Issue of the overpowered units

[AfterShafter]

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.

Well, my apologies, and I stand corrected. Still, I'd say my point stands. Even if it doesn't get this bonus, city raider is still *extremely* potent on a unit with 8 base strength from this period. The unit simply fills too many roles too well and requires too much of an opponent to counter... And when its counter unit needs to be aggressive to break even, you know there's a problem.

 

[Watiggi]

Did it occur to anyone that the Praetorian is meant to be that dominant? The +2 strength gives it and all round resilience. It becomes the one unit fits all. So what? I think the only thing that is becoming 'overpowered' is the use of the word 'overpowered'.

Once the dominance of the Praetorians disapears, the Roman empire becomes a builder civ and nothing more. Julius's Great General bonus is the only thing that gives it a militaristic edge throughout the rest of the game.

I also think people underestimate what 50% odds actually is. If the attacker looses the battle, they have to go and build another or preemptively build more in order to compensate for the losses. The defending units don't have that far to travel and are cheaper to build. The REAL power of any rush is a concentration of forces. The units just have to be able to do damage and nothing more. That is why a Jaguar rush is so potent: Concentration of forces.

 

[a4phantom]

Well, my apologies, and I stand corrected. Still, I'd say my point stands. Even if it doesn't get this bonus, city raider is still *extremely* potent on a unit with 8 base strength from this period. The unit simply fills too many roles too well and requires too much of an opponent to counter... And when its counter unit needs to be aggressive to break even, you know there's a problem.

No need to apologize for a simple mistake, and I agree with your overall point.

 

[AfterShafter]

Did it occur to anyone that the Praetorian is meant to be that dominant?

If it's meant to be overpowered, it's still overpowered. If they made this unit with the actual intent of throwing off an already tenuous balance, fine - I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Though, I would ask you, why give one Civ an obvious and arguably overwhelming advantage over others? They've actually nerfed other UU's in order to maintain game balance... What makes you think this one remaining a dominant do-everything unit is intended, rather than a mistake, considering what happened to redcoats/cossacks?

 

[Watiggi]

They've actually nerfed other UU's in order to maintain game balance... What makes you think this one remaining a dominant do-everything unit is intended, rather than a mistake, considering what happened to redcoats/cossacks?

Because they nerfed the Cossack and the Redcoat and left the Praetorian alone. Common sense would have suggested that the Praetorians would be nerfed first. Apparently not. So it seems to me that this is the desired effect the Praetorians are meant to have.

 

[AfterShafter]

Because they nerfed the the Cossack and the Redcoat and left the Praetorian alone.

So you interpret them "missing" one as being intentional rather than a mistake? Tell me this - is them nerfing redcoats/cossacks a sign that they didn't want overpowered "build nothing else" UU's with only marginally effective counters in the game? If you say yes, then please, go back through my post and explain to me exactly how a non-aggressive Civ is supposed to deal with an early Praet rush in any truly effective manner that doesn't have their entire gameplan completely centered on stopping this force. Not like aggressive Civs are even going to have it all that easy there either. Then, try playing the Romans and seeing how bloody easy Praetorians make early conquest compared to being stuck with swordsman/axemen/spearmen. It's a joke. I don't see how anyone can even compare after actually using these things! Most games I go through I don't lose a single bloody one until I'm hitting the enemy capital, whereas with other civs my conquests are bought with a lot of dead units and a well balanced stack!

As for your edited post contents, underestimating a 50% chance? Sorry, but only aggressive axemen even break even with praetorians - heaven forbid someone picked a non-aggressive Civ when the romans are in game! Axemen being their "counter" of course. And that is axemen, only axemen - again, heaven forbid the opponent build any archers/spearmen for upgrade fodder.

Actually playing the Romans, Praets are a freaking breeze. If my opponent wants to counter me, he has to go *hard* axemen - an extremely one dimensional strategy which leaves him open to quite a few other things and offering him a very small offensive window. If he doesn't go heavy axemen, he dies, simple as that. If he does, good chance he still dies - get city raider upgrade on a Praet and see how well it does attacking early cities... It's obscene. The Roman on the other hand, with my Praets - until machinery comes around, nothing will truly counter them, and their supposed counter needs to be aggressive simply to break even.

