Russia - the most overnerfed civ in the game! Should it be improved?

[peter450]

well if cav's an cossacks had a str of 16 i guess both units would, be a little tougher, i can see merrit in both arguments to be honest, and i might just change the str to 16 an see how it goes

 

[Wodan]

Wodan when you say that pikemen are efficient (defensive) counters for cavalry and longbowman to grenadiers, you're only speaking theoretically.

Not really. Response below.

In the real game, you ought to have a decent army on the field if you're attacked,

Yes. If you're that far behind in # of units, it should be readily apparent.

true you can whip longbowmen easily, but you can only whip one per turn

1 per turn per city.

If you get DOWed, then there are three possibilities:
1) you had a city only 2 tiles away from the border, and that's where the invading stack appears.
2) The invading stack was dropped by Transports which moved in and unloaded all in the same turn.
3) You have 2+ turns of warning before a stack is able to move to your city.

Answers:
1) You only have 1 turn to whip and/or move units into that city. In this case, you should have had a significant defense force there already. If you didn't, shame on you, and that has nothing to do with Pikemen vs Cossacks.
2) This is harder to prepare against, especially on a water-heavy map. However, you should be aware the danger exists, and should have a medium sized garrison in all coastal cities. In addition, it's not a bad idea to leave caravels as a picket line so that you see incoming fleets. Also, getting espionage LOS into a likely enemy (Shaka, Ragnar, etc) is useful, because you can check his cities every turn and you know when the fleet leaves its home port. Regardless, again, if you don't take some sort of precautions, then shame on you.
3) You can whip in multiple cities as well as move already built units to rally a huge force of pikes and longbows to the threatened city.

and that is not effective against grenadiers.

Longbows are not effective against Grenadiers? Why do you think so?

The best result you would obtain is delaying the fall of your city of another turn while helping your enemy to damage your cities.

I think you're speaking theoretically. If you took precautions as I suggested above, which in a real game you should do because you know you're vulnerable, then you will be fine.

On the other hand, if you were fielding a decent number of longbows (as many as you need to effectively stop grenadiers) before the attack, then you were paying twice or more the support in gold for your army than your enemy.

This is a good point but that's the price you pay. On the other hand, you are fighting on your home ground and your enemy will be paying a huge maintenance cost while they're invading.

Also, I don't think this is true vs AIs. I believe that AIs don't pay home unit maintenance cost at all. Blake posted this in one of his mod threads.

I wouldn't call this an efficient counter/tactic, it sounds more like an emergency strategy that is not even sure to work.

That's exactly what it is.

The same is true of any invasion defense, whether pikes vs cossacks or rifles vs cossacks. You're going to have to rush units there. And it might not work.

My main problem with your and Orange point about beelining for Riflemen is that the topic is "Russia - the most overnerfed civ in the game!", where one of the reasons why Orange thinks Russia has been nerfed is that Cossacks now require Rifling, but Rifling enables Riflemen which greately undermine the importance of Cossacks, so it is better to just skip Cossacks alltogether since Riflemen come 2 techs earlier (this is what I gathered, correct me if I am wrong). Now my only objection to this, from the beginning, has been that the topic is general, and when you have to come down to decide, or "judge", if a civ has been overnerfed, you must consider all aspects of the game and not just one or some (for example consider that your opponent may be a human player not the necessarily the AI). But in the end in all your replies you only speak of beelining Rifling, as if it's the "universal strategy".

I think we got focused on beelining because that is where there was disagrement. Naturally, discussion focused on that point.

Certainly there are many strategies. We can talk about any of them that you like. Once we have discussed all the different strategies, we can, as you say, make some attempt to decide or judge whether Russia is overnerfed.

But first, are we done with the beeline question?

Wodan

 

[MrCynical]

Also, I don't think this is true vs AIs. I believe that AIs don't pay home unit maintenance cost at all. Blake posted this in one of his mod threads.

This doesn't agree with either the code or worldbuilder - the AI does pay unit maintenance in the same way as the human player (albeit a somewhat reduced amount at the levels above Noble).

 

[Wodan]

I couldn't say. (Except that just because there is contingency code, doesn't mean there isn't an assignment to zero somewhere else. With a programming team, one guy may have coded his section one way, and then either a team decision came down or else simply the guy who made AI/skill levels decisions chose to implement it in the simplest way possible. Perfectly reasonable.)

