futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
so you go to war ancient/classical and then wait until the industrial era to go to war again?!?!
Resolved: The Ballista Elephant Is the Crappiest UU in the Game
- Thread starter bovinespy
- Start date
so you go to war ancient/classical and then wait until the industrial era to go to war again?!?!
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
I don't think it's fair to consider traits of ub's separately, for the same reason why I don't think jaguar warriors are that weak.
Shaka's also strong because he's expansive and gets half priced granaries.
Cavalry are a time to war, partially because it's much faster. I like grinding people down with maces and catapults, but it is slower.
Shaka's also strong because he's expansive and gets half priced granaries.
Cavalry are a time to war, partially because it's much faster. I like grinding people down with maces and catapults, but it is slower.
BYC
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 206
Keshiks are quite amazing, IMO. I always target the metal source, and then nothing really stops them that well. With the Ger, they can easily upgrade to match up against spears. Don't forget they have 1 first strike.
The biggest disadvantage is having to research Horseback Riding, but with Mongols, it's unavoidable. Once they win even one battle, it really snowballs against the opponent from my experience.
The biggest disadvantage is having to research Horseback Riding, but with Mongols, it's unavoidable. Once they win even one battle, it really snowballs against the opponent from my experience.
futurehermit:
Originally posted by me:
Meaning that excepting the influence of the Ger itself, the period in which it is active doesn't appear to me to be especially favorable for waging war.
BYC:
If you had normal Horse Archers and a Ger, you could probably pull off much the same strategem. If the Mongols had, say, any other land unique unit, would it improve their machinery? I believe so, even if it's the Ballista Elephant.
madscientist:
Depends on what you mean by "early war machine." Certainly, the Mongols aren't better for an Axe Rush or a Swordsman Rush than, say, the Aztecs. Their unique unit won't even be on the field in the preClassical period, and the Ger/Stable is something of an expensive building for an Aggressive Civ to be indulging in at that stage, when it should be building Barracks and Melee units.
Overall, I also don't find them THE top dog Civ for dominating in war, even though war is one of their strong suits.
It'll depends on your game settings, though.
Originally posted by me:
Meaning that excepting the influence of the Ger itself, the period in which it is active doesn't appear to me to be especially favorable for waging war.
BYC:
If you had normal Horse Archers and a Ger, you could probably pull off much the same strategem. If the Mongols had, say, any other land unique unit, would it improve their machinery? I believe so, even if it's the Ballista Elephant.
madscientist:
Depends on what you mean by "early war machine." Certainly, the Mongols aren't better for an Axe Rush or a Swordsman Rush than, say, the Aztecs. Their unique unit won't even be on the field in the preClassical period, and the Ger/Stable is something of an expensive building for an Aggressive Civ to be indulging in at that stage, when it should be building Barracks and Melee units.
Overall, I also don't find them THE top dog Civ for dominating in war, even though war is one of their strong suits.
It'll depends on your game settings, though.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
By early war machine I am talking about the Pre-gunpowder era. Yes, I consider them better than the Aztecs.
I don't consider pre-Gunpowder to be much of "early" war since you can do a heck of a lot of warring with a lot of tech for a large proportion of all Civs in that time period. By this definition, pretty much every Civ has incentives to wage war "early." Indeed, lots of Space Race games depend only on such "early" war and I don't feel that it does enough justice to the Ages of the game to be so cavalier about what "early" means.
In terms of "early" war, I don't think that the Mongols really can hold a candle to the rushing tactics of the Aztecs and the Incas, who both can potentially wrap up a game, sometimes well beyond the native skill of the player, just by using the strength of the unit and a prepackaged build order. No skill involved, just a recipe and the Civ's properties itself.
It'll be hard to argue that that kind of potential impact isn't strong. The Mongols do not have this kind of power.
In the Classical era, both Boudica and the Romans are also quite strong. Imperialistic both, Organized or Industrious for Aggressive or Creative? Keshik for Praetorians and Ger for Rathaus? I rather think that the Roman is the stronger wartime Civ, generally speaking. Organized with Rathaus is just extremely good for keeping down the costs of expensive wartime Civics and for carrying out further wars with longer lasting gains.
Not that I don't think that the Mongols are great in war, but I just don't see where the failure of Aggressive to synch up with the UU and the UB, plus the cost and the dead-end nature of both UU and UB tech can be all that great a synergy.
