What exactly IS "overpowered" or underpowered for that matter?

[KaytieKat]

Hi

But overpowered comes from the player's use [or abuse] of a unit. The AI never makes full use of a unit's advantage, no matter what unit that might be. So if you're looking to decide whether or not something is overpowered, it's how you'd use or abuse the unit/tactic/building/civ, and how your opponents human or AI can counter it. And because of this, I believe the praet to be overpowered.

Historically speaking, them being overpowered is debatable. There are really only 3 units I believe could be so overpowered because of their dominance in their era of warfare. The Roman Legion, any cavalry unit the mongols put out, and the Redcoat. Each of those units were the deciding force in capturing at least 1/4 of the world's total population. And no, don't slay me on "England's power was it's navy"....Yes, it's true they had economic dominance of foreign trade through control of the sea, but to control a population, you need soldiers on the ground, and the Redcoats were the best riflemen of their era.

§L¥ Gµ¥

Hi

I agree thats why most of my arguments have been from players standpoint in sp. And honestly I think even IF some feel like quechas are prats are abuse or cheese or whatever. I dont THINK there is any part of the code putting a gun to their head MAKING them quecha rush or spam Prats. If thats how you feel you REALY dont need to change the game just dont do it. Whichever way you decide it doesnt matter since I dont really see how one person deciding to play the game one way affects another person decding to play a different way at all.

I also agree about how some civs during certain time periods should be very scarier than the other civs in these types of games. I never had the mongols on that list though I can see why some people would. To me in game like civ or Rise of nations or whatever the "scary" civs should be like the romans in the sword age, england in the early to mid gunpowder age and germany in the indy age. Civs when in their "strong" periods will be MAJOR pains to deal with than other civs and a time when as a playing playing them you can REALLY go on stomping spree more so than the others.

And it seems like for the most part England and Germany got left out this version while Rome didnt. And I dont really mind that since to me Rome is THE empire so I have no problem with it being the strongest. Yeah I realize that argurably other empire may be argued to be better or bigger or more influential or whatever but even THEN that seems how they are described "bigger even than rome" or "more people even than rome" etc. Even for the "better" empires Rome is the yardstick used to measure that. Kinda like same reason highest rank you can get is Auggie Ceaser.

Kaytie

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I never had the mongols on that list though I can see why some people would.

They were ridiculous. They had one of the largest empires ever, and their leaders at their peak, though absolutely ruthless and worthy of hate, were definitely impressive in what they did for their nation. They held some very good generals too. There are precious few civs that have ever seen that kind of peak.

The keshik is an example of the kind of UU I like - it has a clear weakness, but still can absolutely dominate if used well.

Balancing UUs is only good for gameplay. It's precisely why they did that to redcoats and cossacks. Maybe they really did leave prats with 8str in just to emphasize the height of the roman empire and its influence on the modern world.

They still remind me of beta warcraft III FT bat riders, casters in classic, or the early zerg hatcheries in starcraft -----> all of those things got tweaked until they were still excellent, viable options without tilting gameplay entirely in their direction. Prats could use a little of that. I actually have avoided using rome because the game would play out too differently from other games when trying to test new strategies. Let's really look at that:

I avoided rome because their UU was so strong that I felt my test would not be indicative of the use of any other civ if I were to attempt it.

Now, if it were just me, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But virtually every good player in civ IV realizes the strength of prats when properly applied. I host an immortal U game with JC and the first comments in the thread are along the lines of "this will be easy, a fun walkover game" and the like. And guess what? A higher % than usual won there AFAIK. I remember my situation quite well because I was declared on early, and a couple prats I had on the hill city near that AI completely held it off...an immortal axe/sword rush at 500 BC, stopped by 2 prats (a 3rd whipped) and a warrior.

It's a shame too, because the roman leaders both have excellent trait combinations and that is (very) often overshadowed by the UU. Julius has one of my favorite trait combos in the game!

