So why is Phi/Ind forbidden when...

[King Flevance]

Ind/Phi would still break the game.

Just 'cuz?

I thought Persia had one of the top 3/4 best UU?

I disagree there. I would rather have the war chariot personally.

Incas unit is really unfair on higher levels. If the AI countered with warriors they would get early rushed by Quelchas. If they build archers they still get rushed by Quelchas. They have no real reply till axemen arrive.

I would say its power is determined on the size of the map moreso than difficulty rating. As the higher the difficulty the AI gets more bonus towards research thus faster axes. Your rush is stopped as soon as someone has axes really, whether it be you or them. However, if you are only playing against 5 opponents on a standard map, then yeah they have some power. But on Huge against 17 civs, it means you can eliminate 1-2 other civs. And now 15 are still left and you arent in the clasical age and might have even been avoiding BW.

No Ai is ready for an attack come 3000bc. By the time Axemen arrive the damage is done. A great general is born and the Incas have land to block off. The incas can still target the nations that has no copper/iron once axe and sword arrives. Prets I would of shaved to 7 strength.

Actually you have to aim for civ s with no resources, horses stop you too. Cover is not all that great even if built in IMO.

You cant balance everything but you can mod other things. I think there a few unmatched trait pairs if i remember from reading the forum. Just because things can be paired doesnt mean you should!!! Unless your testing a game for balance and employed by one of the great game makers out there.

Says who? I guess Bill Gates should have never messed with figuring out a system better than DOS because he wasnt employed by one of the Operating System makers out there. I refuse to accept this as game breaking because Firaxis chose not to do it for whatever reason. (I sometimes wonder if angels and trumpets sound in some people's mind when they see that name)

EDIT: I ain't going offensive anywhere in this post. I think perhaps I have spotted a 'tone' I have in my posting habits others have mentioned before. I am a smart ass in real life an on the internet. So take sarcasm with a grain of salt with me. The part in parenthesis is true though.

 

[Genv [FP]]

You can't compare an UU to traits. a UU becomes obsolete. Traits never become obsolete.


Being able to construct wonders amazingly fast and getting 100% GP faster would break the game. There's no other way to explain it but by just stating that.

 

[AfterShafter]

You can't compare an UU to traits. a UU becomes obsolete. Traits never become obsolete.


Being able to construct wonders amazingly fast and getting 100% GP faster would break the game. There's no other way to explain it but by just stating that.

Yes you can, because there is a common denominator - total effect on the game. Yes, UU's become obsolete... But if war chariots allow you to wipe out one or two opponents that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to, then... Well, there are more than a few traits that in many games don't have that much impact. The moment a UU let's you wage a major war successfully that you couldn't have without it, it rivals traits for overall effect on a game in my eyes. Having several conquered cities and a slew more land to expand into because of a UU is a *huge* factor in a game.

 

[Iranon]

re Incas: The Quechua is not obsolete quickly at all.

I will often use mixed stacks of Axemen and Quechuas into the Medieval age because Quechuas are simply that hammer-efficient.
Especially if I can keep my victim(s) off strategic resources, there is no reason to phase them out.

Also, unlike regular Warriors I can build them until I have Macemen. This has two uses: Dirt cheap riot suppression units that I never plan to use in combat, and the ability to 'rush-buy' Axes and initial Macemen by building Quechuas and upgrading.
The conversion rates from gold to hammers are worse than using Universal Suffrage - 4 and 3.4 gold per hammer respectively - but I get a free Combat 1 thrown in. Definitely worth considering.

 

[King Flevance]

re Incas: The Quechua is not obsolete quickly at all.

I will often use mixed stacks of Axemen and Quechuas into the Medieval age because Quechuas are simply that hammer-efficient.
Especially if I can keep my victim(s) off strategic resources, there is no reason to phase them out.

Also, unlike regular Warriors I can build them until I have Macemen. This has two uses: Dirt cheap riot suppression units that I never plan to use in combat, and the ability to 'rush-buy' Axes and initial Macemen by building Quechuas and upgrading.
The conversion rates from gold to hammers are worse than using Universal Suffrage - 4 and 3.4 gold per hammer respectively - but I get a free Combat 1 thrown in. Definitely worth considering.

I coulda swore Axemen makes Quechuas no longer buildable. If so, then they arent as bad as I thought as they can reinforce an axe rush making it 2-4 nearby civs rather than 1-2. I still think he is a wuss but I gotta admit thats a handy catch.

