Praetorian Poll

[thekaje]

Starcraft is purely about combat. Every unit needs a simple counter-unit.

Civ4 is not purely about combat, and every game is very long. So a pretty strong Classical Age Roman UU with no simple counter-unit isn't imbalanced just because it's hard to beat in a stand-up fight.

That's what I'd say.

 

[mechaerik]

Shock HA is just about the same as a normal Axeman, and it doesnt need a promo. I would only say shock HA beats preats sometimes, which is true of several unit promo combinations.

It's the same as a default Vulture.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I will generally argue the praetorian is slightly overpowered in its current form. It is very possible that several other UUs are overpowered, possibly even moreso than the praetorian, but this does not change the fact. I suspect it is its relative power compared with other exploitable UUs that lead some to argue it is merely a top tier UU but that is mere speculation on my part.

To whoever suggested making it strength 7 but with combat 1, that would more than likely make it even stronger than it is now! I'm not sure how well you thought that through.

So far, more than one third of voters believe it is overpowered.

Regarding MP...
Chariot-replacing UUs are nice but they must be used very very fast. Immortals in particular are devastating if the defender's metal resource is pillaged before they can build spears. For a Roman player to take advantage of Praetorians he does not necessarily have to beeline IW and build them asap, but it's still good to get them sooner than later. Other UUs require a greater gamble for full effect.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

For a Roman player to take advantage of Praetorians he does not necessarily have to beeline IW and build them asap, but it's still good to get them sooner than later. Other UUs require a greater gamble for full effect.

Agreed. I suggested giving Praets strength 7 and a free City Raider I promotion (without the innate 10% city raider bonus). I provided a whole mess of numbers and comparisons as to why. They are still able to be powerful vs. PRO archers once they reach CRIII and would do very well against regular archers and swordsmen while being more vulnerable to axes and dissuading the player to strive for Combat and shock/cover based promotions.

Again, though, I really like Praets as they are.

 

[r_rolo1]

The issue, as almost always, is the definiton of "overpowered" ... The preatorian is a golem in 1:1 fight against pretty much everything of his time and even of far later times, it is quite less shiny if you consider the best counter of the time ( shock axes ) in terms of hammer costs, AI don't know how to deal with them in a minimally meaningful way , human players will probably deal with a Roman human player far better....

But, I'll not use that kind of criteria I'll use Firaxis criteria Firaxis thinked that a UU with a increase of str of 12,5% above the original unit was too much and nerfed it. Preatorians have a increase of str of 33% above the original unit, so , if we use the same criteria, it should be nerfed.... so, by definition ( of Firaxis, remember, not mine ) the preatorian is overpowered and should be nerfed

 

[thekaje]

I'd say the fact that they never nerfed it while they nerfed other UUs is a much stronger insight into their intentions.

 

[KaytieKat]

The issue, as almost always, is the definiton of "overpowered" ... The preatorian is a golem in 1:1 fight against pretty much everything of his time and even of far later times, it is quite less shiny if you consider the best counter of the time ( shock axes ) in terms of hammer costs, AI don't know how to deal with them in a minimally meaningful way , human players will probably deal with a Roman human player far better....

But, I'll not use that kind of criteria I'll use Firaxis criteria Firaxis thinked that a UU with a increase of str of 12,5% above the original unit was too much and nerfed it. Preatorians have a increase of str of 33% above the original unit, so , if we use the same criteria, it should be nerfed.... so, by definition ( of Firaxis, remember, not mine ) the preatorian is overpowered and should be nerfed

Hi

Whose to say Firaxis ONLY looked at the strength increase and how much of a % it was compared to the "regular" unit it replaced? Maybe instead of just looking at the strength they looked at everything, what other bonuses if any they recieved, what penalties if any they recieved, how they interacted with their leader traits, how they perfomred in their era and beyond it and then adjusted accordingly. In the case of Redcoats and Cossacks it was a redcution in strength and in the case of Prats it was increase in cost and loss of built in bonus regular swords recieve.

But no matter exactly what or how firaxis based that criteria, if you are going to use it by saying the same criteria that led to the nerfing of Redcoats and Cossacks should be used with Prats then it seems this has already done. Since at the same time Redcoats and Cossacks were getting adjusted so were prats. And whatever the criteria being used, that criteria decided in the case of Prats a reduction of their plus 2 str bonus wasnt warranted.

