Swordsman buff - Why were unique units not buffed as well?

[Pietato]

The Swordsman was buffed to 40 strength in the latest patch. While this itself is a good change, the unique units which replace the Swordsman, and the ones which perform a similar role, were left untouched. This means these units/Civs got nerfed quite hard (especially Kongo).

I recommend the following:

- Legion (Rome) needs its cost reduced or more strength. Making it cost the same as a Swordsman is probably best.
- Ngalo Mbala (Kongo UU) needs 5 more strength. It repaces the Swordsman, yet now has 5 LESS strength.
- Samurai is now pointless if you have iron, as it costs twice (!) as much as a Swordsman, is available much later, cannot be upgraded to, and only has 5 more strength. Two Swordsmen are much better.
- Berserker is even more of a joke. Needs a rework.
- Hoplite gets countered even harder now, so probably needs a buff. Actually, so do base spearmen.

- Mamluk (Arabia - Knight replacement) is relatively weaker now with this change combined with the Stirrups one. Might need a cost reduction or something.

I have to wonder why none of this was considered before releasing this patch. Was it not beta tested?

 

[Gehennas]

I agree that legion is quite strange now. Don't know if no iron requirement worth 20 production.
Ngalo Mbala is fine, I think. Kongo is already strong enough.
Samurai and Berserker still may be useful. At least if you don't have iron, you will get melee units. Also, if you have Iron and researched feudalism, the cost for both berserker and samurai is just 30 higher than for swordsman which is normal for their special abilities.
Mamluk still looks good I think.

Anyway, this means something only if you care about something aside from ranged units.

 

[spfun]

Feels like a quick fix without much thought put into it. I sometimes made this mistake in civ 5 when I altered things in the XML. Forgetting about a unique building while altering the base building etc...

I completely agree all these unique units need a buff now. I would prefer a plain swordsman to a Ngalo Mbala in its current state.

 

[ThERat]

My guess is that they simply forgot...doesn't give confidence in their QC

 

[Pietato]

I agree that legion is quite strange now. Don't know if no iron requirement worth 20 production.
Ngalo Mbala is fine, I think. Kongo is already strong enough.
Samurai and Berserker still may be useful. At least if you don't have iron, you will get melee units. Also, if you have Iron and researched feudalism, the cost for both berserker and samurai is just 30 higher than for swordsman which is normal for their special abilities.
Mamluk still looks good I think.

Anyway, this means something only if you care about something aside from ranged units.

Is this a troll post?

A unique unit being worse than the one it replaces is NOT fine.
Samurai is now mostly pointless, and the Berserker is even more of a joke. Also BOTH Swordsman and Samurai/Berserker have 50% increased production cards, so I have no idea why you are only using it for the latter two...
Melee units are good. The Swordsman wrecks face now, and can be upgraded from Warriors.

Seriously, is this a troll post?

Moderator Action: Accusing another poster of trolling is itself trolling under our rules. Please do not do this again. -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bro]

- Samurai is now pointless if you have iron, as it costs twice (!) as much as a Swordsman, is available much later, cannot be upgraded to, and only has 5 more strength. Two Swordsmen are much better.

Only partly true. Samurais do not have combat penalties when damaged. This makes them a little bit better than Swordmen, but I agree that the cost is way too much. UUs should IMO cost only half of the amount a similar unit costs, much like UDs do.

 

[Gorbles]

1. Roman Legions have other purposes than straight-up combat. They're a free military engineer, as far as I can work out, Eras before you get them normally.
2. Kongo UU doesn't require Iron. Massive advantage that has always given it an edge.

Not as familiar with the others, so I won't comment. But I recommend revisiting your thoughts on the balance process.

 

[Siptah]

Legion: probably alright as it is right now.
Ngao Mbeba: since Kongo still is incredibly strong, it doesn't hurt that much. It still got its amazing strength against archers. If anything, why not give additional +5 when defending.
Samurai: needs to be cheaper, but it was like that even before the patch. Or let swordsman upgrade to the samurai for a small sum of gold.
Berserker: never used it outside of the scenario, no idea how good it is now.
Mamluk: no problems there. Still one of the best UUs and still nearly unstoppable.

 

[greygamer]

1. Roman Legions have other purposes than straight-up combat. They're a free military engineer, as far as I can work out, Eras before you get them normally.
2. Kongo UU doesn't require Iron. Massive advantage that has always given it an edge.

Not as familiar with the others, so I won't comment. But I recommend revisiting your thoughts on the balance process.

All UU don't require a resource, all other UU have a higher combat strength than the non-UU version.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

This actually probably helps the AI a bit as they seem to produce lots of swordsmen. Fair point though, if the intention was to buff the melee class in general, that the melee UUs not get any sort of adjustment is a little odd.

 

[Gorbles]

All UU don't require a resource, all other UU have a higher combat strength than the non-UU version.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that generalisation always has to hold true. Especially as the game starts to evolve, balance-wise from its basic state.

I mean, it could absolutely be an oversight. But it could quite easily also not be, so that shouldn't be peoples' default assumption. It should be a conclusion after actually bothering to debate the relative balance of the situation, instead of falling back on an intellectually-lazy reductive argument.

 

[NukeAJS]

To those that say: "Kongo is still OP"

Making base units stronger while leaving UUs alone isn't how you balance an OP civ because it affects all other civs. The op mentioned the civs directly affects by the swordsman changes, but ANY civ with a UU in the classical/medieval is affected. Hoplites for example just got nerfed because melee units counter anti-cav.

The proper way to balance an OP civ is to tweak that specific civ.

Lastly, if UU means unique unit and I think we are all in agreement that unique units should be better than their counterparts ... how to giving any civ a weaker unit that its counter part a "UU"? I guess you could argue that it's now incredibly unique because it's uniquely weaker than its counterpart?