I think that if you have successes in wars with the Mongols, it's due to your own inherent skill in the game, inspite of the weaknesses of the Civ involved.
In terms of "early" war, I don't think that the Mongols really can hold a candle to the rushing tactics of the Aztecs and the Incas, who both can potentially wrap up a game, sometimes well beyond the native skill of the player, just by using the strength of the unit and a prepackaged build order. No skill involved, just a recipe and the Civ's properties itself.
It'll be hard to argue that that kind of potential impact isn't strong. The Mongols do not have this kind of power.
In the Classical era, both Boudica and the Romans are also quite strong. Imperialistic both, Organized or Industrious for Aggressive or Creative? Keshik for Praetorians and Ger for Rathaus? I rather think that the Roman is the stronger wartime Civ, generally speaking. Organized with Rathaus is just extremely good for keeping down the costs of expensive wartime Civics and for carrying out further wars with longer lasting gains.
Not that I don't think that the Mongols are great in war, but I just don't see where the failure of Aggressive to synch up with the UU and the UB, plus the cost and the dead-end nature of both UU and UB tech can be all that great a synergy.
I think that if you have successes in wars with the Mongols, it's due to your own inherent skill in the game, inspite of the weaknesses of the Civ involved.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
The way I view the Mongols is versatility, paticularly Ghengis. Agressive trait for better melee units, UU and UB that give the best overall mounted units, Imperialistic for GG production. Three different directions the great Kahn can take, all at the same time assuming resources are available. The point is that the UU and UB DO NOT sync with the Agressive trait.
Nothing stands to the Prats pre-machinery I agree, but once the Mongol get machinery (Crossbows, one tech from Maces) Rome fall behind. The Prats get no advantages (no +10% versus cities like swordsmen, are more expensive, and are not maces meaning they get no +50% versus melee units). Remember, a newly built Mongol axeman can take shock which beats a newly built combat I Prat (5 * 1.85 versus 8 *1.1), and they both are imperialistic so the GG advantage is null. Rome is NOT agressive and the Mongol are which is a BIG advantage in war. Also mongol Keshiks, as I mentioned earlier, can better take out Roman resources than vice-versa. Don't get me wrong, I love the Roman leaders, but their stengthes are not limited to war, while the Mongols are.
I also love Montezuma, but the UU can be easily defeated with axes. Monty's UU is great but not a real monster in fighting. The Jaguar is very situational, requires IW (buit not iron) so chances are any opponent has axes or chariots to counter. The jaguars are great for fast, mass produced units via the UB, giving them woddsman II and III promotions.
The Incans dominate unit an AI has copper, no question on that. But they are no longer agressive like Vanilla and fall behind in war abilities compared with other civs. Nothing against the incans who I consider the strongest CIV in the game.
The Rathus is for Charlemange and the HOLY romans (as opposed to the caesars or Byzantines, go figure), But I agree he is very tough in the middle ages with well promoted long/crossbows and a nasty UU. I consider Charlemange the biggest threat to the Mongols.
Finally, I view a great war-machine as not a quick early rush (hell Ghadi can do that since he start with mining) but being able to continually make war through several ages for victory.
Nothing stands to the Prats pre-machinery I agree, but once the Mongol get machinery (Crossbows, one tech from Maces) Rome fall behind. The Prats get no advantages (no +10% versus cities like swordsmen, are more expensive, and are not maces meaning they get no +50% versus melee units). Remember, a newly built Mongol axeman can take shock which beats a newly built combat I Prat (5 * 1.85 versus 8 *1.1), and they both are imperialistic so the GG advantage is null. Rome is NOT agressive and the Mongol are which is a BIG advantage in war. Also mongol Keshiks, as I mentioned earlier, can better take out Roman resources than vice-versa. Don't get me wrong, I love the Roman leaders, but their stengthes are not limited to war, while the Mongols are.
I also love Montezuma, but the UU can be easily defeated with axes. Monty's UU is great but not a real monster in fighting. The Jaguar is very situational, requires IW (buit not iron) so chances are any opponent has axes or chariots to counter. The jaguars are great for fast, mass produced units via the UB, giving them woddsman II and III promotions.
The Incans dominate unit an AI has copper, no question on that. But they are no longer agressive like Vanilla and fall behind in war abilities compared with other civs. Nothing against the incans who I consider the strongest CIV in the game.