Kaytie

 

[deanej]

In most cases you can't look at traits - most civs (including Rome, England, and Russia) have multiple leaders, so different traits based on what leader a person plays. And it's possible that Firaxis overestimated the impact of a 5 hammer increase in cost.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Kaytie

In the case of the Cossack, strenght was the only thing they looked for, given that it was the only bonus that the early cossack had in top of the regular unit Ok, they pinched a little the Preat twice ( cost increase + remove the sword 10% in city attack ), but on one side they took a ( in their opinion abusive ) 12,5% increase on str and gave a 50% vs mounted units in the cossack case and in the Preatorian case they thinked that a 33% str increase was compensated by a 12,5% in cost and the remove of the 10% city attack bonus compared with the regular unit.... It might not be your opinion, but all things considered I find it hard to believe that 33% increase of str - ( 12,5% increase in cost + removal of the 10% inherent bonus vs cities ) is less potent than a 12,5% increase of strength, especially given the way that combat works in civ IV.

 

[KaytieKat]

In most cases you can't look at traits - most civs (including Rome, England, and Russia) have multiple leaders, so different traits based on what leader a person plays. And it's possible that Firaxis overestimated the impact of a 5 hammer increase in cost.

Hi

Why cant you? How difficult would it be to take a civ with multiple leaders and see how that uu would interact with each one? I am not saying this is for sure what their thinking was are why they did it, but it could very well be that the reason for nerf to Redcoats was mainly based on how they interacted with Churchill. Maybe they even decided they were just fine with Vicky and Liz and if it wasnt for Chruchill being added they could be left alone. But he was added as his starts do give an already very strong unit a pretty huge boost. So they nerfed the redcoats, deciding that they were still very strong with Vicky and Liz just not as strong as they were in vanilla but also now avoids making them too strong when played with churchill. May thtas not eaxactly what happened in this case. But it is possible and shows how you could judeg a uu's interactions even if they have multiple leaders.

Kaytie

edit: added in quote for clarity

 

[r_rolo1]

All of that is true, but I never talked of Redcoats

 

[KaytieKat]

@Kaytie

In the case of the Cossack, strenght was the only thing they looked for, given that it was the only bonus that the early cossack had in top of the regular unit Ok, they pinched a little the Preat twice ( cost increase + remove the sword 10% in city attack ), but on one side they took a ( in their opinion abusive ) 12,5% increase on str and gave a 50% vs mounted units in the cossack case and in the Preatorian case they thinked that a 33% str increase was compensated by a 12,5% in cost and the remove of the 10% city attack bonus compared with the regular unit.... It might not be your opinion, but all things considered I find it hard to believe that 33% increase of str - ( 12,5% increase in cost + removal of the 10% inherent bonus vs cities ) is less potent than a 12,5% increase of strength, especially given the way that combat works in civ IV.

Hi

Maybe str was the only thing they changed but I think it is fair to say that maybe they didnt just consider the raw % increase that change was but also looked at how that change on that unit interacted with other aspects within the game.

Anways my point wasnt whether I or anyone knows exactly WHAT that criteria was or how they arrived it. Or the merits of it. Just that if one makes the argument that: since that standrad used by Firaxis was applied to Cossacks and they got a nerf and firaxis's standrad when used on the Cossacks was reasonable, therefore that standard means prats gets a nerf. One has to consider the possibility that the standard Firaxis was using was applied to prats (a not unreasonable conclusion since prats were being adjusted around the same time Cossacks were) and Prats were found to be just fine by that standard.

All of that is true, but I never talked of Redcoats

True, you didnt name any specific unit. But usually when someone mentions the nerfing of other units that had a str boost then lost it they usually mean Cossacks and Redcoats and usually they ar ementioned together. So I just went along with that and thought you were refering to both not just one. Sorry. (plus you got another post in while I was typing in response to a diff post so it kinda added to the confuisn)

Kaytie

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Considering Roman leaders traits, the UU seems like a bit overpowered, though.

ORG is amazing for any kind of economy, REXing or rushing strat, and win type. Cheap courthouses and half priced civics? Rep / Bureaucracy / Caste or Slave / Merc / OR at 50% cost is awesome especially when combined with a 2-3 pop whip or 1 chop 2 whip courthouse .

