Protective Trait-- Underrated?

[Sciguy001]

All of the other traits open up so many options and posibilities; with the protective and aggresive traits only open up a few.

 

[Airefuego]

It's a nice idea, but in practice I find there are rarely enough chokepoints in maps for this to work, it's all to easy to just go around the fort and it'd take too many forts to reasonably defend to make a strong border. I suppose it could force the invading stack off of defensive terrain though.

The only map I've seen with a regular ammount of chokepoints like this are highlands with clustered peaks (very interesting map by the way) and some watery ones with thin strips of land... though those can sometimes be avoided with boats.

Now if the suggestion of giving forts zones of control would be implemented, that would be a whole other story.

Forts have a 'zone of control' if there are units inside them.

Sure enemy units can "go around" a fort but while doing so they are getting picked off - if not slaughtered wholesale - by counterattacks from the stack that is sheltering safely in the fort.

The effectiveness of your 'ZOC' relates to the movement of the units inside, and the roads you have built outside.

(more general Fort Thoughts:

Spoiler :

Obviously for most of the game, enemy SODs will move only one square per turn around the fort (assuming it is in your cultural boundaries, which is almost always the case). If you have the area well roaded, as you should, you can dance around them with ease. So a single fort can effectively choke a three-square-wide passage (or a significantly wider area if you have the area well roaded and you can use chess-like cunning to venture out at the right times).

Also I assume (though I don't remember for sure ) that your siege cannot be flanked while in a fort (just like in a city). So it is a very smart place to wait until their stack is just where you want it... them BAM.

You want to do the attacking in a SOD-v-SOD battle - because of how siege works - forts largely ensure that you get your choice of when to do this.

 

[Airefuego]

All of the other traits open up so many options and posibilities; with the protective and aggresive traits only open up a few.

Maybe so, but the thread is not called "Is PRO better than FIN/ORG" ... the thread is called "Is PRO underrated"

Most players seem to regard PRO as a total stinker that is basically worthless to a human player. However this thread has shown that it does have value in a number of situations and can particularly help someone who is trying to survive at higher levels than their usual comfort zone.

In other words yes, PRO is may not be the strongest trait - but it IS more use than most people think.

 

[Sciguy001]

Airefuego:
I know what this thread is about, its just that Protective is good but when you compare it with what other traits you could be using instead it looses everytime. So I guess that Pro is a little underrated, but just a little.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Besides my point was not that a strong trait can't be played better. I'm just trying to say that most players who dismiss Protective quickly probably do so because they are unaware how to best utilise the trait. These players however are probably perfectly capable, experienced and probably very good at using the more mainstream traits.

Correct.

Most people don't recognize the power of the protective wallchop. A single wallchop can match the contribution of, say, Organized in the early game. On maps with stone and lots of forests wallchop is simply overpowered.

 

[obsolete]

Protective is great for warmongers, not so great for builders.

I think Toku is one of the best war-masters, if not the best. How can this be if the has the two worst traits?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've been playing around a bit with longbows offensively since piece insists it can work.

Basically they're pretty versatile. IMO, pursuing drill IV on most of the longbows, assuming PRO, isn't THAT good to do. However, the counter promos are where it's at with PRO longbows.

The limiting factor for it is production, you need a lot of siege. Assuming you can field it, you have access to stack defense until the AI gets guilds - a fairly large window. Cats aren't great at engineering though, but you can get vassalage earlier than that. From there you take formation vs HAs (and elephants), shock vs melee, and straight down drill for city busters. Not bad.

My opinion of PRO still doesn't shift up (IMO it's still the weakest trait), but it does close the gap at least. Unfortunately, it is the sole military trait that offers no help in the ancient or classical era (regular archers don't have enough base str). I suppose if the AI doesn't have horses you can catapwn people though, since they'll hold cities and the cats can take care of pretty much everything but finishing off miserably damage units.

Better than I thought, but still a little behind aggressive IMO.

 

[PieceOfMind]

His point is that PRO is a waste of a trait. Drill IV isn't really all that good... usually a combat 3 unit can beat the same unit with Drill IV.

Assuming one is sensible enough to keep longbows on hills or forests or forts or cities whenever possible, basically spending little or no time on flat ground, then longbows stand up to almost anything.

Your C3 mace, attacking a Drill IV longbow in this case (forest or hill or fort) will have a 36.3% chance to kill the longbow. IMO that is pretty good odds for what is one of the strongest attackers, and the most basic of defenses (I didn't even include fortify bonus).

