RedCoat and Cossack Nerf - Does It Go Too Far?

[MisterBarca]

Cossack was the only unit that would influence my gameplay. If my randomly selected leader was Cat or Peter then it was just a matter of building Cossacks early and often while I got to Astronomy (Play Fractal maps most of the time so sea transport is usually a necessity) then on to a domination victory. Yes, I think that they were nerfed a bit too hard. On the other hand, I'm indifferent to the UU concept other than adding a bit of color to the game. If you don't have the fundamentals in place no UU is going to win the game for you.

I agree. Cossacks are the only truly game-breaking UUs in the game, and in my opinion the strongest when all considerations are factored in. So I realize they needed a nerf. But the current nerf makes it one of the worst UUs.

 

[Pvblivs]

Raw combat utility isn't the only thing you put into the equation when you measure the effectiveness of an UU. As I have said, you also factor in the timing of the UU's appearance, as well as its longevity.

I can only ask you here to read all my lots of lots of comments on your comments ...

Every unit obsoletes very fast if you discover its tech late and the next faster.

The Roman Praetorian is only that powerful if Iron Working is a priority in the very beginning. The redcoat if you prioritize rifling, the cossack with fast military tradition and gunpowder.

Of course, if you want to have liberalism, economics etc. for all the free bees first you won't ever have much war with those unique units. But then I don't understand why you play England/Russia and bother about your weak units. Either you want superior military or not. If you want everything you might consider an easier difficulty level

A Praetorian rush is easily replaced with a Mace rush if you beeline for Civil Service instead. Thus one could argue that Praetorians might be pretty strong but very very useless after short because you always make the slingshot for Civil Service

Ok ... it isn't quite the same because a Praetorian isn't REALLY outdated with Civil Service. It's still strong enough in attack if you at least have some defenders for your vulnerable melee city attackers.

 

[drkodos]

Agreed. They were over-nerfed. As a general rule, it's better to boost weaker competitors than nerf a strong unit, because nerfs create unhappiness and nothing else.

I respectfully disagree.

The concept you are referring to is inflation. Inflation causes an artifical value bubble. It always makes more sense to bring the isolated one or two out-of-balance characters back down than it does to rise the 15 or more characters up. And it is less work as well.

 

[gdgrimm]

Well, since I don't have Warlords, I don't have much to contribute to this.

But is this 'complaint' similar to people saying things like "the Samurai is just a regular Macemen with a couple of first strikes". Which is fundamentally wrong. A Samurai starts with a Combat I (since only Toku can build them), so it's already stronger than a normal Macemen.

Likewise, with the advent of buildings that give a Cossack 2 extra experience, and/or English leader traits that automatically give Redcoats promotions that normal Riflemen don't get out of the gate, I'm not sure if I'll consider them nerfed down by much.

Yes, you'll actually have to work some strategy to warmonger with them as effectively as before (for example, fighting early and often to leverage the faster XP rate, or building some special buildings to boost the mounties' attack). But it used to be that even trying to play a peaceloving game meant being able to wipe out the planet with Cossacks. That's called being overpowered.

 

[dh_epic]

It always makes me laugh that people complain a lot more about nerfs than they do about boosts. People just like easy games, and people like the strategies they get used to. When something makes that strategy less profitable, they get upset.

Learn to adapt. I bet this new system is much more balanced -- Cossacks and Redcoats are way more in line with other UUs.

Every unit obsoletes very fast if you discover its tech late and the next faster.

The Roman Praetorian is only that powerful if Iron Working is a priority in the very beginning. The redcoat if you prioritize rifling, the cossack with fast military tradition and gunpowder.

This is one of the most important comments in the thread.

The great thing about Cossacks is that you can beeline to them through Education and Nationalism... and ultimately have Cossacks while others are still trying to build their first Muskets.

If you're having trouble winning with the more average UUs (e.g.: NOT praetorians), you're probably not playing as effectively as you should be.

 

[Wodan]

If you're having trouble winning with the more average UUs (e.g.: NOT praetorians), you're probably not playing as effectively as you should be.

I noticed that chopping has been nerfed even more. I think Praetorian fans are going to have more and more trouble with the ever more decreased chopping numbers plus increased cost of the Praets.

Either that, or they are going to have to load saves an awful lot, to keep their couple of Praets alive...

Wodan

 

[Pvblivs]

Nobody gets around combined arms and a little bit of luck.

I formyself am very happy that it isn't that easy to rush through civ with monotyped unit stacks anymore. (apart from modern armors )

I noticed that chopping has been nerfed even more. I think Praetorian fans are going to have more and more trouble with the ever more decreased chopping numbers plus increased cost of the Praets.

And this is what some people are replying again and again to such comments: The purpose of a good game is to having to think about a working strategy each time again.
And not to win with the same strategy everytime. Isn't that boring? Isn't the whole fun about civ that you always have lots of lots of options and that there is no killer method as there's an effective counter everywhere (equal tech and skill levels are assumed)?
Isn't the whole fun of it that every game can be hugely different even if you've the same goals as the games before?

What's the whole point of a game if you have a killer strategy that can always win a game easily?