The Rathus is for Charlemange and the HOLY romans (as opposed to the caesars or Byzantines, go figure), But I agree he is very tough in the middle ages with well promoted long/crossbows and a nasty UU. I consider Charlemange the biggest threat to the Mongols.
Finally, I view a great war-machine as not a quick early rush (hell Ghadi can do that since he start with mining) but being able to continually make war through several ages for victory.
ShunNakamura
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 246
Time to defend th Keshik. Even though I really f'ed up the rush I still had five Keshiks running around taking Saladins cities[protective opponent yet to boot] at 1600 BC[all with 2 promotions thanks to barracks and ger]. Took the Buddhist holy city of Mecca with no loses thanks to 50% withdrawal. Razed another city with in a turn with a specially promoted Keshik for that one city that got to the front lines in 4 turns easy[and it was a city with no roads connecting it. I would not have taken the forested and hilly city of mecca if it wasn't for the fact that my Keshiks got to his city before he could get reinforcements from it[that one turn the keshiks naturally mobility saved me allowed me to just beat an archer horde coming to reinforce the city].
And as I said this was a messed up rush. I forgot I needed archery.
madscientist:
Re: versatility
The thing is, you have to have a good economy in order to wage a good war. Without the money and the resources to finance a late Classical Age war, you might as well not venture forth. I know I made that mistake when I overextended as the Great Khan himself and promptly imploded under the economic strain.
With no advantages in building Wonders or in building, well, pretty much anything other than Barracks, the Mongols can fall rapidly behind before the late Classical Age unless you're wielding some map-dependent or skill-dependent advantage that you have over your MP opponents or the AI, in which case the "versatility" you will enjoy as the Mongols are simply an expression of your superior economic management skill.
Arrayed against Genghis Khan's Aggressive/Imperialistic is either Organized/Imperialistic or Industrious/Imperialistic. With a warmongering mindset, these translate directly into solid and sustainable gains for the war machine.
Once you've gotten to Machinery, the Romans will have put their other trait to some useful purpose as a buildup, plus the undeniable advantage they have with Praetorians. You simply choose the Wonder advantage, or choose a few cities' advantage (for Organized). Either one results in palpable gains in the war machine.
It's true that the Romans' advantages do not end in war, but they also do not end with the onset of war. Even during war, their Organized and Industrious traits offer them advantages, all the more apparent from the uses they've gotten out of them prior to the "onset" of Mongolian power.
A war machine is not simply units and unit possibilities ranged against each other, but also the economic advantages that can be expressed as those units which you send to war. It goes without saying that a thousand city Civ will crush a 1 city Civ militarily, even with a substantial tech and promotion advantage for the one city, and we thus say that the war machinery of the Thousand City Civ is stronger. The advantage of the Roman machinery over the Mongol one is subtler than that, but it is there nonetheless.
Re: Montezuma
The fact that Jaguars can be defeated with Axes is ameliorated by the fact that they don't require Iron to be built, so come online faster than your normal Swordsmen, and can usually be therefore built in greater numbers and with less improvement infrastructure. They're an effective UU for war, in a Civ that's built for it, with a timing and potency that's undeniable. Let's not forget that Aztecs don't have any trouble building Axes themselves to break Axemen-only defenses, common enough at that early a date, and their Aggressive trait gives them the edge against most Civs on Axe vs. Axe battles.
In the same way, Keshiks can also be countered by Spears, but I don't say that that statement alone and unqualified is enough to render them useless.
I'd say that definitely, the Aztec war machine overall and "preGunpowder" on the whole is a stronger one. If we only consider the period past the strength of the Aztec and going into the strength of the Mongol, then inevitably the Mongol will be favored, but that's a skewed comparison if I ever saw one.
I, as well, which is why I don't consider the Mongols to be a particularly strong wartime Civ. There are other Civs with greater impact on the preClassical and Classical periods, and still others with greater impact afterwards. Definitely, anytime after Gunpowder, Tokugawa is a monster. Heck, he's plenty tough as a warmonger even before Gunpowder.
On the whole, their wartime package is okay, but not all that.
If the changes to their UU were made to the Knight rather than to the Horse Archer, I could see a slightly stronger Mongol Civ, and a more historically accurate appearance of their UU. Really, whoever heard of a Mongol Horde with Light Charger cavalry AND Heavy Armored Cavalry but NO Horse Archers?!?!? Preposterous.
A Knight with Mobility and First Strike would be a formidable UU.