I can say, however, that in some games I have seen the AI with a truly horrendous amount of units in it's home territory (multiple cities with 50+ garrison units each). So, either the unit maintenance is zero, as I recall Blake saying (I fully admit my memory may be faulty), or else it is drastically reduced (especially at levels above Noble, which is where I play). These two things amount to the same gameplay effect, really (except on levels below Noble).

Wodan

 

[onedreamer]

This is a good point but that's the price you pay. On the other hand, you are fighting on your home ground and your enemy will be paying a huge maintenance cost while they're invading.

(just for the sake of clarity): true but I was speaking of a pre-war scenario. If you are planning to build a sufficient defensive force with Longbows vs Grenadiers, it means you're paying more than your opponent, so you're probably letting your gap increase.

But first, are we done with the beeline question?

Depends. As I said from the beginning (#35), of course if you beeline to a "next age" tech you will have better units. But that's different from saying that this tech you beelined for comes earlier than the others. It does only if you beeline for it, and you're not forced to. I have been trying for many posts to actually explain why I would go another route (strategically) first which would lead me to have Military Strategy before Rifling, how the AI would go another route under certain conditions, and we got lost in marginal discussions, but in the end it all boils down to the fact that a statement such as "Riflemen come 2 techs before Cavalry" is incorrect. After I said this, there have been a lot of replies from you two, but in the end the point stands because it's not just an opinion, heh.
We could discuss the rest if there is anything to discuss about, I agree that Cossacks have been nerfed a bit too much but don't agree with Catherine. The point on the UB coming later than in Warlords seems to be based on a completely opposite philosophy than the "Riflemen affair", which leads me to think the whole post is a bit exaggerated. All in all I think: yes, Russia has been nerfed some, but not overnerfed.

 

[Wodan]

(just for the sake of clarity): true but I was speaking of a pre-war scenario. If you are planning to build a sufficient defensive force with Longbows vs Grenadiers, it means you're paying more than your opponent, so you're probably letting your gap increase.

Ah. Still, this isn't necessarily true. I mean, we're only taking a few coins here. All that is necessary is that you have the force sufficient to rally to any one threatened city. Not that you have to have that force available in each and every city already. Plus, remember that we're talking about the defensive. A few cats does wonders for slowing down an incoming stack.

Depends. As I said from the beginning (#35), of course if you beeline to a "next age" tech you will have better units. But that's different from saying that this tech you beelined for comes earlier than the others. It does only if you beeline for it, and you're not forced to. I have been trying for many posts to actually explain why I would go another route (strategically) first which would lead me to have Military Strategy before Rifling, how the AI would go another route under certain conditions, and we got lost in marginal discussions, but in the end it all boils down to the fact that a statement such as "Riflemen come 2 techs before Cavalry" is incorrect. After I said this, there have been a lot of replies from you two, but in the end the point stands because it's not just an opinion, heh.

Well, it seems to me you're nitpicking the literal statement from its intent. Let's change the statement to "Riflemen come before Cavalry". This is always true, no matter the strategy. Agreed?

For the intent of the discussion, doesn't this still lead to the same conclusions? The most important of which is that Rifles counter Cossacks, and are better? Cossacks cost at least 1 tech you wouldn't otherwise have to get. So, why bother with Cossacks?

The sole counter argument is that Grenadiers can be available to the defender, though not as defense but purely to strike the Rifles as they come in. The question there becomes can the Rifles supplement their attacking stack with something for Grenadier defense. (Again, this is only necessary if the opponent has Grenadiers. An AI most likely will not, while a human might.)

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

Wodan:

For the intent of the discussion, doesn't this still lead to the same conclusions? The most important of which is that Rifles counter Cossacks, and are better? Cossacks cost at least 1 tech you wouldn't otherwise have to get. So, why bother with Cossacks?

Why indeed?

For my part, I use Cossacks because I use Knights and Cuirassers and Cossacks happen to come with the Riflemen. If I had only Riflemen, then Cossacks would come anyways as I tech for the next logical unit I want: Grenadiers.

If I'm going against the AI, I've found Riflemen to be substandard attackers at best, unless you have a substantial tech difference, and their window for attack is short-lived. Grenadiers and Cuirassers do the job more effectively because they're future-proof. Cuirassers are a effective unit especially with Grenadiers, even when you're up against Riflemen, IMX.

When you finally do get Rifles, you simply upgrade your Cuirassers to Cossacks and enjoy the additional anti-Cavalry component.

 

[onedreamer]

Well, it seems to me you're nitpicking the literal statement from its intent. Let's change the statement to "Riflemen come before Cavalry". This is always true, no matter the strategy. Agreed?