The difficulty difference playing Romans early on in a conquest game compared to... Oh, pretty much anyone else is night and day. Praets are too good against too many things for too long. Screw force balance, Praets do it all.

 

[a4phantom]

Because they nerfed the Cossack and the Redcoat and left the Praetorian alone. Common sense would have suggested that the Praetorians would be nerfed first. Apparently not. So it seems to me that this is the desired effect the Praetorians are meant to have.

All that effort in creating a balanced, playable game and they deliberately left one unit absurdly dominant? I suppose that's human nature, but it doesn't help the game.

 

[Panda]

I for one preferred Civ3 UUs that had significant advantage over their standard counter parts.

And there's nothing wrong with Praetorians being dominant They're Romans, they're supposed to be.

 

[AfterShafter]

All that effort in creating a balanced, playable game and they deliberately left one unit absurdly dominant? I suppose that's human nature, but it doesn't help the game.

I think his stance is that it's not "absurdly dominant" because an aggressive axemen is 50% with it out the gate...

Anyways, prior to Warlords, plenty of people argued that Redcoats and Cossacks were fine stating a few extremely limited and hard to manage strategies as potential counters... No difference here. People like playing overpowered civs/units and will go to a great length to justify when they do. Think I'm just going to leave this be since I seriously doubt any such individuals who might be around will ever concede that this unit really is immensely, immensely powerful.

 

[Watiggi]

So you interpret them "missing" one as being intentional rather than a mistake? Tell me this - is them nerfing redcoats/cossacks a sign that they didn't want overpowered "build nothing else" UU's with only marginally effective counters in the game?

No, it's a sign that they didn't want the cossacks and redcoats to be "build nothing else" UU's. The Praetorians are. To me (and everyone else by the sounds of it), it's pretty obvious as to how powerful they are. They haven't nerfed it. There has to be a reason.

Question: Have you ever been on the receiving end of a Praetorian rush? What you seem to describe is what I experienced doing a Praetorian rush against the AI. The AI is hopeless at countering it. That's an issue with the AI, not really with the Praetorians. The real question as to whether the Praetorian is too dominant or not are those who are on the receiving end of a Praetorian rush in MP. I get the feeling those that say that it isn't hard to counter a Praetorian rush are those who find themselves in that position in MP.

As for your edited post contents, underestimating a 50% chance? Sorry, but only aggressive axemen even break even with praetorians - heaven forbid someone picked a non-aggressive Civ when the romans are in game! Axemen being their "counter" of course. And that is axemen, only axemen - again, heaven forbid the opponent build any archers/spearmen for upgrade fodder.

People REALLY underestimate the combat engine. Yes a normal Axemen has low odds against a Praetorian. But, 2 Axemen will kill a Praetorian simply because all the first Axemen has to do is damage it and nothing more. The second one will finish it off. And because they are on the defensive and are cheaper, they have an advantage there. An Axemen with 35% odds will still do enough damage to cripple the Praetorian to the point where it cannot stand up against another Axemen attack. Also, Axemen on the defensive in a city are a lot more formidable - especially with fortification and city defenses. In Warlords, it ain't hard to build Walls. There are enough counters to counter the Praetorians.

Actually playing the Romans, Praets are a freaking breeze. If my opponent wants to counter me, he has to go *hard* axemen - an extremely one dimensional strategy which leaves him open to quite a few other things and offering him a very small offensive window.

Who is your opponent? Human or computer? Also, it makes sense that they have to go *hard* axemen - an extremely one dimensional strategy because YOU are fighting an extremely one dimensional attack strategy. If you also attack with Chariots, then it will also add to the defense mix, etc. If you get a concentrated force attacking you, it forces you to have a concentrated defensive force. If you seriously expect to defend youself easily from a concentrated attack force - regardless of what it is - while simply allowing you to build normally then the game is broken.