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

Hi

I agree thats why most of my arguments have been from players standpoint in sp. And honestly I think even IF some feel like quechas are prats are abuse or cheese or whatever. I dont THINK there is any part of the code putting a gun to their head MAKING them quecha rush or spam Prats. If thats how you feel you REALY dont need to change the game just dont do it. Whichever way you decide it doesnt matter since I dont really see how one person deciding to play the game one way affects another person decding to play a different way at all.

I also agree about how some civs during certain time periods should be very scarier than the other civs in these types of games. I never had the mongols on that list though I can see why some people would. To me in game like civ or Rise of nations or whatever the "scary" civs should be like the romans in the sword age, england in the early to mid gunpowder age and germany in the indy age. Civs when in their "strong" periods will be MAJOR pains to deal with than other civs and a time when as a playing playing them you can REALLY go on stomping spree more so than the others.

And it seems like for the most part England and Germany got left out this version while Rome didnt. And I dont really mind that since to me Rome is THE empire so I have no problem with it being the strongest. Yeah I realize that argurably other empire may be argued to be better or bigger or more influential or whatever but even THEN that seems how they are described "bigger even than rome" or "more people even than rome" etc. Even for the "better" empires Rome is the yardstick used to measure that. Kinda like same reason highest rank you can get is Auggie Ceaser.

Kaytie

Hi

The use of a unit isn't cheating, the unit is in the game for a reason, so it should be subject to balance. Not a user's voluntary decision to avoid it. There shouldn't be reason why we don't allow Inca-top scores in the Hall of Fame, but we voluntarily do so because we believe the game wasn't designed well enough to handle the way a human can handle that civ in the early game.

The thing about a civ being excessively dominant during the time of their UU leaves a lot to debate. #1, because not every civ's unique unit can be used to dominate [ballista elephant anyone?], #2, because not every civ has had a single unit that has ever dominated in history [china has been around since the beginning of time, but what mechanism of war has allowed them to dominate completely?]. #3, because even some of the best units of an era were never used fully in their window of opportunity [samurai for example, had the best weapons, the best tactical minds, the most fearless warriors of their age, but they came about too close to the age of rifles to be used effectively as a means of military dominance].

The reason why I chose England, Rome, and Mongolia is they had a clear and decisive advantage in their era and used it to virtually it's full potential and benifitted militarily dramatically during their respected periods. But even that would be up for debate, one might argue that the German Panzer is underpowered to reflect Nazi Germany's first use of mobile warfare during WW2. [I'd argue that the Luftwaffe, and German generals like Erwin Rommel had more to do with the success of the Nazi Military than the Panzer, at least until the Tiger Mark 3 which came right at the end of the war as Germany was clearly on the retreat, where they decided to put AA guns on their tanks for their armor penetrating power instead, but I digress...] My point is, is that for those that say one civ is by necessity stronger than the other because of "their place of history due to" is always up for debate. Beyond that, civ is a game, having one side overpowering another takes away from the unique tapestry of balance and would cause a player to be inclined to choose the stronger side so that they might perform better.

I've said I can see why the Roman Legion, the English Redcoat or the Mongol Keshik, could be made to be overpowering military units, but I don't believe I'd want them to be. If that means a little historical inaccuracy for the sake of gameplay balance so be it. Civ has always tried to keep a balance in their games for endless replayability, and have done a great job at doing that more often than not, and consequently why I continue to play the games.

§L¥ Gµ¥

 

[Kranden]

Just be glad Praetorian don't have machine guns! Then we will see what is overpowered mwahahha!

 

[AmazonQueen]

Hi

The use of a unit isn't cheating, the unit is in the game for a reason, so it should be subject to balance. Not a user's voluntary decision to avoid it. There shouldn't be reason why we don't allow Inca-top scores in the Hall of Fame, but we voluntarily do so because we believe the game wasn't designed well enough to handle the way a human can handle that civ in the early game.

The thing about a civ being excessively dominant during the time of their UU leaves a lot to debate. #1, because not every civ's unique unit can be used to dominate [ballista elephant anyone?], #2, because not every civ has had a single unit that has ever dominated in history [china has been around since the beginning of time, but what mechanism of war has allowed them to dominate completely?]. #3, because even some of the best units of an era were never used fully in their window of opportunity [samurai for example, had the best weapons, the best tactical minds, the most fearless warriors of their age, but they came about too close to the age of rifles to be used effectively as a means of military dominance].