O_o
If you have Military Tradition when you research Rifling they come at the same time...

For the intent of the discussion, doesn't this still lead to the same conclusions? The most important of which is that Rifles counter Cossacks, and are better? Cossacks cost at least 1 tech you wouldn't otherwise have to get. So, why bother with Cossacks?

Sheez, this is a loop. Riflemen aren't better because they can't consistenly counter Grenadiers and even Cannons. Cavalry is a lot better for this task. Does this make Cavalry uninteresting to play ? Hell, no, IMO. It has its task like any other unit does. It seems that for someone Riflemen are enough for all your needs. What can I say ? Good for you, skip Military Tradition. I hope it's not a multiplayer game though...

The sole counter argument is that Grenadiers can be available to the defender, though not as defense but purely to strike the Rifles as they come in. The question there becomes can the Rifles supplement their attacking stack with something for Grenadier defense. (Again, this is only necessary if the opponent has Grenadiers. An AI most likely will not, while a human might.)

Little confusion here... last I checked, Grenadiers are mostly offensive units and Riflemen mostly defensive. Or do you only consider being on the attack side ?

 

[onedreamer]

If I'm going against the AI, I've found Riflemen to be substandard attackers at best, unless you have a substantial tech difference, and their window for attack is short-lived. Grenadiers and Cuirassers do the job more effectively because they're future-proof. Cuirassers are a effective unit especially with Grenadiers, even when you're up against Riflemen, IMX.

When you finally do get Rifles, you simply upgrade your Cuirassers to Cossacks and enjoy the additional anti-Cavalry component.

Thanks a lot, finally someone that speaks objectively... I doubt they will acknowledge this though. As I said, it seems for someone Riflemen are enough for all your needs. I must have much to learn if this is really true.

 

[Wodan]

O_o
If you have Military Tradition when you research Rifling they come at the same time...

Okay... "before or at the same time". Doesn't change the conclusion.

Sheez, this is a loop. Riflemen aren't better because they can't consistenly counter Grenadiers

Every unit has a counter. Cossacks/Cavalry themselves have counters. Riflemen themselves, for example. Or even, Pikes. That simple fact doesn't mean Cossacks are all of a sudden better than sliced bread.

and even Cannons.

Replace "Cannons" with Tanks, Marines, or your choice of any future unit.

What's your point here?

Little confusion here... last I checked, Grenadiers are mostly offensive units and Riflemen mostly defensive. Or do you only consider being on the attack side ?

That you think Riflemen are "mostly defensive" units says a lot.

Seriously... don't knock another strategy until you've tried it.

Wodan

 

[strollen]

First of all agree with the OP that Russia is the most overnerfed Civ in the game and that they are largely flavorless because you don't need to build Cossacks and the UB is to late. Do they need to be improved is different question. I think all civilization with both a late UU and a late UB are pretty flavorless, I think America is the worse with Germany a close 2nd.

The Cossack has gone from a fantastic UU to a good UU and now is merely average. It comes early enough to make a difference in the game. While it is true that you can take cities with Rifleman, especially with cannons, having both Rifleman and Cossacks is better than have only one. A large force of Cossacks can easily take lightly defended cities without a 20 or 40% cultural defense. Their speed , withdrawal chance, and immunity to first strikes makes them ideal to do so. The 50% bonus against mounted will make short work against pillaging mounted forces the enemy uses.

One or two Cossacks with Shock will protect your main force from attacks by pikemen. Its true that fortified pikeman in cities are very cost effective defenders against Cossacks. But CD2 and CD3 Musketman and even Longbows are cost effective against rifleman also and Grenadiars absolutely stop them.

Russia at least has 3 leaders with interesting characteristics. If you want to talk about flavorless civilization lets look at America. The Navy seal gets extra first strikes (yawn) and march (nice). However, most of the time I rather build generic tanks rather than a Navy Seal. I seldom built supermarkets under warlords with BTS I may need to build more. However the extra gold is almost completely irrelevant. I am running 80% science typically so at most the 10% gold is 1 more gold per large city big deal. The happiness is only useful during war. So to summarize America it is completely generic civ except when fight very late game wars, where possibly! the UU and UB will be useful.

Germany is almost as bad. Now tanks are fantastic units and the armor bonus is good, but I seldom are in situation where I am fighting a armor battle against my opponents. The assembly plant is modest improvement on a very important building. It is rare that I want to have more than 3 specialist so the extra engineers are marginal. Being able to build the Assembly plant faster due to coal is good but an organize leader already gives a 100% bonus so it is only useful with Bismark.

