I was playing Shoshone last week and I have to admit that I don't understand what the point of their UU is supposed to be. It doesn't do anything very exceptional or motivate me more to have Ranged Horse units when other units of that time-frame (particularly Artillery and the early tank unit whatever it's called) pretty much hold things together at that stage rather well: Artillery have long enough range to limit the effectiveness of Ranged Cavalry, and the damage that Ranged Cavalry are doing in general at this stage of the game is lower proportionally than the early game because units like Fusiliers have higher Hit Points than in the early game. Throw on increased City range as well...and I just don't get it. And please note: I'm not saying the unit is underpowered, I'm saying the unit doesn't make sense and doesn't seem to have a purpose.
Shoshone
- Thread starter graltok
- Start date
tu_79
Deity
Well, Shoshone are defensive expansionists, so you don't need an offensive unit that takes on enemy cities. Their role is to protect their rather large borders.
pineappledan
Deity
Except if that’s true, the no moves to pillage makes zero sense.
No moves to pillage also isn't exactly what I'd call a benefit on a ranged mounted unit. On melee/cavalry units it makes sense because they're getting damaged constantly...whereas for ranged mounted, I scarcely see how it does anything.
I'd rather see something like a 50% bonus to experience on them and bonus culture when killing a unit, or something.
I'd rather see something like a 50% bonus to experience on them and bonus culture when killing a unit, or something.
Its a skirmisher that is super good at skirmishing. It has 5 movement, raids areas in a blink, has extra strength, and has an 80% chance to withdraw against melee (so nigh invincible in open terrain against melee forces.
What doesn't make sense? The Shoshone were a people that were good at horse skirmish warfare, they get a beefy skirmisher unit.... what more sense is required?
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I love the Comanche Rider as-is and think it's benefits make good sense, but it does sometimes feel like it could use a little more oomph. Compared to other units of the time it's nice but it doesn't really change much about the balance of warfare. Whereas the Russian Cossack's push mechanism make it stand out, as does the Berber Cavalry's ignore terrain costs. On the other hand, I do prefer the Comanche Rider to Austria's Hussars.
Edit: I guess it makes sense for a civ with such a strong early game not to have game-changers later on, and the Encampment does stay relevant all game. It would be nice to have a another little power spike to look forward to though.
Edit: I guess it makes sense for a civ with such a strong early game not to have game-changers later on, and the Encampment does stay relevant all game. It would be nice to have a another little power spike to look forward to though.
pineappledan
Deity
It would be nice if they had just a little more something-something. They have +1 moves and no cost to pillage right now. The no cost to pillage doesn't mesh well with the rest of Shoshone's overtly defensive kit, but it makes sense historically and it's a very minor upgrade.
What if Comanche moon also had a chance to withdraw on melee attack?
What if Comanche moon also had a chance to withdraw on melee attack?
Melchizedek
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 324
How about the ability to repair pillaged tiles instead?
How about the unit treats all friendly rough terrain as if it was a road? Allowing extremely rapid movement within your own empire. Removing the pillage stuff, and maybe the base extra movement. It meshes with the rest of the kit, as you will have most of your cities with likely all three rings, by this point, if not a lot more.
Last edited:
Comanches already withdraw on melee (80%).
I am still struggling to understand this thread. Are shoshone UP in people's eyes? Its not the strongest UU, but its does its job, and the Shoshone has other good abilities.
We have commonly noted that a civ is a combination of its UA + UB/UI + UU. Some civs have a really strong UU, others have a weaker one but stronger UA or UI. I haven't really heard that Shoshone is weak or anything, so why the sudden need to bump its UU?
JamesNinelives
Emperor
They're not UP but they're not OP either. A minor change wouldn't hurt and would make the civ more interesting beyond the early-game. It's not a need, but could still be an improvement.
I've simply dropped in to state that I've been playing with Pocatello disabled for months now since deciding to strictly play-test with no ancient ruins -- I try to play with as level field as possible, for balance, though once VP is gold I'll put them back on.
I have to agree though that he could probably get a little tweak to his UU. I personally like idea of replacing the 'free pillage' with '50% exp in own lands' (offers synergy with order tenet, allowing a possible 100% exp gains for defending own territory; absolutely staunch), for reasons Gidoza presented in his post above.
I have to agree though that he could probably get a little tweak to his UU. I personally like idea of replacing the 'free pillage' with '50% exp in own lands' (offers synergy with order tenet, allowing a possible 100% exp gains for defending own territory; absolutely staunch), for reasons Gidoza presented in his post above.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I'm a long-time Shoshone player and I like the no movement to pillage, it's minor but I find it fun to use. And it's thematic - it fits the raiding that the Comanche did historically (without taking cities).
Tbh I was going to suggest just increasing their RCS so they pack more of a punch.
Tbh I was going to suggest just increasing their RCS so they pack more of a punch.
pineappledan
Deity
mea culpa.
Code:
RangedCombat = '41' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_CAVALRY'
RangedCombat = '42' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_BERBER_CAVALRY'
RangedCombat = '42' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_SHOSHONE_COMANCHE_RIDERS'
RangedCombat = '44' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_RUSSIAN_COSSACK'
Combat = '33' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_CAVALRY'
Combat = '34' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_BERBER_CAVALRY'
Combat = '34' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_SHOSHONE_COMANCHE_RIDERS'
Combat = '35' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_RUSSIAN_COSSACK'Actually, I might suggest raising the Cossack to 45, just for good measure. It really is a borderline base unit; a little more oomph wouldn't go amiss.
I feel like these are the kind of tweaks we have to get away from, else we will literally be at this forever. (honestly I already feel like we are at this point with civs, it just seems we go round and round and round, every civ needs a tweak every X months it feels like sometimes).
I don't really use cavalry very much, partially because I find the unit itself somewhat unimpressive, partially because I'd rather just sell horses, and partially because I'm not a fan of using scarce aluminum on light tanks. I wonder if any issues with the Comanche Raider are actually issues with it's base unit.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I don't really understand where you are coming from. Why avoid discussion about minor tweaks? This is the thread dedicated to the Shoshone and we're not claiming they are broken or anything. If it does turn out that there is a more fundamental issue then it's good that we're talking about it. And if it's just minor tweaks it shouldn't affect balance in other areas too much. I get that we don't want to turn a molehill into a mountain, but if people have concerns best to talk through them rather than let them stew.
I love ranged cavalry but unfortunately they don't have quite the versatility of melee cavalry so I'm inclined to agree. Not that they don't have a niche, but when we introduced skirmisher doctrine the idea was that they would excel in flat-land engagements and that's not really the case at the moment. I think it's important to have restrictions so that they don't become the only unit you need to win a war, but at the moment they do feel a little unloved. I don't think major changes are nessecary, but maybe a bit more CS or RCS would make the base unit more relevant.
What I am trying to do is avoid "scope creep". At some point, this project will finish and go gold...well that's the theory at least. The reality is we keep going back to the well for more, adjust this, tweak this. It will never ever end unless we force it.
That's why I'm trying to separate balance problems from preferences, as we will never solve preferences for everyone.
ElliotS
Warmonger
If anything I think that we should consider if Light Tanks (and their line) should need aluminum. I'm inclined to say no, and maybe either have them also use oil like tanks (IIRC), use iron, or just be resourceless and have much higher upkeep than other units?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