The reason why I chose England, Rome, and Mongolia is they had a clear and decisive advantage in their era and used it to virtually it's full potential and benifitted militarily dramatically during their respected periods. But even that would be up for debate, one might argue that the German Panzer is underpowered to reflect Nazi Germany's first use of mobile warfare during WW2. [I'd argue that the Luftwaffe, and German generals like Erwin Rommel had more to do with the success of the Nazi Military than the Panzer, at least until the Tiger Mark 3 which came right at the end of the war as Germany was clearly on the retreat, where they decided to put AA guns on their tanks for their armor penetrating power instead, but I digress...] My point is, is that for those that say one civ is by necessity stronger than the other because of "their place of history due to" is always up for debate. Beyond that, civ is a game, having one side overpowering another takes away from the unique tapestry of balance and would cause a player to be inclined to choose the stronger side so that they might perform better.

I've said I can see why the Roman Legion, the English Redcoat or the Mongol Keshik, could be made to be overpowering military units, but I don't believe I'd want them to be. If that means a little historical inaccuracy for the sake of gameplay balance so be it. Civ has always tried to keep a balance in their games for endless replayability, and have done a great job at doing that more often than not, and consequently why I continue to play the games.

§L¥ Gµ¥

I'm not convinced the Redcoat was as important as you state
Britain was a small country that put most of its military resources into the navy and made extensive use of mercenaries, native troops etc to make up for the lack of troops

In the French and Indian Wars we used native American allies and colonial militias
In the American Revolutionit was Hessians, native American allies and Tories/Loyalists
In India it was Sepoys
In the Peninsula War it was Portugese and Spanish troops
At Waterloo Wellington had more Dutch, Belgian and German troops than British

 

[deanej]

And prats making it so you can ignore combined arms stacks is exactly why they're overpowered. The intent of civ4 was to encourage combined arms so that no unit dominateds. The parts ignore this. And for them not dominating in later eras: remember, by this time they will have lots of promotions. You can ignore siege in the medieval era depending on your target city; a city without a lot of defenses can still be taken with just prats.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

The use of a unit isn't cheating, the unit is in the game for a reason, so it should be subject to balance. Not a user's voluntary decision to avoid it. There shouldn't be reason why we don't allow Inca-top scores in the Hall of Fame, but we voluntarily do so because we believe the game wasn't designed well enough to handle the way a human can handle that civ in the early game.

The reason I am guessing is the people running the HoF or of the opinion the Inca for whatever reason are capable of much higher scores than the same player under the same conditions with a different civ wouldnt be able to achieve. And yeah so they voluntarily decided not to include the inca in their rankings. My question would be how is say another forum with another HOF deciding to allow the Inco to be included affects THIS HoF? As I understand it this HoF allows events to be on. If another forum decided that events were too random to allow a true comparison of game play so voluntarily decides to only allow games with them turned off mean that THIS forums HoF must turn them off too?

That is the beauty of this game. It is complex with a lot of variety. Lots of different leaders and traits and different units and different victories and syles of play possible.

But with all that variety you CANT make EVERY trait, unit, ub, civ etc so that it makes EVERY one happy. There is going to be SOME civ or unit or style of play that forwhatever reason some person will not like enjoy or just agree how it is implemented.

But that kind of variety also means good odds that while there may be some things you dont enjoy there are things you do and everybody can have fun doing what they like and avoiding what they dont.

If you think Rome or Inca is too powerful or makes the game too easy. Dont play them there are still LOTS of other civs to play. If you think doggy soldiers are weak because you LOVE to axe rush and they kinda suck it--play Sumeria or some other civ more suited. If you think ax rushing is just totally cheesey--dont do it play a different style.

If you think sowrds SOLE purpose is city busting and Jags are weak because they not as good at it and the idea of using them to harras, worker steal choke, more than actually capturing cities or just resnet having to build so many more in order to accomplish what you could do with fewer sword units of another civ--guess what dont play the Aztecs pick something else.