ShunNakamura:
The Keshik ability only mattered to you for just that one city in your entire campaign? That's quite sorry indeed. And it's a highly situational incident to boot.
Re: versatility
The thing is, you have to have a good economy in order to wage a good war. Without the money and the resources to finance a late Classical Age war, you might as well not venture forth. I know I made that mistake when I overextended as the Great Khan himself and promptly imploded under the economic strain.
With no advantages in building Wonders or in building, well, pretty much anything other than Barracks, the Mongols can fall rapidly behind before the late Classical Age unless you're wielding some map-dependent or skill-dependent advantage that you have over your MP opponents or the AI, in which case the "versatility" you will enjoy as the Mongols are simply an expression of your superior economic management skill.
Arrayed against Genghis Khan's Aggressive/Imperialistic is either Organized/Imperialistic or Industrious/Imperialistic. With a warmongering mindset, these translate directly into solid and sustainable gains for the war machine.
Once you've gotten to Machinery, the Romans will have put their other trait to some useful purpose as a buildup, plus the undeniable advantage they have with Praetorians. You simply choose the Wonder advantage, or choose a few cities' advantage (for Organized). Either one results in palpable gains in the war machine.
It's true that the Romans' advantages do not end in war, but they also do not end with the onset of war. Even during war, their Organized and Industrious traits offer them advantages, all the more apparent from the uses they've gotten out of them prior to the "onset" of Mongolian power.
A war machine is not simply units and unit possibilities ranged against each other, but also the economic advantages that can be expressed as those units which you send to war. It goes without saying that a thousand city Civ will crush a 1 city Civ militarily, even with a substantial tech and promotion advantage for the one city, and we thus say that the war machinery of the Thousand City Civ is stronger. The advantage of the Roman machinery over the Mongol one is subtler than that, but it is there nonetheless.
Re: Montezuma
The fact that Jaguars can be defeated with Axes is ameliorated by the fact that they don't require Iron to be built, so come online faster than your normal Swordsmen, and can usually be therefore built in greater numbers and with less improvement infrastructure. They're an effective UU for war, in a Civ that's built for it, with a timing and potency that's undeniable. Let's not forget that Aztecs don't have any trouble building Axes themselves to break Axemen-only defenses, common enough at that early a date, and their Aggressive trait gives them the edge against most Civs on Axe vs. Axe battles.
In the same way, Keshiks can also be countered by Spears, but I don't say that that statement alone and unqualified is enough to render them useless.
I'd say that definitely, the Aztec war machine overall and "preGunpowder" on the whole is a stronger one. If we only consider the period past the strength of the Aztec and going into the strength of the Mongol, then inevitably the Mongol will be favored, but that's a skewed comparison if I ever saw one.
I, as well, which is why I don't consider the Mongols to be a particularly strong wartime Civ. There are other Civs with greater impact on the preClassical and Classical periods, and still others with greater impact afterwards. Definitely, anytime after Gunpowder, Tokugawa is a monster. Heck, he's plenty tough as a warmonger even before Gunpowder.
On the whole, their wartime package is okay, but not all that.
If the changes to their UU were made to the Knight rather than to the Horse Archer, I could see a slightly stronger Mongol Civ, and a more historically accurate appearance of their UU. Really, whoever heard of a Mongol Horde with Light Charger cavalry AND Heavy Armored Cavalry but NO Horse Archers?!?!? Preposterous.
A Knight with Mobility and First Strike would be a formidable UU.
ShunNakamura:
The Keshik ability only mattered to you for just that one city in your entire campaign? That's quite sorry indeed. And it's a highly situational incident to boot.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I will agree on that about the Romans. They definitely have alot more going for them as far as building a civilization and actually winning the game.
I think the key to the Mongols (and I have shown this in a previous thread), is very agressive, early, continued warmongering with LIMITED city expansion. Like Ghengis did, the mongol have to raze alot of cities to limit to maintenance but increase the income.
Also, the mongols start with no CIVILIZED abilities but doesn't mean they cannot do that anyway, they just get no assistance (I won a space race with Ghengis after early warring on 2 close AIs). The key is the simple cottage economy.
I am not sold on the Aztecs, fun to play, but not in either the Mongol or Roman league.
AS far as post-gunpowder I agree with Tokugawa being the best, with honorable mention to Churchhill's redcoats and stock exchanges.
Shunkamura makes a very valid point on the Keshiks scouting abilities, something often overlooked but very important. Spies also work for this purpose.
