The Huns

Well played. But like you said it was marathon, meaning you got more than three times the use out of your insane early-game unit :D.
Also, for future reference,people tend to get mad if you don't compress your images into spoiler-tags or something like that.
 
You can do really brutal things with them.
My settings were:
Immortal
Huge map (12 civs)
Inland sea
Marathon
Domination at 303, and it would have taken considerably less turns if I had played more concentrated and assembled the second army sooner.
I did not build a single unit in this game. My starting warrior defeated a archer camp, and then the ball started rolling. near the end I got a couple of rams from Authority.
It was the worst capital I ever had in civ V. I was working unimproved tiles most of the time, but it didn`t even matter the slightest.
No AI reached medieveal.
I had a huge amount of culture from city razing, and bullying city states. Enough to fill Authoroty and have 2 picks in Progress.
Sure it was Marathon speed, so I extended my advantage to the most, but it was still amazing.
So, what are you saying, any civilization excels on a map specifically tailored towards said civilization (in your case it is a non-continuous map without oceans)? If anything, it just shows how Huns suck.
 
Is there a way to determine at what point units will disband from deficit economy? ie how negative/how long It seems to me the Huns are susceptible to this, and it happens to me without warning, and only with them, so..

A horseman is a mounted melee unit so why does it not capture an enemy swordsman during War? In this case, is it the Songhai have some shield or something to prevent capture?

Thanks.
 
A horseman is a mounted melee unit so why does it not capture an enemy swordsman during War? In this case, is it the Songhai have some shield or something to prevent capture?

It does?
What did the percentage chance read before you attacked? 0%?
 
I noticed that hand-axe has now received an upgrade unit, which was missing few betas ago. It's still missing from civilopedia though.

The reason I'm writing to this thread is because Attila is the only leader, who can actually use hand-axes. At the moment hand-axe upgrades to knight, which, in my opinion, should be changed to skirmisher. First of all, hand-axe is a ranged unit, so it's only natural that he upgrades to another ranged unit. Secondly, having knight as a upgrade can lead to an unfortunate situation, where you get ancient ruins in ancient era with your hand-axe and you get a knight. A horse archer as a upgrade unit also gives a nice synergy with UU.
 
I noticed that hand-axe has now received an upgrade unit, which was missing few betas ago. It's still missing from civilopedia though.

The reason I'm writing to this thread is because Attila is the only leader, who can actually use hand-axes. At the moment hand-axe upgrades to knight, which, in my opinion, should be changed to skirmisher. First of all, hand-axe is a ranged unit, so it's only natural that he upgrades to another ranged unit. Secondly, having knight as a upgrade can lead to an unfortunate situation, where you get ancient ruins in ancient era with your hand-axe and you get a knight. A horse archer as a upgrade unit also gives a nice synergy with UU.

Are you sure that's new? Hand-axes always upgraded to knights even back in vanilla (where only Germany could get them). They meant to be chariot archer replacements, and chariot archers upgraded to knights in vanilla.
 
Are you sure that's new? Hand-axes always upgraded to knights even back in vanilla (where only Germany could get them). They meant to be chariot archer replacements, and chariot archers upgraded to knights in vanilla.

I know it has been there a long time ago. That's when I got my ancient era knight. There was, however, a bug on 3/6 patch, which didn't have an upgrade unit for hand-axes.
 
My thought from playing the Huns recently: The Hunnic Archer is kind of a sadface for me. Huns' main ability of stealing other units with Horses means I want most of my Horses in melee, and the Hunnic Archer deprives me of that very ability, only for a unit that is scarcely better than the Skirmisher. I always have a couple of the Archers around, but that's only because I would usually have them around anyways since Horse Archers are generally useful - but they're just not good enough to qualify in my opinion as the special Huns' unit. Feel like I've been shafted. :(
 
My thought from playing the Huns recently: The Hunnic Archer is kind of a sadface for me. Huns' main ability of stealing other units with Horses means I want most of my Horses in melee, and the Hunnic Archer deprives me of that very ability, only for a unit that is scarcely better than the Skirmisher. I always have a couple of the Archers around, but that's only because I would usually have them around anyways since Horse Archers are generally useful - but they're just not good enough to qualify in my opinion as the special Huns' unit. Feel like I've been shafted. :(

You're in luck - much like the Egyptian War Chariot, the Iroquois Mohawk Warrior, or the English Steam Mill, Horse Archers don't cost any strategic resources to build! This means you get to wreck face with a gigantic load of them while still having your army of Horsemen. And then, once you get to the point of building Heavy Skirmishers, you've almost certainly earned enough horses through conquest to be able to upgrade your old, high-experience, free-promotion-having HAs!

