RedCoat and Cossack Nerf - Does It Go Too Far?

Did the Red Coat / Cossack Nerf Go Too Far?

  • Yes, they should have been left the way they were

    Votes: 19 11.0%
  • Yes, a smaller strength nerf, maybe 1 point each would have been more appropriate

    Votes: 58 33.7%
  • Yes, they should have raised the costs on both units instead

    Votes: 22 12.8%
  • No, these units needed to be nerfed

    Votes: 61 35.5%
  • No, no UU should be game changing

    Votes: 12 7.0%

  • Total voters
    172
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
739
Location
Burlington, VT
They nerfed both the RedCoat and the Cossack, originally my #2 and #3 favorite UU units, right back to the original strength for their respective units (14 and 15 respectively). This drops them right off my top 10 list entirely. Personally, I think this goes too far, and I would much rather have seen them raised in cost (ala the Praetorians) than nerfed in this fashion. What do you think?

Personally, I think all UU should include a small strength upgrade, these units were supposed to be the high-water marks for their respective eras.
 
DarkSchneider said:
They nerfed both the RedCoat and the Cossack, originally my #2 and #3 favorite UU units, right back to the original strength for their respective units (14 and 15 respectively). This drops them right off my top 10 list entirely. Personally, I think this goes too far, and I would much rather have seen them raised in cost (ala the Praetorians) than nerfed in this fashion. What do you think?

Personally, I think all UU should include a small strength upgrade, these units were supposed to be the high-water marks for their respective eras.

And why were they your favorites?

Oh thats right, because they were overpowered.

They were both game breakingly broken. Nerf justified.

Either that, or give every civ a UU that powerful.
 
Sisonpyh said:
And why were they your favorites?

Oh thats right, because they were overpowered.

They were both game breakingly broken. Nerf justified.

Why do game designers always proceed in this fashion? Why not raise the other UUs up a little bit to compete with the top 3?
 
DarkSchneider said:
Why do game deisgners always proceed in this fashion? Why not raise the other UUs up a little bit to compete with the top 3?

You missed my ninja edit. I agree completely.

But even if they do that, certain units will still be considered weak/overpowered.
 
Is it still better than the original unit? For example, can redcoats still at least beat riflemen with ease?
 
I believe that at the time these units are made available, an increase in production cost to build them wouldn't matter much. Especially since a lot of players simply upgrade to them.

With that being said, I think giving them an additional strength point would have a better compromise.
 
DarkSchneider said:
Why do game designers always proceed in this fashion? Why not raise the other UUs up a little bit to compete with the top 3?

Because if the quechua's and war chariots are as op as these 3, then no game would make it past the BC years.
 
They should have been reduced by 1 and also a small increase in cost, that would be more appropriate.
 
jimbob27 said:
Because if the quechua's and war chariots are as op as these 3, then no game would make it past the BC years.

I think the Quecha are always a good candidate to take down at least one computer Civilization, and if you're lucky you can get two. The AI almost always builds straight archers on Emporer difficulty and above. They also got a free combat I bonus, which they techincally had before, but at least they didn't get any worse with their leader losing Aggresive. I think they might even make the top 5 UUs now that the RedCoat and Cossack nerf is in.
 
dh_epic said:
Let me guess: your absolute favorite was the Praetorian?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178628

#1, #2, and #3 right there. Some people get attached to the path of least resistance and whine when they're forced to actually strategize :cry:

The point of having UUs is to allow different strategies with different Civs, by nerfing all of the UUs, they don't have much of an impact. Some UUs are essentially like having no UUs at all, which means there is no variation between Civs. Other units should have been upgraded, rather than just downgrading the RC and Cossack. Presonally, I am suprised, since the developers know that people would rather see poor units become more useful than the other way around.

Kind of reminds me of the story of Harrison Bergeron, although I'd be suprised if they let people read that story in schools anymore.
 
If the UUs get too powerful, then the person with the strongest UU always dominates. That's NOT balanced at all.

The idea behind a UU isn't that having one of them so powerful that they can mow through the opposition. The idea is that if you integrate a flock of them into a larger army, you'll have a significant advantage at a certain time.
 
How do Cossacks and Redcoats suck now? Cossacks got the worse of it, but +50% against mounted is useful when you're fighting a cavalry war. It means you have two units to counter your foes cavalry, riflemen and cossacks.

Redcoats are still very good. Their +25% gunpowder bonus means they still are good against everything in that era except cannons. The reduction of base strength means they aren't nearly as dominant but they're still an amazing do it all unit.
 
I love the way you tell a forum a unit is nerfed in strength but no one mentiosn other bonuses they got till like end of page 1. 50% against mounted is a huge bonus for cossacks. 25% against gunpowder units so so but useful. Although with churchill traits the nerf hardly matters. Its a late game unit for me anyway but useful.
 
Agreed, the Civ IV combat system is balanced in a way that even a tiny advantage for one unit over another means a decent winning percentage.

The old cossacks and redcoats started every battle with around a 75% winning chance against their era equivalents, and with every winning promotion these odds got bigger and bigger; with equal numbers you couldn't lose..with many less you'd probably still win, and with more it was almost patheticaly easy..as it is now both are still very useful, but no longer a "one unit beats all" which of course they're shouldn't be.
 
Before you cry too hard at the nerf, examine just about every other UU in the game. Most receive one of two things -- either a strength increase over the original unit (such as the Praetorian replacing the Swordsmen and gaining +2 strength) or a special ability (such as the Musketeer receiving an extra movement point or the Immortal getting a bonus against Archery units).

Now look at the original Cossack and Redcoat -- each received BOTH a nice strength increase AND a special ability. The only other units in the game that get this uber treatment? The Phalanx gets a 1 point strength increase and hills defense bonus, and the Skirmisher gets a 1 point strength increase and an extra first strike change.

The nerf was definitely needed -- these were the two most imbalanced units in the entire game. They are still great after the nerf, just more in line with the rest of the UUs rather than the dominating world beaters that they previously were.
 
Top Bottom