I think the key to the Mongols (and I have shown this in a previous thread), is very agressive, early, continued warmongering with LIMITED city expansion. Like Ghengis did, the mongol have to raze alot of cities to limit to maintenance but increase the income.
Also, the mongols start with no CIVILIZED abilities but doesn't mean they cannot do that anyway, they just get no assistance (I won a space race with Ghengis after early warring on 2 close AIs). The key is the simple cottage economy.
I am not sold on the Aztecs, fun to play, but not in either the Mongol or Roman league.
AS far as post-gunpowder I agree with Tokugawa being the best, with honorable mention to Churchhill's redcoats and stock exchanges.
Shunkamura makes a very valid point on the Keshiks scouting abilities, something often overlooked but very important. Spies also work for this purpose.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I don't understand how anyone can consider the period of the Ger to not be a good time to be going to war. War elephants? Maces? Trebuchets? Cavalry?!?!
madscientist:
I'd agree that limited city acquisition is the key to Mongol wins, but that also ultimately makes them weaker in that they can't consolidate gains as well as other Civs can. Aztecs, with their Slavery build advantages, can build Sacrificial Altars across their lands lickety-split, and without the need to connect these cities to Iron, they can reinforce their Jags from conquered cities more readily than the Mongols can.
It's also not true that Genghis Khan historically razed a lot of cities. Arguably, Alexander the Great razed more. The thing is, he was a master of diplomacy and war psychology, so people thought that he was well capable of doing so, when he really only razed a couple cities this way. Many more were simply ordered to move elsewhere, not razed to the ground. The latter wars fought by the Mongols with the Song and Jin kingdoms was far more bloody and I don't think it was because they razed any major cities of note.
Indeed, subsequent Mongol rule brought widespread peace and prosperity for Asia on the whole, due to their management and maintenance of the Silk Road, a fact for which their legacy is admired by many peoples west of the Chinese border.
As an administrative genius, Genghis Khan really ought to be Organized and Imperialistic, since the Mongols were never really noted for having exceptional infantry at any stage of their preeminence.
I don't overlook the advantages Keshik present for scouting purposes, but this advantage is small, considering that you ought to have spies in place for this purpose anyways. Do you use spies to incite Revolt in cities you want to conquer quickly? Sure you do. As any Civ. No particular advantage for the Keshik there.
Any particularly useful role you can think for the Keshik is either because of the Civ traits or the influence of the UB. In itself, the unit is unremarkable, IMO the worst land-based UU in the game.
futurehermit:]
It's situational. I don't consider it a good time to go to war if I have Cavalry and the enemy has Infantry and Tanks or is part of 4 Civ Defensive Pact. It depends.
I'd agree that limited city acquisition is the key to Mongol wins, but that also ultimately makes them weaker in that they can't consolidate gains as well as other Civs can. Aztecs, with their Slavery build advantages, can build Sacrificial Altars across their lands lickety-split, and without the need to connect these cities to Iron, they can reinforce their Jags from conquered cities more readily than the Mongols can.
It's also not true that Genghis Khan historically razed a lot of cities. Arguably, Alexander the Great razed more. The thing is, he was a master of diplomacy and war psychology, so people thought that he was well capable of doing so, when he really only razed a couple cities this way. Many more were simply ordered to move elsewhere, not razed to the ground. The latter wars fought by the Mongols with the Song and Jin kingdoms was far more bloody and I don't think it was because they razed any major cities of note.
Indeed, subsequent Mongol rule brought widespread peace and prosperity for Asia on the whole, due to their management and maintenance of the Silk Road, a fact for which their legacy is admired by many peoples west of the Chinese border.
As an administrative genius, Genghis Khan really ought to be Organized and Imperialistic, since the Mongols were never really noted for having exceptional infantry at any stage of their preeminence.
I don't overlook the advantages Keshik present for scouting purposes, but this advantage is small, considering that you ought to have spies in place for this purpose anyways. Do you use spies to incite Revolt in cities you want to conquer quickly? Sure you do. As any Civ. No particular advantage for the Keshik there.
