like getting an extra 5 points on every basket/goal. I like using Praets and am looking forward to the souped up Persians, but I play single player. If I was playing MP, it'd ruin the game if someone of equal skill beat me every time by using OP civs.

 

[yavoon]

seriously though ppl, keshiks should get city raider. it'd be fun, and powerful and mongol-like.

 

[Watiggi]

I like the idea of unique promotions. That way the Praetorians can have a normal strength but have all their melee units have access to increased Combat promotions. So the Romans would have:

Melee units:
*Roman Combat I - +18% strength.
*Roman Combat II - +18% strength.
*Roman Combat III - +18% strength, units heal in neutral territory +10%.
*Roman Combat IV - +18% strength, units heal in enemy territory +10%.
*Roman Combat V - +18% strength, march ability.

For the Praetorian specifically:
*Guard - -5% city maintanence costs for the city that it is in. 4 praetorians in city with this promotion gives -20% city maintanence.

Warlord extra promotions:
*City defense I - +25% city defense for all units in the stack. Unit excluded from being attacked until last.
*Guard Leadership - +20% increase in maintanence reduction for all relevent Praetorians in the stack.

The Mongols could have:

Mounted units:
#*Encirclement - Unit does collateral damage
#*Feint tactics I - Unit can disengage 20% of the time if health drops by 75%
#*Feint tactics II - Unit can disengage 20% of the time if health drops by 50%
#*Feint tactics III - Unit can disengage 30% of the time if health drops by 25%. A unit with Feint tactics I, II and III would be able to disengage from battle (offensively and defensively) when the health drops by 25%, 70% of the time.

Seige units:
#*Transport I - Unit can be assembled. Unit can attack.
#*Transport II - Gives seige unit +1 movement bonus. Unit cannot attack.

Warlord extra promotions:
*Feint Strategy - Mounted units in stack can disengage 30% of the time if health drops by 25%.
*Feint Strategy II - Units in nearby tiles also affected.
*Nomadic Leadership - All units in stack and adjacent tiles receive free supply costs.
*Quick learning I - All units in stack gain experience 50% faster.
*Quick learning II - All units in stack accumulates 50% more Great General points.
*Quick learning III - All nearby units are also affected.
*Collective learning - 4 xp is gained and distributed (amongst those about to promote) in the stack or nearby tiles for every failed battle.
*Warlord learning - The Warlord unit gains xp as units in the stack and in adjacent tiles win battles.
*Mass Transport - All seige units in stack and nearby tiles have Transport I and II.

# I am currently at a point where it might be more appropriate to remove the bonuses to the mounted units and seige units and have them all amagalmate with the Warlord stack effected promotions. Their success was afterall primarily based on the elite leadership of the Generals. This way would encourage Mongol armies with each army breaking off when a new Warlord unit becomes available, which is realistic (fun and interesting ). Each army would then be lead by a Great General and be free to operate independantly.

Gandhi could have:

For defensive units:
*Gain support - Unit can use enemy roads. Can get it right away.
*Incite Protest I - Causes unhappiness in nearby enemy cities.
*Incite Protest II - Causes more unhappiness the longer it stays there.
*Incite Protest III - Causes the unhappiness to endure after the unit has left.
*Disrupt Work I - Units can prevent a tile from being worked for the turn after they leave the tile. Unit must stay there for 1 turn for this to happen.
*Disrupt Work II - Units only need to pass through the land to prevent it from being worked.
*Disrupt Work III - Units can also prevent nearby tiles from being worked.

Monty could have:

Jaguars:
Swarm - Jaguars cause collateral damage based on the number of Jaguars in the stack.
Enslave I - Jaguars can enslave units 10% of the time.
Enslave II - Jaguars can enslave units 15% of the time.
Enslave III - Jaguars can enslave units 25% of the time.

Melee units:
Whip 'em - Melee units increase the production yeild from pop rushing by 5%. 10 melee units with this promotion increases production by 50%.

Alexander could have:

Melee units:
*Quick March I - the March promotion without needing any other promotions.
*Quick March II - heals an additional 10% only while moving.
*Quick March III - heals additional 10% in neutral territory only while moving.
*Quick March IV - heals additional 10% in enemy territory only while moving.
*Quick March V - heals an additional 10% only while moving.

Warlord extra promotions:
*Phalanx Strength - All the Phalanxes in the stack get a strength increase relative to the number of Phalanxes in the stack.
*Grand March - All units in the stack and nearby tiles will heal while moving.

The possibilities are endless....

 

[gettingfat]

But Michael Jordan and Ronaldo play the same game with the same rules as their opponents, they win because of amazing talent. Using praetorians is like getting an extra 5 points on every basket/goal. I like using Praets and am looking forward to the souped up Persians, but I play single player. If I was playing MP, it'd ruin the game if someone of equal skill beat me every time by using OP civs.