The difficulty difference playing Romans early on in a conquest game compared to... Oh, pretty much anyone else is night and day. Praets are too good against too many things for too long. Screw force balance, Praets do it all.

If you haven't noticed already, Firaxis doesn't seem to be after balance. Some civs are setup to be rather more powerful than others. The Romans, Carthage, Russians, English, Genghis now, etc. That just seems to be what they're after. I accept the Praetorian as it is. If they nerf it, I will now actually be surprised as I would have expected them to have already nerfed it by now. Until then, I'll accept the Praetorian as it is.

I think his stance is that it's not "absurdly dominant" because an aggressive axemen is 50% with it out the gate...

Anyways, prior to Warlords, plenty of people argued that Redcoats and Cossacks were fine stating a few extremely limited and hard to manage strategies as potential counters... No difference here. People like playing overpowered civs/units and will go to a great length to justify when they do. Think I'm just going to leave this be since I seriously doubt any such individuals who might be around will ever concede that this unit really is immensely, immensely powerful.

I avoid the Romans, the Russians and the English like a plauge. If you don't know me by now, I pretty much play as Genghis - pre Warlords and Vanilla. I am just getting sick of the narrowminded, one dimensional Praetorian bashing argument, that's all. Firaxis has clearly allowed it to exist - for whatever reason - so it exists. I have chosen to accept it as it is. That doesn't mean I have any intention of playing as them.

 

[a4phantom]

Watiggi, your argument is a good one for Single Player. If you want a different experience every time, then why not have part of it be whether or not you are or are born near the almighty Romans? The problem is for Mutiplayer, where balance does count for something.

 

[Jaca]

The Swordsman itself is pretty poor compared to its earlier tech companion, the Axeman, buildable with Copper or Iron by the way, whilst the Swords requires Iron. I believe the problem may start there, because if you want a Praetorian to be a useful Sword as UU (like the prob was/is with Jaguars and Gallic Swordsman, the first one needing no resources however), you better make it stand a chance against Axes, right -- which obviously now was done by giving it a strength of 8? So what to do?

Maybe a rethinking of the Swordsman could be a first step.

Suggestions?

Jaca

 

[a4phantom]

I'd make the axeman 4 (ideally 4.5 but . . .). Then it would be at combat parity with the more expensive and later arriving swordsman it counters, but it would be a weaker city raider so swordsmen would gain value. Then you could kick Praetorian down to 7+10% vs city. As is, axemen are the best city defenders, best field fighters and best city raiders too much of the time, although the chariot's new bonus might offset that.

 

[yavoon]

I'd make the axeman 4 (ideally 4.5 but . . .). Then it would be at combat parity with the more expensive and later arriving swordsman it counters, but it would be a weaker city raider so swordsmen would gain value. Then you could kick Praetorian down to 7+10% vs city. As is, axemen are the best city defenders, best field fighters and best city raiders too much of the time, although the chariot's new bonus might offset that.

no, no, no, no.

=]

 

[drkodos]

One simple little invention was the Ultimate key to Mongol superiority:

The Stirrup.



It allowed a Horseman to free his hands and attack. Whereas Horseman were really only useful as scouts prior to its invention, the Stirrup, more than any other single invention prior to modern ages, revolutionized warfare and in so doing, infused a bevy of further militaristic invention. It is the subsequent marriage between science and military advance that has shaped the modern world and the inventions we use on a daily basis.

This include this present medium of the internet, which was developed first and foremost as a military tool of communication, despite any other BS offered by Algore or academicians.

 

[yavoon]

The Swordsman itself is pretty poor compared to its earlier tech companion, the Axeman, buildable with Copper or Iron by the way, whilst the Swords requires Iron. I believe the problem may start there, because if you want a Praetorian to be a useful Sword as UU (like the prob was/is with Jaguars and Gallic Swordsman, the first one needing no resources however), you better make it stand a chance against Axes, right -- which obviously now was done by giving it a strength of 8? So what to do?

Maybe a rethinking of the Swordsman could be a first step.

Suggestions?