Any particularly useful role you can think for the Keshik is either because of the Civ traits or the influence of the UB. In itself, the unit is unremarkable, IMO the worst land-based UU in the game.
futurehermit:]
It's situational. I don't consider it a good time to go to war if I have Cavalry and the enemy has Infantry and Tanks or is part of 4 Civ Defensive Pact. It depends.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
See, that's where I disagree. If you're waging war with Keshik and it really is the front of a war worth fighting, then you should be building roads to the front to bring ALL your war machine to bear, not just your Horse Archers, and in that event, the Keshik doesn't have much of an advantage over regular Horse Archers, and they're less capable at taking cities because they're not immune to First Strike.
A "proper Mongol Keshik" is an expression of the power of the Ger, not the power of the Keshik itself as a unit. You must differentiate where the power is coming from.
That's why I consider them inferior to Ballista Elephants. At least with Ballista Elephants, you actually get a unit that's unmistakably more powerful than the base unit, even though the situation can be uncommon because of the rarity of Ivory, and the requirement of enemy mounted units.
A Keshik isn't all better than a Horse Archer. In some ways, it's worse, and the use of its power is highly questionable as a solid advantage.
Would a "proper" Mongol Keshik really lose all that much potency if it were a Horse Archer instead? I think not.
A "proper Mongol Keshik" is an expression of the power of the Ger, not the power of the Keshik itself as a unit. You must differentiate where the power is coming from.
That's why I consider them inferior to Ballista Elephants. At least with Ballista Elephants, you actually get a unit that's unmistakably more powerful than the base unit, even though the situation can be uncommon because of the rarity of Ivory, and the requirement of enemy mounted units.
A Keshik isn't all better than a Horse Archer. In some ways, it's worse, and the use of its power is highly questionable as a solid advantage.
Would a "proper" Mongol Keshik really lose all that much potency if it were a Horse Archer instead? I think not.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
Except a normal horse archer cannot use enmy roads while the Kshik can go over any terrain as well as retreat to safty easier, thus extending it's life for higher promotions. Bring all the army you want, reinforcements are always needed, and Keshiks ar ethe fastest to get there.
There is no increased power number, no free promotion, no extra first strike. It's power is immunity to terrain, particularly important in the early days of HB.
And how is it WORSE than a horse archer, that makes no sense.
The roads are on YOUR cultural borders, or on neutral ground. It makes no sense to be conquering cities far within the cultural borders of a civ that early. you usually work your way through the external cities first. When HA type units are attacking in enemy territory, the best refuge is your stack, which itself doesn't have Mobility, so its placement should rarely be of concern when a retreating HA type unit is involved. With few exceptions, the Mobility promotion won't matter much in reinforcing a stack, because that stack is generally moving through easy terrain anyways, or in close proximity to such. Thus, I don't see it as particularly important.
If it's early in the Classical Age, I really would rather invest in Barracks and melee units and siege equipment rather than in HBR, Ger, and Keshik. Later in the day, the terrain doesn't matter as much.
It is worse than a Horse Archer because it doesn't have immunity to First Strikes, which can be important when you're up against Protective Civs. It even matters when you're not playing against such, because the usual Archery unit defenses natively have First Strikes. Thus, the normal HA can be a better city attacker once the siege equipment has done its job, and is less vulnerable to an Archer sortie against it.
At this point, I'm just thinking that you simply go out of your way to use the unit's Mobility however you can when you play it, without really thinking about whether it would have mattered one way or the other.
If it's early in the Classical Age, I really would rather invest in Barracks and melee units and siege equipment rather than in HBR, Ger, and Keshik. Later in the day, the terrain doesn't matter as much.
It is worse than a Horse Archer because it doesn't have immunity to First Strikes, which can be important when you're up against Protective Civs. It even matters when you're not playing against such, because the usual Archery unit defenses natively have First Strikes. Thus, the normal HA can be a better city attacker once the siege equipment has done its job, and is less vulnerable to an Archer sortie against it.
At this point, I'm just thinking that you simply go out of your way to use the unit's Mobility however you can when you play it, without really thinking about whether it would have mattered one way or the other.
bovinespy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 310
Wow! This thread is still going. Cool. Really nice discussion you guys have going here. I'm not going to go back through several pages of posts and address them all, so let me just jump in here at the end of the last post:
That's kinda the point of using a "unique" unit, isn't it?
Now, I wouldn't argue with your general disparagement of the relative value of the Keshik. Personally, I think they're right down there with the Jaguar and the Ballista Elephant in that select group of "Crappiest UU's".