(the Huns are terrifying.)
 
You're in luck - much like the Egyptian War Chariot, the Iroquois Mohawk Warrior, or the English Steam Mill, Horse Archers don't cost any strategic resources to build! This means you get to wreck face with a gigantic load of them while still having your army of Horsemen. And then, once you get to the point of building Heavy Skirmishers, you've almost certainly earned enough horses through conquest to be able to upgrade your old, high-experience, free-promotion-having HAs!

(the Huns are terrifying.)

Exactly. The only reason why I rarely have many horse archers is that it's too easy to hit supply cap with the Huns. The number of horses shouldn't be an issue, even though you need melee horse units to steal enemy units. After all, the horse units you steal from barbarians don't consume any horses (ATM).
 
Oops, so Horse Archers don't take a horse? How did I not notice that? :D


On the other hand, I'm usually disappointed with Ekis, very often. Between Wheat (which often shows up anywhere The Huns could use an Eki), fresh water, and new resources that pop up mid/late game, I rarely find enough tiles to put Ekis next to one another to get a good bonus out of them, and usually just end up building Farms, anyways. Compared to Morocco's Kasbah, Ekis are dismal sadness.
 
Oops, so Horse Archers don't take a horse? How did I not notice that? :D


On the other hand, I'm usually disappointed with Ekis, very often. Between Wheat (which often shows up anywhere The Huns could use an Eki), fresh water, and new resources that pop up mid/late game, I rarely find enough tiles to put Ekis next to one another to get a good bonus out of them, and usually just end up building Farms, anyways. Compared to Morocco's Kasbah, Ekis are dismal sadness.

Interesting that you feel that way, I personally don't consider Ekis to be the best UI, but I do consider the Kasbah currently being the worst of them all.

I mean yeah sure the Kasbah provides a lot of yields, but it's not overly useful yields and it comes online A LOT later than the eki.
Again I guess that is the part that makes them rather hard to compare, but I think out of all the UIs with later unlocks(Polder, Chateau, Kasbah and Feitoria), the Kasbah feels like the weakest.

But then again out of the early unlock UIs I'd consider the eki the second worst a fair bit ahead of the Moai, mainly because the Moai is even harder to actually make work.

To sum up, I think the Eki suffers mostly from the fact that its tech bonuses unlocks way too late (leaving it with the same yields from ancient era to industrial) while the Moai suffers from bad design. Kasbah feels plain weak after the removal of the second food yield on it, combined with the fact that the Kasbahs tech-bonuses are really underwhelming.
 
Interesting that you feel that way, I personally don't consider Ekis to be the best UI, but I do consider the Kasbah currently being the worst of them all.

I mean yeah sure the Kasbah provides a lot of yields, but it's not overly useful yields and it comes online A LOT later than the eki.
Again I guess that is the part that makes them rather hard to compare, but I think out of all the UIs with later unlocks(Polder, Chateau, Kasbah and Feitoria), the Kasbah feels like the weakest.

But then again out of the early unlock UIs I'd consider the eki the second worst a fair bit ahead of the Moai, mainly because the Moai is even harder to actually make work.

To sum up, I think the Eki suffers mostly from the fact that its tech bonuses unlocks way too late (leaving it with the same yields from ancient era to industrial) while the Moai suffers from bad design. Kasbah feels plain weak after the removal of the second food yield on it, combined with the fact that the Kasbahs tech-bonuses are really underwhelming.

The big problem with the Kasbah is it's such a limited location. It's better than the old only desert building but still very limited. If you settle a coastal city you lose some. If you have certain resources then they are better not to build etc. Not to mention their culture and science yields are minuscule by the time Chivalry rolls around.

The Eki is okay but at least it has adjacency bonuses. It does let the Huns settle completely flat areas and still have OK production.
 
The big problem with the Kasbah is it's such a limited location. It's better than the old only desert building but still very limited. If you settle a coastal city you lose some. If you have certain resources then they are better not to build etc. Not to mention their culture and science yields are minuscule by the time Chivalry rolls around.

The Eki is okay but at least it has adjacency bonuses. It does let the Huns settle completely flat areas and still have OK production.

The problem with the eki (from what I can gather from his post) is that actual locations you can build them are so rare that you rarely get anything out of the adjacency bonus. I'm personally not sure if this is true or not, but Hills, resources, lakes, rivers a lot of things does stop the construction of Eki.