It seems to me that America needs to be improved more than Russia. Having the Mall replace the Market (not Supermarket) (perhaps make it a bit more expensive) would make America much less generic.

 

[onedreamer]

Okay... "before or at the same time". Doesn't change the conclusion.

True, assuming your conclusion is that Cavalry is useless because it comes with its counter, but why do you have to bold wrong statements ? And anyways, according to your reasoning Spearmen are useless because they come after their counter Axeman (Spearmen need Hunting too, and even if they didn't, and would come at the same time, they would be useless because they have a counter).

Every unit has a counter. Cossacks/Cavalry themselves have counters. Riflemen themselves, for example. Or even, Pikes. That simple fact doesn't mean Cossacks are all of a sudden better than sliced bread.

I don't remember saying that Cossacks are sliced bread. In fact, I said they have a counter like any other unit, and they have their uses, like any other unit. Is that sliced bread ? Don't know, I'm not mother language.

Replace "Cannons" with Tanks, Marines, or your choice of any future unit.

What's your point here?

What's YOUR point ? Digress and move the discussion in pointless directions ?

That you think Riflemen are "mostly defensive" units says a lot.

That you think they are good offensive units also says a lot. Of course when you use them against longbowmen they are good units. Even an Explorer is a good military unit, as a counter to the Archer. As principle of life, I don't criticize anything I haven't experienced, so if I say that Grenadiers are more of an offensive unit than Riflemen are, it's because I have tried it.

 

[0R4NG3]

True, assuming your conclusion is that Cavalry is useless because it comes with its counter, but why do you have to bold wrong statements ? And anyways, according to your reasoning Spearmen are useless because they come after their counter Axeman (Spearmen need Hunting too, and even if they didn't, and would come at the same time, they would be useless because they have a counter).

Bad comparison. Spearman is a specialised defensive unit, unless you can show me great battles with spearmen taking cities protected by archers, it is a fact. On the other hand Cavarly should not be a defensive unit, but for some reason in BTS it is, in large part due to the fact that they come with their counter, which is able to do their job almost as well.

That you think they are good offensive units also says a lot. Of course when you use them against longbowmen they are good units. Even an Explorer is a good military unit, as a counter to the Archer. As principle of life, I don't criticize anything I haven't experienced, so if I say that Grenadiers are more of an offensive unit than Riflemen are, it's because I have tried it.

Do you ever beeline? 'Cause it sounds like you don't. You must understand though that ALOT of people do. Also MOST people do not play multiplayer. I'm sure you will agree that it is important to suit the playing style of the majority. Afterall in multiplayer it is possible to ban "overpowered" units or leaders.
Your points are totally valid if one plays on marathon speed or multiplayer and for some reason decides to have a war with an equally advanced neighbour, I would say that's a pretty silly idea on normal speed/emperor.

Russia at least has 3 leaders with interesting characteristics. If you want to talk about flavorless civilization lets look at America. The Navy seal gets extra first strikes (yawn) and march (nice). However, most of the time I rather build generic tanks rather than a Navy Seal. I seldom built supermarkets under warlords with BTS I may need to build more. However the extra gold is almost completely irrelevant. I am running 80% science typically so at most the 10% gold is 1 more gold per large city big deal. The happiness is only useful during war. So to summarize America it is completely generic civ except when fight very late game wars, where possibly! the UU and UB will be useful.

It seems to me that America needs to be improved more than Russia. Having the Mall replace the Market (not Supermarket) (perhaps make it a bit more expensive) would make America much less generic.

I agree with you that America is in a similar situation, however I don't think it is as bad as you say it is.
1. America also has 3 leaders with interesting characteristics. Philosophical and Charismatic are considered to be pretty good traits.
2. Mall gives +20% gold, I'd say that's pretty good. Yes it does come pretty late (earlier than the Russian UB though), however making it replace marketplace instead of supermarket is as fair as making research institute replace library or university. I suppose Grocer will be more or less balanced.
3. The problem with Navy Seals is that they are very specialised. They can be very useful in certain cases, such as preventing someone from achieving a cultural victory, provided one of their cultrure cities is on a coast; or just raizing some enemy coastal cities. In such cases they are the best unit for the job. Also they are pretty decent city defenders, especially if you don't have oil. But overall I would agree that they are not too exciting.

Germany's UU and UB might not be very exciting but at least you're guaranteed to use them in pretty much every game.