Now you COULD set game so no matter which civ you played it would go the exact SAME way the EXACT same odds of success, the EXACT same strategies and playstyles all working exactly the same in the same conditions no matter what civ you played. The only difference being the color and artstyles of the civ you pick. And while that game might be perfectly "balanced" it would also be kinda dull.

So like I said because of all that variety and differences SOME things WILL be stronger than others. SOME UU's will be stronger than others. Some traits might make odds of success better than others. Some strategies might mean higher chance to win than others. But one thing JUST for being "stronger" or strongest or weakest. Does not = over or underpowered.

Someone said in a thread I set the bar to high for something to be overpowered. I disagree and think a lot of people been setting it too low. I think even the dtractors of prats as they are now agree that while they DO make the game easier they are NOT and instant win. They are NOT all by themselves gonna get you a win on diety if you are having trbl winning on noble. And how much easier they DO make the game really depends on ones skill in other apsects of the game. So yeah I agree they make the game easier but not so over poweringly ridiculously easy as some complain about. And luckily for those who do think they make the game TOO easy there TONS of civs to choose from that because of all the differences between them would make the game anywhere from a little harder to LOTS harder depending on your taste.

Also and this I think is a deal breaker. It is also agreed even by Prats detractors that they are NOT so powerful that even if you choose not to play em if they spwn in one of your games might as well restart cuz by time you get your empire going rest of world is gonna be one giant purple blob. They may be more difficult to handle than other civs but not hopelessly impossible to deal with.

So to me they may be the most powerful but that doesnt mean overpowered and even if one disgrees and just cant stand playing them they can pick another civ and even if rome spawns as an ai rival game still isnt ruined.

The thing about a civ being excessively dominant during the time of their UU leaves a lot to debate. #1, because not every civ's unique unit can be used to dominate [ballista elephant anyone?], #2, because not every civ has had a single unit that has ever dominated in history [china has been around since the beginning of time, but what mechanism of war has allowed them to dominate completely?]. #3, because even some of the best units of an era were never used fully in their window of opportunity [samurai for example, had the best weapons, the best tactical minds, the most fearless warriors of their age, but they came about too close to the age of rifles to be used effectively as a means of military dominance].

Well first I dont look at as a UU determining a CIV's height of dominace. More like at some points in histroy SOME civs had significantly more impact than others and then a UU is chosen to kind of represent that.

AND I didnt say EVERY civ had that kind of impact to the point that they might warrant being stronger and stand out in the game and impact it a little more than the "average" civ.

The reason why I chose England, Rome, and Mongolia is they had a clear and decisive advantage in their era and used it to virtually it's full potential and benifitted militarily dramatically during their respected periods. But even that would be up for debate, one might argue that the German Panzer is underpowered to reflect Nazi Germany's first use of mobile warfare during WW2. [I'd argue that the Luftwaffe, and German generals like Erwin Rommel had more to do with the success of the Nazi Military than the Panzer, at least until the Tiger Mark 3 which came right at the end of the war as Germany was clearly on the retreat, where they decided to put AA guns on their tanks for their armor penetrating power instead, but I digress...] My point is, is that for those that say one civ is by necessity stronger than the other because of "their place of history due to" is always up for debate. Beyond that, civ is a game, having one side overpowering another takes away from the unique tapestry of balance and would cause a player to be inclined to choose the stronger side so that they might perform better.

I
agree things like that is always up for debate. ANd I aslo agree that like in the example of germany it wasnt just ONE thing. But UU like LOTS of stuff in civ are meant to be symbols to represent the whole. And some symbols capture the imagination more than others. The Tiger might not be the BIGGEST factor for germany's military might at the time. In fact I have seen a show that said the Tiger wasnt even THE best tank of ww2--(some russian tank the tee 40 or 50 or something was) But in terms of capturing the imagination picking the tank that could make enemy tanks run if they even THOUGHT it MIGHT be nearby. Where at one point the germans would just take regular panzers and dress em up so they just LOOKED like a Tiger cuz it gave em THAT big of an psycologicsl edge over the allie troops In my opinion Tiger is hard to beat.