 

[JujuLautre]

quechuas are obsolete if you can build both axemen and spearmen

 

[Iranon]

Could people not correct simple statements like that unless they are certain please? It takes about half a minute to confirm this, and if you don't have the game available it would make more sense to wait before giving false information.



You can't build Warriors when Axemen AND Spearmen become available, but the same doesn't apply to Quechuas. Those become obsolete with Macemen.
Not all UUs have the same upgrade tree (and therefore obsolescence) as their parent unit - Praetorians are another example.

You can build Quechuas in the Renaissance era by not teching Hunting, but normally they will be made obsolete by Macemen.

 

[Gumbolt]

Just 'cuz?

I disagree there. I would rather have the war chariot personally.

Yep thats why i said top 3/4. War chariot is a good early uu. I woud add that some of my earliest conquests have been with persia. If the unit didnt get killed it retreated. Although I think a barb event with spearmen can happen more often on Persia games. 6-7 spearmen heading your way is not funny. (NB I try to play a different leader for each game I start)

Your right about mapsize. When I moved up from 7 to 11 Ai on huge maps I found it a jump in difficulty. Early wars may secure more land but theres 9 Ai left instead of 5.

I dont agree with the horseman comment. By the time the AI has Horse the damage is already done. Chariots are less of an issue. 2 quelchas to one chariot is still cheap. If you scout out the land correctly you can work out which AI may have copper/horse resourse early on. Your unlucky if the resource is in their first city BFC. You can start Quelcha production from turn 1 as you can steal all the workers you need so why build any? On a good site a Quelcha in 5-6 turns.

As for the gaming comment I think testers are there to play all the settings with traits and units etc. If Firaxis thought something was unbalanced they would of changed some settings in a patch. Most of the above units were in the original game. Would have been fun to be testing the game.

 

[TheDS]

Maybe IW should require some other techs before you can research it. Any civ that starts with Mining (like Rome) can be at IW with just 2 techs, or 3 even if you don't. Or even give them different starting techs - the table of starting techs could use some evening out. How abot the Wheel? The Japanese could use some company. Or Swordsman could require a second tech. Or Chariots could have a bonus against all Melee and not just Axes.

 

[Genv [FP]]

Yes you can, because there is a common denominator - total effect on the game. Yes, UU's become obsolete... But if war chariots allow you to wipe out one or two opponents that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to, then... Well, there are more than a few traits that in many games don't have that much impact. The moment a UU let's you wage a major war successfully that you couldn't have without it, it rivals traits for overall effect on a game in my eyes. Having several conquered cities and a slew more land to expand into because of a UU is a *huge* factor in a game.

You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.


It's like apples and oranges, despite the fact that they have a total effect on the game, praets will become obsolete..

Let's see what bonuses Ind / Phi gives..


+100% Towards forges
+50% towards Wonders
+100% Towards Universities
+100% Towards Great people.

Great people are the deciding facter here when it comes to debating this.

 

[Solomwi]

AfterShafter nailed it earlier.

I'm far from convinced that Ind/Phi would break the game, but even if it would, so what? MP games can easily set up house rules to keep it from affecting them, so we're really talking about SP here. Those who don't want to use it because they think it breaks the game in the human's hands can simply avoid using that leader. Those who don't want to face it because they think it breaks the game in the AI's hands can simply exclude that leader in the game setup. Inclusion lets each player decide for himself whether it breaks the game, and what to do if it does. One player's deciding he likes the combo and wants to use it doesn't interfere at all with anyone else's enjoyment of the game, which is the end goal, after all.

 

[King Flevance]

Maybe IW should require some other techs before you can research it. Any civ that starts with Mining (like Rome) can be at IW with just 2 techs, or 3 even if you don't. Or even give them different starting techs - the table of starting techs could use some evening out. How abot the Wheel? The Japanese could use some company. Or Swordsman could require a second tech. Or Chariots could have a bonus against all Melee and not just Axes

I am actually going to entirely restructure the tech tree before I am finished. But I have my chariots to have +25% vs. melee. So they are just a 5 str vs. melee unpromoted against an axe.(6 str with shock - My axes are 4 str though) So they still remain a counter for axes and axes counter swords etc. A spear still wipes out chariots. Recently, I have been considering allowing chariots to upgrade to HA's. I figure they upgrade to knights due to their +100 vs axemen specifically. But with this system that no longer applies. SO upgrading a C1/Shock chariot to a HA allows you to have a chance at spears. (7.5 vs. 8) However, remember those are unpromoted spears. And also HA's are not exactly easy to do a rush with. Popping it from a hut is really your best chance.
I prefer for base units to stay reletively equal in power and have promotion specialization determine strengths, I guess. That may just be my tastes prefering soft counters to hard counters though.