However, even though I've never played a full game (or anywhere close to that) with the Mongols in BtS, I have encountered many situations where I'm well into enemy territory, and I can see a couple of Archers or maybe an Axe or two trodding their way to join the defense of a city outside of which my SoD is currently parked. I would much prefer to butcher them on open ground than wait until they can join their brethren behind those cosy city walls. I have Mounted units with me, but alas - the only way I can get to them is through a forest or over a hill. Rats. I'm out of luck. Unless... I have Keshiks. I realize that this is also a highly situational advantage, but IME, it's a situation that happens a lot more frequently than needing to beat up on Mounted units in an AI's SoD (re: the crappiness of the subject of the OP, the Ballista Elephant). Apparently, YMMV.
I also agree that it's a highly ahistorical unit, much worse than the Praetorian, which is merely poorly labelled. I think that the Keshik should definitely be a Kinght-replacement, which would also put it in a more appropriate time frame.
Finally, I also agree that Genghis gets kind of an unfair rap. He was a brilliant administrator, innovator, and co-ordinator. I could deal with Imp/Org for a traits combo, though I think Cha/Org might be even better (think of his efforts in unifying the tribes of Mongolia before starting out on his conquests). However, while he certainly didn't raze every city he captured, it only takes one Merv here and another Nishapur there for him to be fairly described as one of history's greatest butchers. Still a brilliant leader, though.
That's kinda the point of using a "unique" unit, isn't it?
Now, I wouldn't argue with your general disparagement of the relative value of the Keshik. Personally, I think they're right down there with the Jaguar and the Ballista Elephant in that select group of "Crappiest UU's".
However, even though I've never played a full game (or anywhere close to that) with the Mongols in BtS, I have encountered many situations where I'm well into enemy territory, and I can see a couple of Archers or maybe an Axe or two trodding their way to join the defense of a city outside of which my SoD is currently parked. I would much prefer to butcher them on open ground than wait until they can join their brethren behind those cosy city walls. I have Mounted units with me, but alas - the only way I can get to them is through a forest or over a hill. Rats. I'm out of luck. Unless... I have Keshiks. I realize that this is also a highly situational advantage, but IME, it's a situation that happens a lot more frequently than needing to beat up on Mounted units in an AI's SoD (re: the crappiness of the subject of the OP, the Ballista Elephant). Apparently, YMMV.
I also agree that it's a highly ahistorical unit, much worse than the Praetorian, which is merely poorly labelled. I think that the Keshik should definitely be a Kinght-replacement, which would also put it in a more appropriate time frame.
Finally, I also agree that Genghis gets kind of an unfair rap. He was a brilliant administrator, innovator, and co-ordinator. I could deal with Imp/Org for a traits combo, though I think Cha/Org might be even better (think of his efforts in unifying the tribes of Mongolia before starting out on his conquests). However, while he certainly didn't raze every city he captured, it only takes one Merv here and another Nishapur there for him to be fairly described as one of history's greatest butchers. Still a brilliant leader, though.
Personally, I still don't think that his appellation as a butcher is at all fair. Sure, he put entire cities to the sword, but that was when they resisted his armies. For the most part, much of the "conquests" he did was simply to march to the city gates and demand homage and tribute. Since he made a practice of demanding surrender and NOT abusing the city much after, as a conqueror, he actually had something of a small footprint in many parts of Central Asia, as far as war and death were concerned.
Alexander was at least as ruthless as he was, and Alexander also put entire cities of people to the sword. For that matter, the conquest by the Europeans of the North American continent pretty much resulted in near complete genocide, relatively speaking. So I don't think we have much of a leg to stand on in calling the Great Khan a butcher.
Alexander was at least as ruthless as he was, and Alexander also put entire cities of people to the sword. For that matter, the conquest by the Europeans of the North American continent pretty much resulted in near complete genocide, relatively speaking. So I don't think we have much of a leg to stand on in calling the Great Khan a butcher.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
Yup, Genhis was a cool bloke, no doubt about it. Imagine ruling a whole, vast empire without cell phones, eh?
And he started only with his own small tribe, as a kid, and already having a powerful enemy to deal with. Temujin was his name, and it was to fool and avoid bad spirits. Seems like he did that
...Firaxis, please do something to improve Imperialistic soon, ok? Ok?
And he started only with his own small tribe, as a kid, and already having a powerful enemy to deal with. Temujin was his name, and it was to fool and avoid bad spirits. Seems like he did that
...Firaxis, please do something to improve Imperialistic soon, ok? Ok?