The point is how OP a civ is. In reality even Praetorians can be neutralized with axemen. Redcoats and Cosaacks have been nerfed in Warlord. So to me it's a big stretch a player playing those civs with strong UU will beat you EVERY TIME. Afterall once you hold off the Praetorians, Romans are going nowhere.

The game has been made fairly balanced, and I don't want to see the game to be "further balanced". Communism leads to no fun.

 

[Watiggi]

I think a lot of people see only half the picture.

 

[AfterShafter]

The point is how OP a civ is. In reality even Praetorians can be neutralized with axemen. Redcoats and Cosaacks have been nerfed in Warlord. So to me it's a big stretch a player playing those civs with strong UU will beat you EVERY TIME. Afterall once you hold off the Praetorians, Romans are going nowhere.

The game has been made fairly balanced, and I don't want to see the game to be "further balanced". Communism leads to no fun.

Heh... Strength + shock upgraded axemen VS strength + shock upgraded Praets... The axemen don't win. Hell, axemen don't even beat Praet's out the gate (5 + 50% = less than Praet's 8). So yeah, Praet's beat their counter. You pretty much have to swarm and pray - and keep in mind, if he's moving through your territory with a stack, he can have a few axemen of his own to make you blow your axemen without you even touching his Praets. A few shock upgraded Praets, a few city upgraded, one or two axemen, and you have a stack that has no counter outside of other special units or dumping more resources into trying to take it out.

Old cossacks COULD be beaten with enough pikemen madly running around your Civ with catapults backing them up for the stacks. At the point where defending against a unit takes much more time, effort, thought, and resources than the opponent just making a stack of their unit and waltzing from city to city... Then the unit is overpowered. Tough but beatable is one thing (something like Samurai), beatable but requiring you to way outplay your opponent is another.

And the game has been made fairly balanced? Let me guess... Roman player, right?

 

[gettingfat]

Heh... Strength + shock upgraded axemen VS strength + shock upgraded Praets... The axemen don't win. Hell, axemen don't even beat Praet's out the gate (5 + 50% = less than Praet's 8). So yeah, Praet's beat their counter. You pretty much have to swarm and pray - and keep in mind, if he's moving through your territory with a stack, he can have a few axemen of his own to make you blow your axemen without you even touching his Praets. A few shock upgraded Praets, a few city upgraded, one or two axemen, and you have a stack that has no counter outside of other special units or dumping more resources into trying to take it out.

Old cossacks COULD be beaten with enough pikemen madly running around your Civ with catapults backing them up for the stacks. At the point where defending against a unit takes much more time, effort, thought, and resources than the opponent just making a stack of their unit and waltzing from city to city... Then the unit is overpowered. Tough but beatable is one thing (something like Samurai), beatable without requiring you to way outplay your opponent is another.

And the game has been made fairly balanced? Let me guess... Roman player, right?

You forget the building cost.

Praetorians costs 45 hammers each; axemen cost 35. For every 7 praetorians you face you can build 9 axemen. The odds of strength 8 vs (5 + 2.5 = 7.5) is approximately 66%.

Assuming 7 praetorians face 9 axemen, in the first 7 battles the Romans will lose 2 to 3 units and have 3 to 4 survive. 2 of these 3 to 4 injured units will almost 100% be killed by the 2 remaining healthy axemen. So after one round 1 or 2 Praetorians will be alive, while there are 4 to 5 axemen left.

You seem think that only the Roman units can have shock promotion, other players can do the same. Your argument of combining axemen is funny. If my opponents can include 5 axemen into his stack, does it mean that I cannot add 5 extra axemen into my stack to neutralize them?

And Caesar does not have aggressive trait. Facing axemen with aggressive trait, the odds of praetorians vs axemen become 50:50.

Praetorian is a great unit in SP games, as the AIs rarely build axemen. In MP it's a powerful, but not overpowered unit.

 

[AfterShafter]

You forget the building cost.

Praetorians costs 45 hammers each; axemen cost 35. For every 7 praetorians you face you can build 9 axemen. The odds of strength 8 vs (5 + 2.5 = 7.5) is approximately 66%.

Assuming 7 praetorians face 9 axemen, in the first 7 battles the Romans will lose 2 to 3 units and have 3 to 4 survive. 2 of these 3 to 4 injured units will almost 100% be killed by the 2 remaining healthy axemen. So after one round 1 or 2 Praetorians will be alive, while there are 4 to 5 axemen left.