So how can you claim usually a C3 unit will beat a D4 unit?


Or do you disagree with the odds?

Note: in the fort, the odds are actually 38.6%, but not much different to the other situations. In cities, the odds are obviously far far more in favour of the longbow.

And, I guess you're just building lots of longbows and Xbows to take advantage of PRO. But, longbows are quite week unless they're defending a city, and Xbows are very situational.

Um isn't every unit in BtS situational? CR3 maces aren't good on flat ground when xbows are around... That makes them situational. When units are employed in situational roles, it just means one has to use some tactics in how they deploy their troops. Crossbows are actually a very strong unit for their cost, as they have no counter other than mounted, and mounted are rarely a problem for crossbows when there are even 1 or 2 pikemen to help out.

Most of the time, you'll just want more mounted/seige/melee, and every time you build one of your precious Drill IV longbows, you're sacrificing a more useful unit.

If you believe longbows are not useful, then you probably haven't seen what they can do. I would agree xbows are probably more useful than longbows for attacking, considering they have the bonus against melee but cost a little bit more, but I like to show people how even longbows can be used in attack when they have Drill IV. Even with these Drill IV units it's still all about siege of course, and if your opponent has a huge amount of siege you'll need the mounted units too.


Remember too that longbows are cheap. You can build 7 longbows for the cost of 5 maces, and 6 crossbows for the cost of 5 maces.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Correct.

Most people don't recognize the power of the protective wallchop. A single wallchop can match the contribution of, say, Organized in the early game. On maps with stone and lots of forests wallchop is simply overpowered.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being sarcastic.

In which case, may I point out to you that as well as this trick there are a number of other ways to really use the strengths of PRO. For example, castles can be built early to get an espionage economy going (engineerring also gives pikes to help your stacks from mounted - the supposed biggest weakness of PRO). You can use forts in a much more effective way. You can use the globe theatre to draft units that start with two free promos, unlike any other leader. There are other points I could cover but I only wish to show you a few here.

If you were being sarcastic, please show the courtesy of letting me know and I'll post the alternative message I had.

 

[lilnev]

So, PRO-haters (and I include myself), let's quantify.

Suppose there were a random event which occurred early in the game, only for PRO leaders. And the text box says:

"Your leader has seen the error in his ways, and is willing to give up the Protective trait. However, there's no guarantee he'll gain another trait as recompense.
-- No thanks, I'm happy with Protective.
-- Absolutely! Lose Protective. 33% chance of gaining another trait at random."

Would you take it? More generally, at what percentage would you take it?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Thank you TMIT for taking the time to try these units out!

I've been playing around a bit with longbows offensively since piece insists it can work.

Basically they're pretty versatile. IMO, pursuing drill IV on most of the longbows, assuming PRO, isn't THAT good to do. However, the counter promos are where it's at with PRO longbows.

You are probably right, but I think I have a slightly unnatural preference for troops that are generalist. It seems my armies are almost always made up of combat units, drill units, and CR units. Spears almost always get formation because of their very specialist role in supporting the more generalist units. Sometimes, the stack defenders (typically longbows) will get Guerilla too. Only when my stacks start to become much bigger and more dominating do I find myself enjoying the luxury of more diverse promotions.

This is how I go about things but it is probably not the best way, and you might be able to tell me why.

The limiting factor for it is production, you need a lot of siege. Assuming you can field it, you have access to stack defense until the AI gets guilds - a fairly large window. Cats aren't great at engineering though, but you can get vassalage earlier than that. From there you take formation vs HAs (and elephants), shock vs melee, and straight down drill for city busters. Not bad.

I absolutely agree that siege is still the main factor when it comes to taking on stacks or cities. Especially in the earlier assaults, even the Drill IV units will only be drill IV and not really any better (odds-wise) at following the siege than CR units. But once they start to pile on more xp, I would propose they reach the 17xp and probably the 26xp promotions faster than most units. At these points, they can be specialised very effectively to pretty much any other role, and since they keep the Drill I-IV promos, they are now extremely deadly in their specialisation. It's as if Drill IV units need more care in the investment phase (reaching Drill IV, and then to a lesser extent reaching one more promotion), but they yield greater returns (in promotions) eventually. For example, a Guerilla 2 Drill IV longbow is pretty deadly (to would be attackers). And anything CG3 D4 (though admittedly hard to do) is invincible in a fort - even siege won't touch that sucker.