And yeah civ is a game. ANd like I said I really do think the wide range of variety and with it the range of ease or difficulty that can happen depending on what civ what leader what map you choose to play and then how you choose to play them IS part of the fun.

And maybe there ARE people whose natural inclinitions is to ALWAYS choose the "strongest" way to go. But if thats not your inclination nothing is forcing you to go that way. You and everyone else is free to follow their own inclination and make their own choices. ANd so what if because of your inclination for something more challenging you choose Native Americans on a sea map while somebody else or LOTS of everybody else chosses Rome on a duel map or something. Their choices not going to take way from the fun of yours anymore than yours would theirs.

I've said I can see why the Roman Legion, the English Redcoat or the Mongol Keshik, could be made to be overpowering military units, but I don't believe I'd want them to be. If that means a little historical inaccuracy for the sake of gameplay balance so be it. Civ has always tried to keep a balance in their games for endless replayability, and have done a great job at doing that more often than not, and consequently why I continue to play the games.

§L¥ Gµ¥

But all three ARE very powerful in the game. MUCH more powerful than the regular units they replace. ANd I am one of LOUDEST ppl about saying fun and gameplay should overrule accuracy if it comes to a choice of one or the other. But the fun and gameplay cant be all THAT ruined since not only is it so much fun for us that we still play it probably waaay too much we also spend waay too much time on forums talking about it hehe

Kaytie

 

[deanej]

People thought that vanilla's cossacks and redcoats were fun, but they were nerfed.

People thought that the pre-BtS tanks were fun, but they were nerfed.

People thought suicide catapults were fun, but they too were nerfed.

What makes prats so different (other than the fact that Firaxis has yet to nerf them)?

 

[KaytieKat]

And prats making it so you can ignore combined arms stacks is exactly why they're overpowered. The intent of civ4 was to encourage combined arms so that no unit dominateds. The parts ignore this. And for them not dominating in later eras: remember, by this time they will have lots of promotions. You can ignore siege in the medieval era depending on your target city; a city without a lot of defenses can still be taken with just prats.

Hi

For a huge chunk of game even romans will benefit from combined arms approach. And in order to help symbolize the vast dominance of rome at its height they make its UU one of the few units that can get by without siege during its era make them one of the most strongest units. But being the strongest does not equal overpowered.

If I have been waring for a loooooong time during sword age. By time AI has longbows I usually have a few HIGHLY promoted swords. AT least highly promoted to me ones like a ton of combat1 cr3 and a cpl with something like combat1 and 2 or combat1 and cover and cr3. Those guys can take out non protective longbows in lightly defended cities without siege too. That more a function of constant warring than of the Prats. And as soon as those guys are upgraded to maces they are even BETTER at taking cities without siege than prats cuz they get the mace melee bonus so now they can take out other maces in the city as well.

And yeah Prats do get to something like that MUCH easier than swords (and can save you the gold you would have used to upgrade from swords to mace although in long run it doesnt REALLY save THAT much gold since going prat to rifle or grenadier upgrade is MORE expensive than upgrading maces.) But not so much so that they rule the medieival age. they are still at best just inferior maces. Yeah highly promoted prats can pick off weak cities on their own without seige but so can highly promoted swords the granted what is weak enough for sword to handle is a little less available than what a prat could the diff isnt SOOO huge as to be game breaking. And if you do spare the gold to upgrade the swords there isnt any diff at all and what diff there is swings in favior of the mace.

Kaytie

 

[deanej]

But civ isn't a history simulator. All the civs are supposed to be balanced to each other, no easier or harder than another civ. At least I think that's what Firaxis intended.

 

[KaytieKat]

People thought that vanilla's cossacks and redcoats were fun, but they were nerfed.

People thought that the pre-BtS tanks were fun, but they were nerfed.

People thought suicide catapults were fun, but they too were nerfed.

What makes prats so different (other than the fact that Firaxis has yet to nerf them)?

Hi

If you are saying you agree with firaxis's choice in the nerfs was correct. Then obviously the choice of Firaxis NOT to nerf prats beyond what they already have been is also correct.

