Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by IAM, Apr 30, 2010.
War elephants are more useful for their time, I think, because of 2 things:
1) Resources. Generally, Ivory is clumped, and you can have 2-4 nodes in one place. Iron mines can be pillaged. So can Ivory camps, but they are on flatlands, which menas invaders are prey for those very same war elephants. And there's more of them. If Iron is on a hill, the AI can simply move a few units up there and destroy the mine. Sure, you could use 8 or 9 units to defend that hill, or make a fort up there, but let's face it: even with that, Iron is vulnerable. You might get 2 resources in an average empire (and by that I mean 5-8 cities by Construction, with all BFC's and a few borders past that). Generally, you get 1. Sometimes, you get none. But Ivory isn't as rare as most people think... in my games, 6-7 civs have ivory in their BFC's, and about 6 more have it within grabbing distance (I play huge temperate fractal 18 civs maps).
2) I do not play as the Romans very often. Mostly as Cyrus for war games. If I use the Romans, it's AC, and then I shoot for building wonders until the later game, by which Praets are obsolete.
Elephants do get special mounted promotions though... the flanking promotion is often very useful against stacks outside of cities. Sentry, not so much, but I still occasionally use it. Plus, you can level elephants up faster because there are less units that can successfully counter them, and then you can get Blitz, and then upgrade them to Cavalry. I admit the last one is rarely done, but still. I usually have one or two elephants with a lot of XP hanging around by MilTrad.
Another slight consideration is Barb busting. Barbarian axes and archers/ maces and longbows spawn with depressing regularity, but barb spearmen rarely appear, and I have never seen a barbarian pike. One war elephant can wander around and take out barbarians even if they are on hills (although I generally do not risk them being on forested hills).
War Elephant, no contest. While the elephants only require Ivory, Praetorians require Iron and that I play a leader who is wearing only a sheet for clothes! This is also the reason why Chariot > Immortal.
Ok, there I do not agree with you. Immortals = Then again, I almost always play as Cyrus, so maybe there's the problem right there... but come on. Immortals are, I think, one of the best UU's in the game. They get defensive bonuses AND 50% vs. archery. That's a solution to early game barbs right there, as well as a decent choice for an early rush.
[in the voice of Hillary Clinton] But this isn't about me. This is about War Elephants.
What did the OP mean about "all other things being equal?" I mean, what's the point of all these four pages? Given the choice, I'd take Mechs to garrison my cities, Modern Armor as my standard offense build, Tacs for crowd control, and stealth destroyers guarding my transports. Sure, you could take them all out with enough War Elephants, but you'd get bad returns on those engagements.
Hey DON'T INSULT CAESAR'S OUTFIT. INSULTING CAESAR'S OUTFIT IS LIKE INSULTING CAESAR SO DON'T DO IT. Sorry my civ personality leaked into my normal personality. But anyway I think togas are fashionable and I bet in a few years everyones going to be wearing one
Sorry, got that phase done with in college
Tongue in cheek things I've learned from this thread:
elephants have 2 movement (vroom)
elephants get +100% against mounted (what have you done with the real sisutil)
combat scales linearly (evidently the only two forms of growth are linear and exponential)
praetorians are overrated, worse than hwachas (so if they brought back the endless anarchy exploit, moonsinger will be writing a beating vanilla deity guide with war elephants?)
I'd rather have 10 elephants to 10 praetorians. I'd rather have construction and horseback riding and ivory than iron and ironworking. I'd rather be able to build war elephants as the inca than picking a roman civ.
If I could build both, I would build a few war elephants for stack defense/anti-melee cities, but prefer 1.33 praetorians to 1 war elephant (and skip a few stables).
@ vicawoo: To demonstrate that, as a good German, I still haven't grown a sense of humour...
I never said Hwachas are better than Praetorians... just that from the time on where elephants are available, I'd get a bigger benefit out of Hwachas. The biggest edge of Praetorians over Elephants, more important than hammer efficiency, is availability date... and I agree that if I'm guaranteed to get second wind with Elephants I'd prefer an even earlier rush-capable UU.
To use your own terms, I'd prefer 10 War Elephants and 10 Hwachas to 8 Praetorians, 4 War Elephants and 10 Catapults.
As to Praetorians being overrated... possibly. They are one of the best UUs, but those who consider them in a league of their own probably overrate them. Quechuas, Skirmishers and War Chariots are at least as powerful and a few others in the same league.
On the other hand, Praetorians may have an unmatched combination of power, longevity and ease of use that pushes them over the top in the hands of the average player.
Regarding linear and exponential: I dislike misuse of these terms. Power ratio to probability of survival is a non-continuous function that IS linear between the jump points though. If my terminology is incorrect or awkward, I'm grateful for corrections - it's been a while since I needed to talk about mathematics in English.
warning: troy imitation (but the point is a good one)
Fact - Praetorians - praets get city raider
Fact - Praetorians - elephants don't
Fact - Praetorians - praets can defend and fortify
Fact - Praetorians - praets come earlier
Fact - Praetorians - praets aren't obsolete when pikemen come out
The evidence is clear, praets are the superior.
I dont even see how they are comparable... You get Prats so much earlier and they so own everything... And nobody else has them! Elephants come so much later, they are more expensive, Catapults are around at the times of Elephants rendering them less useful, and other players may have Elephants too...
Fact - even if you have iron, you might not be able to build Preats ( just because you aren't Roman ,for a example ).
Fact - As long as you have Ivory, you can build phants ( except obseletion issues that is )
The evidence is not so clear
Couldn't agree more. Praets are more versatile - they receive defensive bonuses AND have access to City Raider. They're also a pretty long-lived UU.
Lol, spirit, how did you do that? I've been toying with the XML files to create some weird new units, but I've never succeeded.
preatorians are much better.
they are like mace men but without the many techs needed. (more helpful on marathon)
Not quite: Macemen also get a bonus against melee units. Praetorians are not that much useful than swordsmen when it comes to attacking axemen in cities. Praetorians come early, that's true, but iron is more rare than Ivory.
And besides, as pointed out many many times before, you need to be playing as the Romans to have Praetorians. But you can have WE's at any time.
That's not true in my experience. I almost always get access to iron, while ivory is considerably harder to find.
What's that got to do with the actual quality/strength of the unit?
OTOH the fact that Praets are unique is of course what gives them the edge over contemporary units
Fact- You don't need to be rome to get phants
Fact- Phants aren't destroyed by shock axes
Fact- Phants also mean you get happiness
Fact- With the exception of pikemen (who builds those?) Melee is ineffective against phants
Fact- Phants can start with 5 xp while praets cannot
War Elephants, because walking around with giant Elephants is awesome. I interpret the question as what would you build if your Rome and you have Elephants, Iron and Construction + Iron Working. In that situation I'd build Elephants.
Elephants are especially good on Korea and Mongolia (Khmer's replacement is horrible). Korea because the Cats now own spears, and mongolia because the Elephant's get another 2 xp
Separate names with a comma.