 

[DigitalBoy]

Cossacks still receive a hefty +50% mounted boost, and Redcoats get a free Pinch promotion at a time in the game when gunpowder units become the most prevalent unit in the game. These units didn't need +2-3 strength to make them useful.

 

[acuoio]

I think a 10% rounded up boost to damage and a special ability is fair for every UU in the game.

 

[Pvblivs]

I think a 10% rounded up boost to damage and a special ability is fair for every UU in the game.

Well, that has to be discussed with Firaxis. And the special abilities would have to be balanced either. But that's not always the fact.

If you don't want to write a letter to Firaxis or Sid himself you may have to cope with the system as is or search a mod that already has such tweaks...

 

[Gogf]

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.

Why were they nerfed like this? Because nothing could kill them in their respective eras. Now rifles (the counter for cossacks) can kill them, and grenadiers (the counter for redcoats/rifles) can kill them. They both retain their special ability, but they are no longer vastly overpowered.

 

[Gogf]

I respectfully disagree.

The concept you are referring to is inflation. Inflation causes an artifical value bubble. It always makes more sense to bring the isolated one or two out-of-balance characters back down than it does to rise the 15 or more characters up. And it is less work as well.

Agreed. When in a situation like this, there are essentially two options:

1.) Make every unique unit so powerful that it cannot be killed by its counter. Make it so that the only thing that can kill a unique unit is another unique unit.
2.) "Nerf" the unique units so that their counter is still effective. It won't be vastly overpowered anymore, but the game will be more balanced.

Firaxis chose the second option.

 

[Gherald]

I believe Cossacks should be strength 16 (+1 over cavs) and Redcoats should be strength 15 (+1 over rifles).

But failing that, having them at equal strength is preferable to the pre-nerf ridiculousness.

 

[MookieNJ]

I believe Cossacks should be strength 16 (+1 over cavs) and Redcoats should be strength 15 (+1 over rifles).

Why? Nearly all the other units don't get the benefit of an awesome special ability AND a strength increase. As I previously stated:

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.

 

[Pantastic]

I think it's great that those UUs are finally balanced off, they aren't just an 'I win' button. What exactly was someone supposed to do to stop redcoats before this upgrade, go all the way down to infantry? Same thing with Cossacks.

Cossacks are still an awsome UU, because it's easy to beeline to Mt/GP and have your Cossacks taking cities long before anyone even has printing press (much less replaceable parts and rifling). Anyone else doing a cav rush gets stuck if their target develops cavalry of their own, but the cossacks eat vanilla cavalry for lunch.

 

[jimbob27]

I'm happy with the nerf. I just wish preatorians had gone down to strength 7 as well.

All of the english and russian leaders already have good traits. Giving them good traits and a great UU just made them stupidly powerful.

I'm a monarch/emporer player with the majority of civs, however I can beat diety with either of these 3 civs. That just shows how broken they were.

They were enough of a boost to allow me to play 2 difficulty levels above where I should be. I just wish the preatorians had the same treatment. Making them more expensive isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference, as you only need about 4 of them to destroy a civ.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Personally, I always thought the counter to Cossacks and Red Coats was... tanks. Tanks worked for me against Catherine's all Cossack army anyway. I thought the idea of an UU was to give that Civilization an advantage during the time period that was thought of as the high-water mark for that Civilization.

On a personal note I am dissapointed because I wanted to try a game with the english (Imperial, Financial) and now I cannot look forward to getting a UU with them. Inevitably, when I get riflemen, the computer has muskets, but doesn't mass produce them, opting for Longbowmen instead. At the point they get riflemen, I have infantry, which makes the Redcoat 'special' ability entirely useless.

Personally, I wish they could have taken away the +25% to gunpowder instead of the straight up strength. Even riflemen get tired when attacking ridiculously fortified hill cities with promoted longbowmen.

 

[dh_epic]

Personally, I always thought the counter to Cossacks and Red Coats was... tanks. Tanks worked for me against Catherine's all Cossack army anyway.

The counter to an ENLIGHTENMENT era unit is supposed to come MORE than one full era later!

Sorry, I'm trying to say this without sounding condescending. I guess we just have different ideas of what a fair game is.

 

[Pvblivs]

Personally, I wish they could have taken away the +25% to gunpowder instead of the straight up strength. Even riflemen get tired when attacking ridiculously fortified hill cities with promoted longbowmen.

Reads like you have to overthink the difficulty you normally play on. A significant tech lead of a whole era (like whole renaissance) sounds like you need a step up. Where's the challenge otherwise?

Then maybe you'll have use for redcoats

 

[Wodan]

The purpose of a good game is to having to think about a working strategy each time again.
And not to win with the same strategy everytime. Isn't that boring? Isn't the whole fun about civ that you always have lots of lots of options and that there is no killer method as there's an effective counter everywhere (equal tech and skill levels are assumed)?
Isn't the whole fun of it that every game can be hugely different even if you've the same goals as the games before?

What's the whole point of a game if you have a killer strategy that can always win a game easily?

Amen, brother. All that needed to be said again.

Wodan