IMP is crazy when combined with an extremely powerful early UU and ORG trait. REXing / Defending or Rushing is almost impossible for the AI to stop as long as the human has access to iron.

IND is a pretty great trait for such a civ considering fast forge and fast National Wonders (huge when pushing for fast Oxford / Wall Street and amazing when combined with marble and Heroic/National epics.

All that wrapped up in shiny plastic with a base Strength 8 early unit? Needs nerfing.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Needs nerfing.

Inca first.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Inca first.

???
Strength 2 + 110% = 4.2
Archer on a hill with CG1 = 3 + 50%(innate city) + 25%(innate hill) +25%(tile) +25%(fortify) +20% (CG1) -25% (cover) = 6.6 + 1 first strike

6.6 vs. 4.2 requires a lot of hammers invested into quechuas (also barracks for cover) although the quechuas will come out on top with a good amount of hammers invested => 2 capitals, the combination of IMP, ORG, and Praetorians (Julius) means lots of generals, and lowered maintenance.

Then again, HC is FIN and IND making him just as powerful in a different direction.
Maybe right on par with each other.

 

[pi-r8]

???
Strength 2 + 110% = 4.2
Archer on a hill with CG1 = 3 + 50%(innate city) + 25%(innate hill) +25%(tile) +25%(fortify) +20% (CG1) -25% (cover) = 6.6 + 1 first strike

6.6 vs. 4.2 requires a lot of hammers invested into quechuas (also barracks for cover) although the quechuas will come out on top with a good amount of hammers invested => 2 capitals, the combination of IMP, ORG, and Praetorians (Julius) means lots of generals, and lowered maintenance.

Maybe right on par with each other.

You don't have to actually take the city with the quechua, you just have to prevent them from leaving it, and then finish them off later. (and you can sometimes, what you posted was the best possible case for the archer).

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

They are weak... how about making them 2 moves?

Spoiler :

I resist since two days, it's enough

 

[PieceOfMind]

Inca first.

I assume people who take a position similar to this will be voting "top tier UU, nothing more".

The fact there are other UUs that are just as or more overpowered IMO doesn't make the praetorian ok.

Having said that, I absolutely agree something has to be done about the quechua and/or Terrace. Rome and Inca are the only two civs I ban from multiplayer games I host.

By the way, don't take my post as refuting your point US, but I do wonder what you must have voted.


By the way, Blitzkrieg...
Sorry but your post about the quechua is misinformed. You treat both units like they are the defender (applying their bonuses to both of them). Instead, if the quechua is attacking the archer the various bonuses are added or subtracted from the archer. Given that many of the archer's bonuses come from defense, when it is needed for attacking quechuas that are choking, the math is different to what you posted. The warrior is then the best way to try and handle the invading quechuas, and warriors vs. warriors defending forests is mostly a slaughter and devastating against an AI early. It also is extremely difficult for a human player to realistically handle a fast quechua choke.

 

[thekaje]

Cheesy multiplayer rush tactics shouldn't reflect on the game as a whole. Especially a game as complex as Civ4.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

You don't have to actually take the city with the quechua, you just have to prevent them from leaving it, and then finish them off later.

I guess I've never utilized the 'choke' method. Sounds OP after all! my bad

(and you can sometimes, what you posted was the best possible case for the archer).

Fair statement. I could have gone PRO archer, too

By the way, Blitzkrieg...
Sorry but your post about the quechua is misinformed. You treat both units like they are the defender (applying their bonuses to both of them). Instead, if the quechua is attacking the archer the various bonuses are added or subtracted from the archer. Given that many of the archer's bonuses come from defense, when it is needed for attacking quechuas that are choking, the math is different to what you posted. The warrior is then the best way to try and handle the invading quechuas, and warriors vs. warriors defending hills is mostly a slaughter and devastating against an AI early. It also is extremely difficult for a human player to realistically handle a fast quechua choke.

I didn't realize the Quechua innate 100% vs. archers went against the defender. My mistake!

In that case, forget my statement. Apparently, the Quechua can dominate.

Archer (3 +50% +25% +25% +25% +20% -125%) = 3.3
Quechua (2 +10%) = 2.2

3.3 vs. 2.2 not that bad for the hilled archer! Especially if just choking!