Unbalanced created unit?
- Thread starter Everkane
- Start date
I don't think templar_x was suggesting high-scoring games in HOF, but rather fastest-finish games. The HOF does default to showing games by score when you first go there, but I think most people are more interested in the fastest finish by victory type and map size tables.
templar_x
usually walks his talks
@Everkane - you seem to know little about the HoF. Most tables, to be precise EVERY table but the histo one, are about fastest finish, and score means nil.
t_x
Edit: CKS said it already, and I did not see the next page has started already.
t_x
Edit: CKS said it already, and I did not see the next page has started already.
Not quite. Score serves as a tiebreaker, though fastest finish determines things otherwise.
To be honest, I don't like the HoF too much myself. Restarting the game dozens of times until you finally get a start with 3 cows, 4 luxuries and an SGL for the very first tech, is not exactly my notion of the game... I take every start, even if it's tundra, and then try to make the best out of it. Of course sometimes I lose... But what is the point of playing a game, if you know in advance that you'll win?
So if you want to compare your skills to other players, why don't you try a game or two in the "Game of the Month" competition? Here everybody gets the same start, sometimes a good one, sometimes a bad one, and then has to stick with it to the bitter end. And there is the chance to win a medal in many different categories: fastest Dom/Conquest, Space Race, UN, Cultural victory or highest score.
And you will have to play different traits and UUs each month, not only IND/SCI and Immortal... Makes the game much more interesting.
Or try a PBEM game. There are still new ones starting every month or so.
templar_x
usually walks his talks
does not seem to be his beef, Lanze, that is why i suggested the HoF. if you want to choose the civ and units (if not your own made-to-measure units), you will have to go for the HoF for competition.
t_x
t_x
templar_x
usually walks his talks
templar_x
usually walks his talks
this gets repeated so often, and it is simply not true (in most cases). have you ever looked on start, or are you just repeating this because it seems to be sth like a common myth on this site?
i have not played the HoF all too much, but i do lead some tables, and i have *never* had a start like the one you describe. i play with SLGs off, even for the HoF, and on high-level games SGLs on probably only benefits the AI. plus, i hate to often replay a game, so i basically finished all my, often even relatively poor starts, after the maybe 2nd or 4th roll.
and i have the feeling, that there are quite a few tables filled with games like that. so there *may* be some other factor than the uber-start you describe. (in fact, there are many factors, of which the start is just one. i described some of them once in my HoF-thread)
t_x
It was a wee bit "exaggarated" in order to get my point across... 
templar_x
usually walks his talks
oh yes, i know this stylistic device
but it is true, that for most of my HoF games the starts were considerably weaker than in a typical GOTM. i remember one looked really pathetic, i think it was a Sid Conquest game, just have a look there if you have the time. i think most people would not play that start in a normal single player game.
truth is, that the start for a successful is less important, at least for the military victory variants, than most people seem to think. of course you will not get anywhere with a really lousy start, but with a normal to good start, many other factors become much more important than whether you do have that 2nd food bonus or not.
t_x
but it is true, that for most of my HoF games the starts were considerably weaker than in a typical GOTM. i remember one looked really pathetic, i think it was a Sid Conquest game, just have a look there if you have the time. i think most people would not play that start in a normal single player game.
truth is, that the start for a successful is less important, at least for the military victory variants, than most people seem to think. of course you will not get anywhere with a really lousy start, but with a normal to good start, many other factors become much more important than whether you do have that 2nd food bonus or not.
t_x
sure.has this ever happened? (i guess it has, but i have not seen it)
t_x
Actually, I just snuck my tiny 100k game into 5th place on a score tie-breaker. I was quite amused that I won on score, as my score is usually pitiful.
With regard to finding a perfect start, I don't bother. I play out most starts. The exception was my sid game; I'm not that good, so I needed an isolated start for that. If you want to top the histographic chart, I expect you need to pick a great map, and I know that a lot of players use MapFinder, but I don't. There is plenty of room on the tables for a mediocre player playing whatever map you get.
I agree that GOTM is a lot of fun, too. Lately my bizarre work-and-kids schedule hasn't worked well with it, though.