You seem think that only the Roman units can have shock promotion, other players can do the same. Your argument of combining axemen is funny. If my opponents can include 5 axemen into his stack, does it mean that I cannot add 5 extra axemen into my stack to neutralize them?

And Caesar does not have aggressive trait. Facing axemen with aggressive trait, the odds of praetorians vs axemen become 50:50.

Praetorian is a great unit in SP games, as the AIs rarely build axemen. In MP it's a powerful, but not overpowered unit.

Rarely, rarely the way things actually work. Offensive units - particularly ones which have are more powerful - usually end up with more upgrades than defensive ones. Why? Because the defenders will lose more fights than they will win - leaving Praets alive to soak up experience... Meaning that when they finally do have to face those axemen, they'll be more upgraded. Heaven forbid the opponent build any archers for defence too or keep warriors hanging around - they're utter fodder for Praetorian upgrades.

You're also forgetting... Attackers choose the time and place of the fight. If I declare war on you, I'm not going to do it somewhere that you have a massive unit buildup waiting for me. I'll walk across your border somewhere that you're not fully expecting it and get some easy upgrades first while taking a city... Your early game production is already hurt badly when the city falls, while mine is actually better. Then, when your 9 axemen finally do catch up to my Praets, you're facing units with a notable upgrade advantage. Even if I end the war right there with that one city, my advantage over you is secure.

Catch up to the praets, I'm saying? Oh yeah. If I declare war on you, I'm going to cross your border at one particular point, and do it hard. Early roads only allow 2 squares movement, you may not have a ton of them... By the time your 9 axemen catch up to my 7 praets, one of your cities is down and I have a few shock upgrades waiting for you... And don't tell me you had your 9 axemen all waiting in just the right spot, because we both know that's not the way war works.

We're also completely forgetting that Praets get a 10% bonus to attacking cities... That puts them at 8.8 for that purpose right out of the gate. All I have to do is stick to forests and hills, then hit a city, and your axemen turn into easy upgrades for me. How well do axemen do against praets which never leave the forest until they hit a city? Being the attacker, I have no interest in engaging your axemen in fair fights in the field, so in early game I'll be using rivers, forests, jungles, and hills to make my praets untouchable - until they get to a city and their 10% attack bonus makes them beat the axemen anyways.

And to boot, you know what? My praets can stop horse archers. They stop chariots. They stop spearmen. They slaughter archers. And the only axemen that even break even, out the gate, for fights are agressive ones - and they don't do that on city defense. If you're building nothing but axemen, you're easy picking for someone who builds any sort of mounted units, while I get an all-in-one effective unit - your force is completely one dimensional tailored to do nothing but stop praets, while mine fills multiple roles.

Oh, not to mention, if you're building more axemen to stop a force of praets, you're paying more gold per turn to upkeep your army... Having to defend three cities without knowing where you're going to have a big stack of Praets come at you from costs gold - and therefore tech.

Also, if we are playing multi, I can wage a nice easy-pickings war with my Praets (if you're far off), cap a bunch of cities, get free gold, techs, etc, with little effort - while you struggle away with axemen/swordsman. I don't HAVE to use the praets on you to get an advantage - as you've pointed out, they work the computer over easily.

And lastly... Why even mention that aggressive civilization axemen break even VS praets? A majority of civs are not aggressive. If part of your strategy to deal with praets is "Use an aggressive Civ"... Can you honeslty not see how this unit is overpowered?

What you're suggesting is absolutely ideal - that you have 9 aggressive axemen just sitting there waiting for 7 praets to cross the border, already in the right spot... But, wars don't work like that. The attacker picks the time and place... They can make better use of defensive terrain moving in than the defender can defending (you can just bypass fortified units and go on to the city)... And Praets get a natural bonus attacking cities. On paper, axemen are all fine and dandy for stopping a praet rush. In practice, you're left tailoring your early game solely to defend against a praetorian rush which very well might still work - and while the rusher is getting well rounded units effective on attack and defence against multiple unit types, you're getting rather one dimensional axemen. Oh, not to mention, Praets make effective city attackers for a damn long time, whereas axemen are pretty feeble after just a bit of culture.

This unit is unbalanced. Its "counter" is one dimensional and not a sure thing, while the Praetorian is versatile while being bar-none the best city smasher of its time, long-lived. You also have to pre-emptively rush tons of axemen just to defend against them. That it CAN be stopped given the opponent tailors their game around it and just happens to have all his/her units in the right place at the right time and then has a bit of luck doesn't change this. Your best argument would have been to axemen rush him before he gets Praets... YOUR arguments are funny, as it stands, because they're more or less "on paper only."

 

[a4phantom]

I believe that the Praet is OP and would knock it down to 7, but I don't think it gets the standard swordsman +10% vs cities.