 

[AfterShafter]

You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.


It's like apples and oranges, despite the fact that they have a total effect on the game, praets will become obsolete..

Let's see what bonuses Ind / Phi gives..


+100% Towards forges
+50% towards Wonders
+100% Towards Universities
+100% Towards Great people.

Great people are the deciding facter here when it comes to debating this.

Urm... You said "You can't compare an UU to traits." Traits, not "those two traits." I never said any UU was more powerful than one of the most freaky powerful trait combos possible - I said that you could well compare UU's to traits, seeing as there is a very common denominator between them. I'd argue that a few UU's out there make more difference in a lot of games than individual traits, and even a lot of trait combos.

 

[King Flevance]

You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.

Nobody is comparing UU to traits. We are saying that a UU/UB's synergy also has a synergy with the trait combo. If a civ gets to have this combo, it needs to be one of the civs with crap UU/UB combo. Like spain, celts, ethipia. Etc. It should NOT go to people like Rome, Byzantine, England, etc. That is when you break the game. Hell IMO the game is broken in factory condition. The balance is weighted too heavily in key points on in the game design.

 

[AfterShafter]

Nobody is comparing UU to traits.

I did But I qualified it heavily, and wasn't really involved in the main discussion

 

[Pieman]

Considering they already have Fin/Org and Agg/Cha in the game, I don't see why they should block Phi/Ind.

 

[Genv [FP]]

BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE GAME

Have you ever seen how many GP you can pump out by building all the wonders Obsolete-Style? It's freaking INSANE to have the ability to get GP 100% faster AND build Wonders 50% Faster.

In a test game on an 18earth civ map, I was the French, and built every wonder. I ended up in the renaissance with many GP, including 6 great prophets.

A G. Prophet gives you 2 Hammers and 5 gold. If I had 12 great prophets it would be freaking insane.

As well as 2x all the great people I had ever spawned.

 

[AfterShafter]

BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE GAME

So... Don't play whichever leader had that combo? It's quite arguable that Boudica of the Incans breaks the games on duel maps, (among other combos on other maps - Boudica of Rome, Darius of the Portugese, etc) but the game lets me do that if I want and... Well, go figure - my game works just fine.

Genv, you have to understand, we know exactly how powerful this combo is. The thing is, it wouldn't break the game - unless someone goes out of their way to pick this leader and exploit this combo to trivialize the abilities of whoever they're playing against. The thing is, let's say someone picks whichever leader is Ind/Phi (Pontiac, how about)... How does it break YOUR game? How does it break MY game? And if I'm playing multiplayer with that person - who are they fooling? If I pick Gandhi in a duel map and the other guy picks the Incans, we both know what we're getting into. It's not like any time someone picks a "broken" combo they have to make a kitten omlette and bring it to the old folks home. Really, don't tell us how broken it would be with stats, because we know that.. Tell us where is the harm in it being that powerful and people still being allowed to use it? Tell us how it makes our games in some way unplayable, less fun to play - because "broken" combos are something that are, from time to time, fun to drop into for a lot of people, and as such actually add to the game overall. Oh, and, we all know the CPU couldn't exploit a trait combo if its life depended on it, so that's not the reason. Just look at how it plays Darius... Oye!

 

[Genv [FP]]

Broken combos are not meant to be in the game. Competent developers don't put broken stuff in the game because they're fun to other people. The only put things in the game once they know that they are well balanced.


If it bothers you so much go mod it yourself.

 

[AfterShafter]

Broken combos are not meant to be in the game. Competent developers don't put broken stuff in the game because they're fun to other people. The only put things in the game once they know that they are well balanced.


If it bothers you so much go mod it yourself.

The fact that there are several "broken" combos perfectly available for play out of the box. There are UU's that "break" the game on a variety of map types, trait combos which are vastly more powerful than others which "break" the game when paired with certain Civs... And these are in the game already. Unless you're calling Sid and company incompetent developers... Besides, I think it would be a hallmark of a competent developer to put things in because they're fun, when they don't mess up other peoples' playing - which Ind/Phil doesn't.

If "broken" combos being in the game bother you so much, even when they will never affect the quality of your play at all, you're the one who should be modding, since such combos are already present in game.