On they other hand if you are saying you disagree that the choices made by firaxis regarding Prats so far are correct and tha firaxis is wrong. Then bringing up previous choices they made is meaningless.

Some of the above nerfs I agree with and others I disagree.

And one I out out hate. In fact I even disagree it was a nerf. I am in the group that sees the "nerf" of barrage tanks the unintended consquence of trying to fix barrage in general and rather than go back and try to rework barage again they just said heck with it tanks dont get barrage now. NOT because of gameplay reason just cuz it was easiest "solution" to that mistake.

But either way if firaxis is ALWAYS "right" then fact that prats have 8 str and hvent been deemed so overpowered by firaxis as deserving a nerf is "right" Or If firaxis can in fact make the WRONG choice (yeah global warming Im looking at YOU) then brining up previous choices they have made doesnt mean much becasue I or anyone saying they disagree with those choices is just as valid as you saying you agree with em.

Kaytie

 

[KaytieKat]

But civ isn't a history simulator. All the civs are supposed to be balanced to each other, no easier or harder than another civ. At least I think that's what Firaxis intended.

Hi

I disagree that that is what they intended but even if it is they failed BIG time. And not just regards to prats. Depending on situation some civs,traits, UU's, victory choice, playstyle, whatever WILL be easier or harder than another in the exact same situation. In fact I though I am not a mind reader I will go out on limb to say that firaxis did NOT mean for all civs to be exactlly the same. I mean having Shaka, Toku, or Mansa or Ghandi or sitting bull as your closest neighbor RADICALLY changes the game in terms of what choices will be your best chances of surviuval. And it is not SOLELY based on just the AI attitudes.

I also have to disagree that if all the civs were so equal that I could close my eyes pick a civ and no matter who I picked it would play EXACTLY the same in terms of challenge then the game would get boring FAST.

Kaytie

 

[deanej]

What I'm saying is that it's very inconsistent for Firaxis to nerf some units and not others. While they probably did not intend for civs to be exactly the same, I doubt they intended for Rome to have that much advantage.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the record, HoF does not ban inca, they just don't count towards EQM and most gauntlets. That said, there are a lot of us that don't agree with banning inca at all, and that doing so is just as arbitrary (and probably less justified) than banning marathon game speed (which has such a sick advantage over other speeds it might as well be a different game). But marathon is allowed, and inca partially banned, which is a joke.

A true HoF as such is a competition between players and if inca is the best choice for a lot of settings that's part of the breaks. You don't see early rushes banned or something.

But in reality, the quecha is not overpowering, the AI is just weak. The prat is a little different and should probably be nerfed a bit, but they shout *not* be banned from HoF. Nothing should.

 

[Ricci]

... While they probably did not intend for civs to be exactly the same, I doubt they intended for Rome to have that much advantage.

I respectfully think they didn't intend for Rome to have that much advantage because there is no such much advantage. Please condole me for some lines here Dean:
You just reminded me of a MP game I started some time ago, my human rival was Sitting Bull and far away. I played Incas and had Rome just aside of my empire over another landmass (archipelago), they had no copper around (very common in this kind of map) and iron somehow beneath their capital but within a tiny arid island. Needless to say they didn't build a single of their famous UUs, even though I attacked late, around 500 BC I think.
The fact is, were Rome my human rival it would' t have made any difference, I even had Metal Casting around 2000 BC so any hope of beelining you know what and connecting that iron was just that.

The above is a genuine game situation, beelining IW doesn't do the 'trick'. People tend to take for granted the prerequisite resource, maybe because they play in very comfortable diff levels or no MP at all, I really don't know. Maybe the games they cannot have the iron they just abandon and eventually forget that game entirely. Moreover, it is not nearly as difficult to happen to have iron nearby in the ancient age as having iron in the medieval ages and training ChoKoNu or Samurai, etc. And the sooner you have iron the easier you can start building a great Roman empire.

 

[Ricci]

...
But in reality, the quecha is not overpowering, the AI is just weak. The prat is a little different and should probably be nerfed a bit, but they shout *not* be banned from HoF. Nothing should.