Jaca

look no1 making swords can't make axes(besides monty's jaguars) so there's really not much point in complaining. think of swords kinda like trying to edge out an advantage in attacking archers in cities. as they are respectably more powerful at doing that.

 

[Jaca]

look no1 making swords can't make axes(besides monty's jaguars) so there's really not much point in complaining. think of swords kinda like trying to edge out an advantage in attacking archers in cities. as they are respectably more powerful at doing that.

Yes, but if there's a fortified Axeman in the City, you're better of with an CR Axeman then with an CR Sword. The CR Axe also deals with Spears defending the city. All in all, the Swords are still poor compared to the Axeman, considering you need a later tech for it then the Axe, considering you need Iron for it, as Copper won't do, and cosidering the 50% melee bonus for the axe against none for the Sword.

Jaca

Edit: yavoon, sorry, I read your post too quickly. I was thinking you meant no reason for complaining about the Swords, while you were suggesting I can always build Axes too when building Swords. You're right. My point was that I thought the Sword is kind of lame compared with the Axeman, which I believe is part of the "problem" of some UUs (Jaguars, Gallic Swordsman and the 'overpowered' Praetorian).

 

[gettingfat]

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

This applies to any offensive rush, not just Praetorians. I can send you a force of 35 axemen/10 spears instead of 35 Praetorians at same cost and obtain similar results. This can be done even earlier.

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...

Again, the same applies to any offensive rush, not just using Praetorians. Besides, if in MP somebody sitting next door to you who play Romans and this guy does not mass up axemen or even pre-empt you before you research ironwork, he/she is an idiot.

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.

You repeat the same point over and over again. BTW, what make your opponent the defender?

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. .

Then you conveniently forget the defenders get the fortification bonus.

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.

This is your only legitimate point. But again, if I know you're playing Romans besides me, I'll at least mass up 2/3 units as axes because I know your force will also be completely one dimensional tailored to do nothing but build praets.

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.

When you build stacks of praet, you equally need to pay more gold per turn, just a 20% less. How long it will last? 50 turns? Once I get construction or machinery, your edge is over. And you're stuck with a leader with organized and expansive traits, not particularly awesome.

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.

If you truly play multi, most people will love to kill off the Roman player first because the target is too big.

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?

When playing vs aggressive leader, Praets have no advantage over axemen and cost more. You still don't include the building cost into the equation.

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...

You simply repeat your point.

YOUR arguments are funny, as it stands, because they're more or less "on paper only."

I think your arguments are even funnier. Powerful units do not make "overpowered". Overpowered means no way to stop, and there are several ways to stop Praetorians. You also conveniently forget every civ has its own UU. An early jaguars rush or Keshik rush can be equally lethal as Praets.

 

[gettingfat]

And people seem love to discuss UU in isolation. In reality you have to combine a leader's traits and UU to see if this leader is powerful or not. Caesar gets a nice UU, no argument, but it's not like this UU will give you an automatic win. Overall Caesar's trait combo is just so so. I'll take any financial leader and feel good on any given game. If this leader also has a good UU (like Eliz and Catherine in vanilla, or Victoria and Wang in Warlord), I'll take them over Caesar and believe I have a better chance of winning.

 

[yavoon]

Yes, but if there's a fortified Axeman in the City, you're better of with an CR Axeman then with an CR Sword. The CR Axe also deals with Spears defending the city. All in all, the Swords are still poor compared to the Axeman, considering you need a later tech for it then the Axe, considering you need Iron for it, as Copper won't do, and cosidering the 50% melee bonus for the axe against none for the Sword.

Jaca

Edit: yavoon, sorry, I read your post too quickly. I was thinking you meant no reason for complaining about the Swords, while you were suggesting I can always build Axes too when building Swords. You're right. My point was that I thought the Sword is kind of lame compared with the Axeman, which I believe is part of the "problem" of some UUs (Jaguars, Gallic Swordsman and the 'overpowered' Praetorian).

it is some of the problem w/ the weak sword UU's in terms of them not being more powerful. of course u have to assume u want them to be more powerful....but anyway yah, I think if u just leave swords in their role its fine. not every unit needs to be a backbone unit.