Lamabreeder
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 11, 2004
- Messages
- 54
Hi Everkane,
While I think that an attack value of 5 is not balanced in terms of firepower available at that age (meaning that there are currently no other units with that value; hardly even units with a value of 4), I think your resulting unit with 5.1.1 for 40 shields and no other specialities is not more unabalanced in terms of the punch you get for your shield investment than other more powerful unique units. I think that it is, in fact, more balanced in this way than some other units that are already part of the game. I would not consider it cheating if you used it, because, while it is true that you will not meet significant resistance when you finally do attack, you first have to build your unit, which is not cheap, and then you have to march it slowly to your target, and you have to protect it or possibly lose it to counterattack.
Other units are more unbalanced and already part of the game. The most serious offenders are the Gallic Swordsman, the Berserk and the Ancient Cavalry. Even some more balanced units are still more useful than a 5.1.1 unit for 40 shields, like the Mounted Warrior (3.1.2 for 30 shields) or the War Chariot (2.1.2 for 20 shields), because they have a significant punch for their respective costs and in addition to this are fast.
Faster movement is much more than just +1 to stats: It gives you the the possibility to flee and gives you thus some invisible HP, if you agree to look at it this way, but perhaps more importantly: Your strategical options are much better, for offense as well as for defense. You can rush to the defense of endangered cities, you can outmaneuver slower enemies and be the one to attack instead of having to absorb countertattacks, and finally, on the grand scale of things, your conquests, once started, will be much faster.
The non-unique fast units of the ancient age all lack punch. So you need more of them to defeat the same enemy. This is the (sensible) price for you better strategic options. Not so the unique units that are fast. The Gallic Swordsman has punch and speed combined and is thus much more powerful than just the sum of both attributes. 40 shields is quite a deal for this Uber-Unit. (Compare it to the Knight with only +1 on attack and defense, but 70 shields!) And the Ancient Cavalry is a Gallic Swordsman with an additional Hitpoint which clearly shows that the designers who included this unit into the game were not very good players or otherwise not interested in game balance.
The Berserk has distant similarities with your unit: It is not balanced in terms of firepower available at that age (Attack 6). The only other unit with that value in that age, the Cavalry, comes much later. In addition, the Berserk has the Amphibious attribute which makes it even more powerful. It is probably balanced in terms of punch you get for the shield investment, because it is indeed quite expensive (70 shields). However, I would have made it a 4.1.1 with Amphibious for 40 shields or 5.1.1 with Amphibious for 50 shields - very similar to the Longbowman it replaces.
Conclusion: In a way, you could, in terms of game-balance, already consider yourself cheating by playing an unmodified game using the Celts, who are agricultural, which is an almost game breakingly powerful trait, and have the Gallic Swordman as unique unit; or the Vikings with Berserks; or the Sumerians, who are agricultural AND scientific AND get Spearmen for the price of warriors. As it is, your unit is unbalanced only in terms of firepower available for that age, not in terms of punch you get for your shield investment. On another note, you could use a unique unit that is weaker, but much cheaper, i.e. a 4.1.1 unit for 25 shields (compare Immortal) or a 3.1.1 unit for 20 or 25 shields (compare Archer). These would be balanced in both categories, I think.
Happy Civving!
Lamabreeder
While I think that an attack value of 5 is not balanced in terms of firepower available at that age (meaning that there are currently no other units with that value; hardly even units with a value of 4), I think your resulting unit with 5.1.1 for 40 shields and no other specialities is not more unabalanced in terms of the punch you get for your shield investment than other more powerful unique units. I think that it is, in fact, more balanced in this way than some other units that are already part of the game. I would not consider it cheating if you used it, because, while it is true that you will not meet significant resistance when you finally do attack, you first have to build your unit, which is not cheap, and then you have to march it slowly to your target, and you have to protect it or possibly lose it to counterattack.
Other units are more unbalanced and already part of the game. The most serious offenders are the Gallic Swordsman, the Berserk and the Ancient Cavalry. Even some more balanced units are still more useful than a 5.1.1 unit for 40 shields, like the Mounted Warrior (3.1.2 for 30 shields) or the War Chariot (2.1.2 for 20 shields), because they have a significant punch for their respective costs and in addition to this are fast.
Faster movement is much more than just +1 to stats: It gives you the the possibility to flee and gives you thus some invisible HP, if you agree to look at it this way, but perhaps more importantly: Your strategical options are much better, for offense as well as for defense. You can rush to the defense of endangered cities, you can outmaneuver slower enemies and be the one to attack instead of having to absorb countertattacks, and finally, on the grand scale of things, your conquests, once started, will be much faster.