 

[Wodan]

One clarification: I don't think that Cossacks are useless. I think they aren't worth the cost, in terms of getting the techs simply to be able to build them. I'd rather go for other techs that will provide better benefits.

What's YOUR point ? Digress and move the discussion in pointless directions ?

My point is that Cannons are irrelevant to the discussion.

As principle of life, I don't criticize anything I haven't experienced, so if I say that Grenadiers are more of an offensive unit than Riflemen are, it's because I have tried it.

So, you HAVE beelined (using our definition of beeline) to Riflemen? How many times? Why didn't it work for you? Did you try it again after that? And did you make any changes in strategy to compensate for that perceived problem, when you tried it again? What were the changes?

Wodan

 

[onedreamer]

So, you HAVE beelined (using our definition of beeline) to Riflemen? How many times? Why didn't it work for you? Did you try it again after that? And did you make any changes in strategy to compensate for that perceived problem, when you tried it again? What were the changes?

Wodan

Where did I say that beelining Riflemen doesn't work ? Quote ? I can quote myself that I said the contrary several times.

 

[0R4NG3]

This is getting sort of ridiculous.
Onedreamer you didn't say that beelining to Riflemen doesn't work, but you did say that Grenadiers are a better attacking unit than Riflemen. Which is again situational 'cause it is possible to upgrade your CR3 macemen to Riflemen, and who's better at attacking then?

As I understand Onedreamer's main problem was that I was referring to beelining as the one and only strategy for everyone, I have however already admitted that it is not (it is very popular though). So in theory there shouldn't be anything to argue about. No?

 

[onedreamer]

Bad comparison. Spearman is a specialised defensive unit, unless you can show me great battles with spearmen taking cities protected by archers, it is a fact.

So what ? An axemen attacking a spearman defending is going to feast on his corpse, hence according to these reasoning, spearmen are useless because they have a counter.

On the other hand Cavarly should not be a defensive unit, but for some reason in BTS it is, in large part due to the fact that they come with their counter, which is able to do their job almost as well.

Riflemen can't do the job of Cavalry nearly as well. The job of Cavalry is mainly to counter Grenadiers and Cannons (that's why cannons ARE relevant to the discussion), and Riflemen aren't as effective in doing this. How many times have I repeated the same thing ?
In case you beelined, it's a different matter of course (repeated this many times too), and Riflemen MAY be better, unless your enemies have beelined too. Btw, Cavalry with flanking promotions have very good retreat odds, in large numbers you could probably have less casualties vs Riflemen than with Riflemen vs Riflemen.

Do you ever beeline? 'Cause it sounds like you don't. You must understand though that ALOT of people do.

Not in the way you and Wodan suggest, no. That's because I never play SP (I'm lucky enough) and if I adopted such a strategy I would be easily bashed by Grenadiers+Cannons.

Also MOST people do not play multiplayer. I'm sure you will agree that it is important to suit the playing style of the majority. Afterall in multiplayer it is possible to ban "overpowered" units or leaders. Your points are totally valid if one plays on marathon speed or multiplayer and for some reason decides to have a war with an equally advanced neighbour, I would say that's a pretty silly idea on normal speed/emperor.

My points are valid in general. You wrote the title and your first post in general. Then you went specific (most people DO NOT beeline in the way you suggest) when I answered to your general statements. Is it my fault ? Next time specify better what you're talking about, heh.

 

[Wodan]

Onedreamer, if you would please answer my other questions, I would appreciate it.

As for the one question you find objectionable, I will gladly rephrase it as, "What perceived problems did you encounter?"

Wodan

 

[onedreamer]

Of course when you use them against longbowmen they are good units. Even an Explorer is a good military unit, as a counter to the Archer.

This is what I said, and already from my earliest post I wrote that it's obvious that when you beeline and attack with later era units they are going to be effective (except some obvious rare case). When I said Grenadiers would be better I was obviously speaking of the fact that if your opponent ALSO beelines for Rifling, you would have done BETTER to beeline for Grenadiers. Do you disagree ? Oh well, *shrug*

 

[0R4NG3]

My points are valid in general. You wrote the title and your first post in general. Then you went specific (most people DO NOT beeline in the way you suggest) when I answered to your general statements. Is it my fault ? Next time specify better what you're talking about, heh.

You're right, I was wrong to suggest that my way of beelining is the best strategy there is.
However you said that you mostly play multiplayer, surely you will agree that multiplayer is a totally different experience, which obviously requires different tactics. And as I said most people play single player. So I'm not too sure that you still remember what it is like to play against the AI. It is nice to have a "multiplayer point of view" though.