My opinion of PRO still doesn't shift up (IMO it's still the weakest trait), but it does close the gap at least. Unfortunately, it is the sole military trait that offers no help in the ancient or classical era (regular archers don't have enough base str). I suppose if the AI doesn't have horses you can catapwn people though, since they'll hold cities and the cats can take care of pretty much everything but finishing off miserably damage units.

Isn't longbows and crossbows the classical era? Or does the era technically come to an end near the start of these units use?

I don't know why you need the AI to have no horses. If they are using horses to defend cities, it might take more siege to knock them down enough but the siege will have an especially easy time on the horses due to the non existent defensive bonuses. CR troops can still be used if necessary, and pikes still remain in the stacks.

Better than I thought, but still a little behind aggressive IMO.

A very reasonable conclusion IMO. I think AGG is slightly behind PRO but nonetheless I agree much of your analysis is very objective.

 

[PieceOfMind]

So, PRO-haters (and I include myself), let's quantify.

Suppose there were a random event which occurred early in the game, only for PRO leaders. And the text box says:

"Your leader has seen the error in his ways, and is willing to give up the Protective trait. However, there's no guarantee he'll gain another trait as recompense.
-- No thanks, I'm happy with Protective.
-- Absolutely! Lose Protective. 33% chance of gaining another trait at random."

Would you take it? More generally, at what percentage would you take it?

I have to laugh at how interesting a question that is, but I can't help but feel it is only a question to make PRO-haters (I'd rather call them PRO-deniers ) feel more secure in their reasoning.

Since you asked though, what percentage would you take it, being a PRO-hater?

 

[Joshua368]

By the way, since Drill IV longbows are apparently like the pedestal of the protective trait, where exactly do they come from? Even with protective they still need to earn three promotions... do they get it out in the field? Barracks + Theocracy + Vassalage (sacrificing powerful civics like bureaucracy and OR) will only give 7 exp, you still need two settled great generals so unless your imperialistic, charismatic, or have had a lot of wars it seems like it'll be hard to start churning them out in large quantities.

 

[lilnev]

I would jump at 33%. 20%, a much harder decision. Below that, I'd probably stick with PRO.

 

[vicawoo]

So, PRO-haters (and I include myself), let's quantify.

Suppose there were a random event which occurred early in the game, only for PRO leaders. And the text box says:

"Your leader has seen the error in his ways, and is willing to give up the Protective trait. However, there's no guarantee he'll gain another trait as recompense.
-- No thanks, I'm happy with Protective.
-- Absolutely! Lose Protective. 33% chance of gaining another trait at random."

Would you take it? More generally, at what percentage would you take it?

If I were creative in mid game, I'd take it. But creative is a good trait.
I'd probably do it for imperialistic as well.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

Piece-I wouldn't call myself a Pro-hater by any means, but I am in the camp that it's still weaker than the rest...that being said one of my favorite leaders to play for whatever reason is Toku. I guess I love Samurai. Anyhow...even as Toku, I've never really messed with Drill much. You have made me a little curious about Drill IV, any chance you'd want to write up an article on the uses of it?

 

[PieceOfMind]

By the way, since Drill IV longbows are apparently like the pedestal of the protective trait, where exactly do they come from? Even with protective they still need to earn three promotions... do they get it out in the field? Barracks + Theocracy + Vassalage (sacrificing powerful civics like bureaucracy and OR) will only give 7 exp, you still need two settled great generals so unless your imperialistic, charismatic, or have had a lot of wars it seems like it'll be hard to start churning them out in large quantities.

Glad you asked! I mentioned it in one of the earlier posts, but since it's so far buried now I won't mind saying again.

Firstly, it's very reasonable to be able to build units with at least 5xp. I'll usually take at least one of Vassalage or Theocracy once I get them, sometimes both.

So 5xp gives these archery/gunpowder units access to Drill III immediately.

If Churchill, you need to get 3 more xp, otherwise you need 5 more xp.

If we take longbows and crossbows for example (by the gunpowder age we might have an MI or two, making it easier), they start with 1 free first strike, and so at Drill III they will have 2-5 first strikes.

Using this drill III unit to attack a defender (we assume defender has no first strikes and is not damaged), then the following ranges of odds would be required for 3, 2 or 1xp.