The non-unique fast units of the ancient age all lack punch. So you need more of them to defeat the same enemy. This is the (sensible) price for you better strategic options. Not so the unique units that are fast. The Gallic Swordsman has punch and speed combined and is thus much more powerful than just the sum of both attributes. 40 shields is quite a deal for this Uber-Unit. (Compare it to the Knight with only +1 on attack and defense, but 70 shields!) And the Ancient Cavalry is a Gallic Swordsman with an additional Hitpoint which clearly shows that the designers who included this unit into the game were not very good players or otherwise not interested in game balance.
The Berserk has distant similarities with your unit: It is not balanced in terms of firepower available at that age (Attack 6). The only other unit with that value in that age, the Cavalry, comes much later. In addition, the Berserk has the Amphibious attribute which makes it even more powerful. It is probably balanced in terms of punch you get for the shield investment, because it is indeed quite expensive (70 shields). However, I would have made it a 4.1.1 with Amphibious for 40 shields or 5.1.1 with Amphibious for 50 shields - very similar to the Longbowman it replaces.
Conclusion: In a way, you could, in terms of game-balance, already consider yourself cheating by playing an unmodified game using the Celts, who are agricultural, which is an almost game breakingly powerful trait, and have the Gallic Swordman as unique unit; or the Vikings with Berserks; or the Sumerians, who are agricultural AND scientific AND get Spearmen for the price of warriors. As it is, your unit is unbalanced only in terms of firepower available for that age, not in terms of punch you get for your shield investment. On another note, you could use a unique unit that is weaker, but much cheaper, i.e. a 4.1.1 unit for 25 shields (compare Immortal) or a 3.1.1 unit for 20 or 25 shields (compare Archer). These would be balanced in both categories, I think.
Happy Civving!
Lamabreeder
nyarmondt
Chieftain
Let me guess... Your civ is called the InGenics and in fact the unit is a guy riding a Tyranosaurus Rex while wielding a (very long) spear?
I assume it requires horses and iron?
Let's compare it to the Indian War Elephant: the War Elephant has an extra HP and does not require iron at the same price as the ordinary Knight (70 shields). So compared to the Elephant your Paladin gets an extra attack-point for 10 shields (which is standard) and blitz for another 10 shields. I would say that is ok.
Haha. I once set up a game where I had Immortals' stats at 7/3/2 cause I just felt like having a part of the game involve me slicing the crap out of the Iroquois. I rarely play that way seriously now, but it sure was fun while it lasted. In the same spirit, the only other time I up-modded a unit just for jollies, I changed the Cossacks to 10/something/5 and gave them blitz and enslave. You can capture quite a lot of ground in one turn that way. The fun wears off, of course. But why the heck not?
Another fun "overpowered" alternative I tried once was to change the barbs' mounted units to 6/2/3 elephants and set them on raging. Once I hit the first barb surge (about 1000bc, IIRC) it was sheer chaos, watching them plow through all the civs on the board. I don't think they actually wiped any civs out of the game, but the damage wasn't pretty to look at.
I forget who I was playing, but if I ever do that again I'll be sure to pick Greece or Carthage (speaking of overpowered UUs).
I forget who I was playing, but if I ever do that again I'll be sure to pick Greece or Carthage (speaking of overpowered UUs).
Everkane
Valar Morghulis
Thanks everyone for posting.
I abandoned the idea of create the whole civ, I'm trying new ways to play anyway since I mastered persians.
I got sumerians last game and they are pretty good indeed like someone stated, but I believe I have a long way to pick up some new civ and master it. I never liked the mayas but I see lots of top players having them #1 civ so maybe I give a new chance. Best game I played without the persians was with the carthagians, some time ago.
Anyway, thanks.
I abandoned the idea of create the whole civ, I'm trying new ways to play anyway since I mastered persians.
I got sumerians last game and they are pretty good indeed like someone stated, but I believe I have a long way to pick up some new civ and master it. I never liked the mayas but I see lots of top players having them #1 civ so maybe I give a new chance. Best game I played without the persians was with the carthagians, some time ago.
Anyway, thanks.
Similar threads