 

[Gorbles]

If combat strength was the only indicator of unit strength and viability, your point would be sound. But it isn't.

 

[Pietato]

Just because the civ is overall strong, does not mean its UU should stay worse than the base version. And yes, the Ngao Mbela is worse than the Swordsman, as 5 strength in all situations is much better than 10 only when defending against ranged. They need to buff this unit, and then bring bad civs to Kongo's level, etc. Not keep Kongo with a weaker than base UU as some form of handicap.

Same holds true for Rome, as someone with iron will field a stronger army of Swordsmen than you can of Legions, due to the increased cost of the Legion. They do come with a single builder charge though, which can be used to repair or build a fort or road. So this is probably a wash.

Also Japan and Denmark are two of the worst civs in the game, and their UUs just got smashed. The Berserker was already horrible, and now it is even more so.

 

[Pietato]

If combat strength was the only indicator of unit strength and viability, your point would be sound. But it isn't.

It is just by far the largest indicator.

 

[greygamer]

If combat strength was the only indicator of unit strength and viability, your point would be sound. But it isn't.

They are combat units, it's in the description.

 

[HF22]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that generalisation always has to hold true. Especially as the game starts to evolve, balance-wise from its basic state.

I mean, it could absolutely be an oversight. But it could quite easily also not be, so that shouldn't be peoples' default assumption. It should be a conclusion after actually bothering to debate the relative balance of the situation, instead of falling back on an intellectually-lazy reductive argument.

In a game where the most recent "premium DLC" comes with spelling & formatting errors in a number of places, oversight isn't a lazy assumption. It is a justified allocation of the burden of proof.

If you want to argue counter intututive result is a design decision, not a bug, its on you to make a substantive argument. Not the other side.

 

[Pietato]

To those that say: "Kongo is still OP"

Making base units stronger while leaving UUs alone isn't how you balance an OP civ because it affects all other civs. The op mentioned the civs directly affects by the swordsman changes, but ANY civ with a UU in the classical/medieval is affected. Hoplites for example just got nerfed because melee units counter anti-cav.

The proper way to balance an OP civ is to tweak that specific civ.

Lastly, if UU means unique unit and I think we are all in agreement that unique units should be better than their counterparts ... how to giving any civ a weaker unit that its counter part a "UU"? I guess you could argue that it's now incredibly unique because it's uniquely weaker than its counterpart?

You are right, it is also a large nerf to Hoplites. I will add that. Cheers!

 

[Siptah]

To those that say: "Kongo is still OP"

Making base units stronger while leaving UUs alone isn't how you balance an OP civ because it affects all other civs. The op mentioned the civs directly affects by the swordsman changes, but ANY civ with a UU in the classical/medieval is affected. Hoplites for example just got nerfed because melee units counter anti-cav.

The proper way to balance an OP civ is to tweak that specific civ.

Lastly, if UU means unique unit and I think we are all in agreement that unique units should be better than their counterparts ... how to giving any civ a weaker unit that its counter part a "UU"? I guess you could argue that it's now incredibly unique because it's uniquely weaker than its counterpart?

I would not say that the change was made to balance civs, it was made to make swordsman more useful. This affects a whole bunch of things of course. As you mention it nerf Hoplites (and spearman class units in general), while hopefully making all swordsman class units more present in all ages. I think I'll build warriors much often now in the early game.

Civs have 2 abilities and a UU and those have to be at least half-way balanced together. I think you can balance a strong civ with a weak or marginally used UU. They succeeded with this approach in my opinion with Germany and its U-Boat (comes too late, no real need for it in most games).
So having a strong civ like Kongo and balancing it with the no religion thing and a not so incredible UU is a way to go in my opinion.
And the Ngao Mbeba is not per se weaker as the Swordsman now. It has +10 (?) defense against ranged attack. This is no joke, really. If you take the Turtle (?) promotion, it gets kind of invincible (55 strength) when facing archers / ranged city strikes and even does well against crossbowmen. So in multiplayer, an enemy knows he can't just have a large archer army but needs different units as well. And then there is the faster movement in Rainforest/Forest and, as mentioned, no iron required, as for all UUs. So I don't think the 5 less strength compared to swordsmen makes it a really bad unit that needs to be buffed. I think it holds up in comparison to the swordsman.

This is in my opinion different for the Samurai, that is of course quite a lot better than the swordsman (even with only +5 strength), but comes later and is much more expensive. And Japan is also no civ that needs to be nerfed in some way in my opinion.

Yes, there is the possibility that they overlooked the UUs when buffing the Swordsman. I can't believe it though. I think it is much more likely that they made this change (because Swordsmen were too weak rather obviously) and are waiting how thinks develop with that change. Hypothetically as in:
People still build lots of Legions because it is still good? No need to change it.
People complaining about Berserkers? Okay we need to do something.
Spearman not worth building? Let's reduce the bonus of melee units against them.
Hoplite still useless? Well, Greece is already strong.

and so on and so on
So to answer your question in the title of the thread: I believe it was intentional. Maybe because of lack of time for testing it out, maybe because they know a lot more balance changes are needed in the next patches anyway, maybe because they think those units are all strong enough... Has anyone asked Firaxis yet? I think this is a question that they might react to.

 

[Pietato]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that generalisation always has to hold true. Especially as the game starts to evolve, balance-wise from its basic state.

I mean, it could absolutely be an oversight. But it could quite easily also not be, so that shouldn't be peoples' default assumption. It should be a conclusion after actually bothering to debate the relative balance of the situation, instead of falling back on an intellectually-lazy reductive argument.

Oversight is better than the alternative.