2-5FS (Drill III)
3xp (73.02%,91.65%]
2xp (91.65%, 99.86%]
1xp (99.86%, 100%]

So when oplaying Churchill, you could fight a battle at 91% odds and have Drill IV (this could even be done just killing a barbarian!). When not Churchill, you could fight one battle at 99.85% and one at 91%, or 2 battles at 99.8% and the last at even greater than 99.8%. Admittedly, taking full advantage of the xp earning requires a bit of micro, but I don't mind it myself.

It's all about how much risk you're willing to take. When you are attacking cities and you have some Drill III and Drill IV troops, you will give your drill III troops priority when they are near 91% odds or 99.8% odds.

Of course, later in the game, when you have other sources of xp in your city/cities, then it could be a good idea to try and produce all your would-be drill units in the 10xp city, so you don't even have to worry about the getting to Drill IV.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Piece-I wouldn't call myself a Pro-hater by any means, but I am in the camp that it's still weaker than the rest...that being said one of my favorite leaders to play for whatever reason is Toku. I guess I love Samurai. Anyhow...even as Toku, I've never really messed with Drill much. You have made me a little curious about Drill IV, any chance you'd want to write up an article on the uses of it?

Perhaps. Most players on the forums believe they already have the full understanding of drill promotions. I definitely think its uses and advantages are the most subtle of all promotions. I would also think the uses and advantages of drill are also the most often missed.

But whether I should write up something about it I don't know... Would anyone find it valuable? I find most people are quick to tell me how useless drill is and for them their mind is made up. I suppose people will usually approach articles with more open-mindedness and critical thinking, definitely a good thing.

Also, believe me when I say if you have played Tokugawa without every fiddling with the drill promotions you have really missed out. I'm not saying drill will win you games, but it's definitely amusing to use the promtion in attacking units. Cho Ko Nus are in a similar boat.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I just discovered another thing about forts. Did anyone know that units that get an inherent city defense bonus (eg. longbows and archers) enjoy that bonus in forts too?

For those units, forts are definitely starting to sound like they are easier to defend than cities. This could be very very powerful if worked into strategies.

I reckon it's almost necessary that another thread be started - "Are forts underrated?"

 

[pi-r8]

Assuming one is sensible enough to keep longbows on hills or forests or forts or cities whenever possible, basically spending little or no time on flat ground, then longbows stand up to almost anything.

Your C3 mace, attacking a Drill IV longbow in this case (forest or hill or fort) will have a 36.3% chance to kill the longbow. IMO that is pretty good odds for what is one of the strongest attackers, and the most basic of defenses (I didn't even include fortify bonus).

So how can you claim usually a C3 unit will beat a D4 unit?

True but... The same C3 mace, attacking a C3 longbow, has only a 29.4% chance to kill the longbow. And, if he attacks an UNPROMOTED macemen in the jungle, he has only a 22.9% chance to win! So, with a whopping FOUR promotions, you've ALMOST managed to equal the performance of an unpromoted macemen. What this really shows is the power of defensive terrain.

Um isn't every unit in BtS situational? CR3 maces aren't good on flat ground when xbows are around... That makes them situational. When units are employed in situational roles, it just means one has to use some tactics in how they deploy their troops. Crossbows are actually a very strong unit for their cost, as they have no counter other than mounted, and mounted are rarely a problem for crossbows when there are even 1 or 2 pikemen to help out.

Of course, but some situations occur much more frequently than others. Rarely do you get the chance to attack unsupported melee with Xbows, and when you do, the battle is so one-sided that you don't really need extra promotions to win. Knights will also work here. Whereas, you frequently get attacked by LARGE stacks of knights, and extra promotions on pikemen can help a lot since it gets them the anti-mounted promotion faster.

If you believe longbows are not useful, then you probably haven't seen what they can do. I would agree xbows are probably more useful than longbows for attacking, considering they have the bonus against melee but cost a little bit more, but I like to show people how even longbows can be used in attack when they have Drill IV. Even with these Drill IV units it's still all about siege of course, and if your opponent has a huge amount of siege you'll need the mounted units too.

Remember too that longbows are cheap. You can build 7 longbows for the cost of 5 maces, and 6 crossbows for the cost of 5 maces.

Well, with enough siege you can win anything, sure, but when you're attacking a city, macemen or knights are just far more cost effective than longbows.