Moving Horsemen to Classical Era

Divsanchez said:
That is the way ffh2 works that you need a specific building to produce each unit.

I don't think that idea should be introduced into VP. It would seem out of place to me.
Click to expand...

That is in for purchases but not for building units so its half there for VP (for example purchasing a composite bowman requires a barracks) but none of the ancient units have requirements for purchasing.
 
Someone mentioned the idea of switching Catapults and Horsemen. I find the idea interesting and I think it merits further discussion.
 
chicorbeef said:
If you're relying on Horsemen to fight Standard units and can't get the job done otherwise (if you think that AI warmongering would be OP), I think that just goes to show how powerful Horsemen are early on in the hands ofand why they should be moved.
Click to expand...
Not an argument. Horsemen require more production and resources than the other units so you are buying convenience with resources, which is not a bug or overpowered; furthermore, horsemen have other jobs to do, like raiding, pillaging, flanking, finishing off units, making surprise attacks from behind etc. so if someone isn't skilled enough to use regular units to keep the enemy occupied and has to rely on horsemen, thereby waging a much less effective war, then that is a problem with their skill and not with the units.

chicorbeef said:
Anyway, nobody is saying all-horseman armies are common, or that other ancient units are useless it's just that Horsemen are prioritized in Ancient Era but are still dominant throughout Classical so they're just a really good overall unit. I think Ancient armies would be more balanced with Spears/Archers/balanced Chariots all playing a core role.
Click to expand...
Your OP sure made it sound like the other units are pretty useless, but I'm glad we agree that they are not. I have never built a horseman-only army and don't think that makes sense and I don't recall seeing that in any of the Journals that have been posted here, either. If the path of rushing horsemen was so clearly superior then why are all these Deity and Immortal players not using that more often? It's because Spears and Archers already play an important role as do swordsmen and I build all of these units every time I play (King or Emperor for me, depending on what challenge level I want).

The only exception here is the Chariot Archer, which I build significantly less often, but that would be a discussion about the Chariot Archer maybe being too weak, not the horseman too strong. The reason why the Chariot Archer got lumped into this discussion is because moving the horseman back creates a hole for a decent mobile unit that then would need to be filled and naturally people looked at the CA and found it lacking.

Additionally, the fact that people are (justifiably) reluctant to accept a strength nerf of the horseman because it would become too weak in the Classical Era shows how it's not really overpowered, being a late Ancient Era unit, after all. If you want to rush horsemen, which includes choosing that specific research path over other valid possibilities as well as planting a city on horses, which of course means that you potentially give up a better position for it, then that is your choice but the vast majority of games will not be played that way (again, look at the journals), so it sure looks like you are using a bit of a straw-man here that doesn't apply to the average game flow (certainly not on Epic or Marathon).

So, again, this entire debate seems based on a very shaky foundation; the historical aspect is highly dubious, the overpowered status of horsemen seems a bit of an exaggeration, the other units are not irrelevant at all (although one can discuss the CA, you have pointed to the correct thread for discussing that already) and the idea that rushing horsemen is the best strategy in every game or even in most games doesn't match with the reality we see here. Moving back the horseman seems to create more issues than it solves (if it solves any at all) and requires extensive trialing and rebalancing. While I have no problem with working on the CA or increasing horseman production cost slightly, any more drastic changes are IMO not going to improve the game (the CA melee thing was stated by @Gazebo to not work, unfortunately; that could have been a nice change but if it doesn't work then it doesn't work).
 
How about all ancient units get a reduced combat strength as base which is then raised once barracks are built? Then units built in that city recieve a special promotion restoring their base strength. But the special promotion is not retroactive, meaning an extremely early rush would consist of weaker units that would be permanently weaker than those built after barracks.
So a player that rushes horsemen without taking time to build the barracks will have weaker horsemen than the one who waits.

Side effect that I see would be that barbarian units would always be weaker than the after barracks units but that is probably fine.
 
tu_79 said:
What if horsemen require barracks in the city?
Click to expand...

This is a solid idea. We already have the code from the war elephant. I have definately done horseman rushes without barracks because "the barracks would take too long". It gives us a pushback without getting crazy with the tech tree. It addresses the primary concern with a minimum of secondary effects.

I like it.
 
I'd be fine with the barracks requirement, though in that case I think that would be enough; no additional nerf needed.
 
Yeah, we could start with that and see how it changes things, though I don't think it'll delay things for more than 10 turns or so. Perhaps introducing a barracks requirement (and introducing a similar one for other classical units) plus reducing CS by 1?
 
LukaSlovenia29 said:
Given the concerns here and in the Units thread, how would 10 turns be enough address the concerns?
Click to expand...

1) There is still a mixed bag of concerns. Some people are saying Horseman are fine, others think they ruin the game. There is not a clear consensus, hence why I would suggest smaller changes.

2) The OP here is not that horseman are Overpowered, but they come too early for what they are. Hence the suggestion to move them farther back in the tech tree. Well by adding 10 turns we are effectively doing just that, I'm not seeing early techs take more than 10ish turn on a standard speed game. So we are basically pushing horseman "1 tech back".

3) A smaller effect, this prevents your entire civ from rushing horseman. You can get that barrack in your capital, but its going to be harder to get it up in a satellite city and then race horseman.
 
Gazebo said:
horseboys will be at 14CS in the next patch. /thread.

G
Click to expand...

At first I was on board with this change, but honestly the barracks change seems like even less of an impact to the overall game and more specifically addresses the concern.
 
Stalker0 said:
At first I was on board with this change, but honestly the barracks change seems like even less of an impact to the overall game and more specifically addresses the concern.
Click to expand...

Too.
CrazyG said:
I actually like the barracks suggestion more
Click to expand...

Bad.

We're going for 14 CS for this patch. If the issue persist we'll move further.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
what are your average years/turn numbers of reaching industrial and modern era?
Replies
0
Views
369
tramwajg
T
Tekamthi
ancient era war/peace
Replies
4
Views
899
Fluffball
F
Aquila SPQR
Increased tech cost to have (much) longer games, late game techs take 1 turn to research
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
phantom22
P
E
UI: zooming out more
Replies
4
Views
847
axatin
A
L
Who is going to keep up enlightenment era for vp now?
Replies
0
Views
781
Lumpyacidfish
L
Back
Top Bottom