The Kasbah is exactly what you're saying, it promotes bad city-locations (not settling by mountains/lakes and so on to limit surface area) which is fine, but I don't think it is pulling its own weight with that in mid.
It definitely isn't helped by the fact that the AI doesn't seem to like replacing existing improvements with Kasbah, and still doesn't seem to want to build Kasbah on top of resources.
 
The problem with the eki (from what I can gather from his post) is that actual locations you can build them are so rare that you rarely get anything out of the adjacency bonus. I'm personally not sure if this is true or not, but Hills, resources, lakes, rivers a lot of things does stop the construction of Eki.

The Kasbah is exactly what you're saying, it promotes bad city-locations (not settling by mountains/lakes and so on to limit surface area) which is fine, but I don't think it is pulling its own weight with that in mid.
It definitely isn't helped by the fact that the AI doesn't seem to like replacing existing improvements with Kasbah, and still doesn't seem to want to build Kasbah on top of resources.

The Eki does have some problems with location but I think it's still decent. Maybe removing the requirement for not building by water would fix it.

Well even I don't like building Kasbahs on resources other than plantations and maybe camps or pastures. It makes absolutely little sense to build in on mine or quarry resources by even mid game. And chopping down a forest or jungle tile usually doesn't make sense after universities and workshops. This only gets compounded if you take Rationalism (for villages), Imperialism (for farms) or Commerce (for mines and lumber mills).
 
The Eki does have some problems with location but I think it's still decent. Maybe removing the requirement for not building by water would fix it.
Might make it too strong on the other hand, but I'm actually not even sure about that. The thing is that the Eki have looked the exact same way since before the Farm Adjacency bonus (if I remember correctly) and it is certainly less powerful now in comparison.

Think an easy solution would be moving one of the tech-bonuses the Eki gets in industrial era to medieval or something like that. Let the tile do something.

Well even I don't like building Kasbahs on resources other than plantations and maybe camps or pastures. It makes absolutely little sense to build in on mine or quarry resources by even mid game. And chopping down a forest or jungle tile usually doesn't make sense after universities and workshops. This only gets compounded if you take Rationalism (for villages), Imperialism (for farms) or Commerce (for mines and lumber mills).
If you don't want to build a Kasbah on those 6 tiles you're allowed to around each city, then that's probably an indication of a problem with the improvement.
By the way you don't have to chop down forests/jungles to build Kasbah (in fact jungle/forest Kasbahs are among the most powerful tiles in the game for that reason)
 
Just finished a hilarious hun game on deity, normal speed, standard size lakes map.

Only had room for 2 non-garbage cities (cap being one of the two).

Went tradition to make them as good as possible, switched to authority after 3 policies.

Only two cities meant I could not support a large army, so the early game was all about fighting out in the open, not attacking cities, building up xp, and gifting captured units to CS left and right, and grow grow grow my two cities.

Only had 2 horses in my borders, and was surrounded by CSs, closest neightbor being behind 3 of them, and a wall of jungle too.

Point is, far from ideal conditions for huns.

However, I managed to ally half the CSs by medieval, with Siam on the map no less. Three CS were militaristic, and together with the kill bonus from authority supplied a large chunk of my science. By the time chivalry came I could support six mounted and six melee horses, plus some random captured/gifted garbage, and that was enough to smash one AI who I was fighting for maybe 50 turns prior to that.

From then on it's smooth sailing. Big cities supported by happiness/food/culture/science from CS means you're making way better science than a standard war civ. I got to landships before ANY AIs even had fusiliers. One AI just beelined for labs, so I guess they could have had better units if they wanted to, but there's no way they could stand up to landships with 250xp, who are also supported every turn by freshly captured meatshields.

Huns are secretly a diplomatic civ, it's SOOOO easy to keep all CS's. Also, pretty much never have to build units. So you're free to boom while the war machine gets rolling.

I had absolutely no problem with the eki, sure you can't spam it all over, but there are plenty of places you can put at least 3. The gold on it after economics is great, the science from level 1 autocracy tenet is great, the culture is great, the food is less than a farm but why would you want food when you have a million cities and probably not exactly swimming in happiness?

In light of how powerful the capturing units bonus is, I'd say eki is just fine. If it was better it'd be a no brainer to chop down jungles/forest, as it is now you kinda have to weigh it a bit, the different yields, even worker time. And decisions is what makes the game fun.
 
By the time chivalry came I could support six mounted and six melee horses, plus some random captured/gifted garbage, and that was enough to smash one AI who I was fighting for maybe 50 turns prior to that.

Six melee horses and six mounted horses? :D
 
Top Bottom