I recall reading above some answer of yours were you stated quechuas and immortals were included in your overpowering list. Of course Main, you are allowed to change your mind; not trying to be annoying with you. And I must tell that I completely agree in that these units are not overpowered at all, but neither is the praetorian. As a sidenote, it is very well countered by a human player, even H vs H ( of course it still is a difficult unit to counter, maybe you shouldn't try to invade a powerful human Rome with iron before your medieval time. .). When you have it it's great though, surely within the 3 top units, maybe the single better. Still.

On to another subject I'll tell you why do I think ChoKoNus and Holkans are just as good to be in that list, surprised you didn't acknowledge.

It was in fact till very recent that I manged to play with China and understood inflesh what these ChoKus were up to. To make it simple, they can't move alone in enemy field as maybe praetorians could (although it would' t be unwise to carry them along with shock horse archers if you have them), but with some few bombard siege to take down city defenses they can truly obliterate any city. Actually their true strength rests over their first strikes; 2/3 if I recall correct, and easily promotable to drill III (3/6), formation, shock, cover, whatever you need. If you have some knights in the enemy stack you can throw some city raider trebu first. Ok, I am getting into too much detail.
Summing up:

- They are relatively cheap for the medieval.
- Come along early in their age.
- Collateral really sums up when attacking in numbers (remember when the catapult could kill in the attack?)
- First strikes break odds (I always thought FS didn't properly sum up into the combat odds, anyways they will always make some amount of damage to the unit they attack and some other to the ones they do collateral.
- It doesn't matter if there are a bunch of praetorians defending the suffering stack, they are in fact welcomed.

Maybe I am forgetting something here. I leave the holkan for some other time.

- Nice thread Kitty

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I recall reading above some answer of yours were you stated quechuas and immortals were included in your overpowering list. Of course Main, you are allowed to change your mind; not trying to be annoying with you. And I must tell that I completely agree in that these units are not overpowered at all, but neither is the praetorian. As a sidenote, it is very well countered by a human player, even H vs H ( of course it still is a difficult unit to counter, maybe you shouldn't try to invade a powerful human Rome with iron before your medieval time. .). When you have it it's great though, surely within the 3 top units, maybe the single better. Still.

I wasn't clear. The quecha is very overpowering vs the AI, because the AI is poor. It isn't overpowering against humans at all (you don't make any special considerations when attacking or defending against it generally). The praetorian, on the other hand, requires special consideration because although it does have one early counter unit that beats it hammer for hammer (axes), it is odds on against the axe straight up, making it difficult to deal with. On defense you probably still can but they're a huge threat. Quechas? Not so much. A couple warriors or any metal unit and they're toast. Immortals are similarly ridiculous against the AI but more average vs people.

- They are relatively cheap for the medieval.
- Come along early in their age.
- Collateral really sums up when attacking in numbers (remember when the catapult could kill in the attack?)
- First strikes break odds (I always thought FS didn't properly sum up into the combat odds, anyways they will always make some amount of damage to the unit they attack and some other to the ones they do collateral.
- It doesn't matter if there are a bunch of praetorians defending the suffering stack, they are in fact welcomed.

They're decent vs the AI but suffer from being awkwardly placed compared to catapults and requiring a somewhat expensive tech. The trouble is that the second the AI gets longbows...and on high difficulties they get them soon...you still experience a good bit of attrition to your CKNs. Also CKNs are not immune to collateral nor special defensively and are thus equally vulnerable to counter-attacks as any other xbow...the mounted line in particular is dangerous as catapults or flanking HAs can quickly put spears in losing positions and mounted tends to ignore first strikes. CKNs are not cost effective against horse archers at all and defensively are not effective against even longbows should your opponent decide to counter-attack you. Coupled with the fact that CKNs are generally had later than other early attack alternates, and later still if you don't make concessions just to get them, they drop from elite status.

Holkans carry all the spear weaknesses and often will only come a little sooner...

 

[Silence101]

KaytieKat: Well, I have to say, I think you've put forth an impressive argument against Praet's being overpowered. Nice.

I often hear claims of such-and-such element of the game being overpowered or underpowered and for the most part, I don't really care. Unless we have carbon copies of each of the Civ's, the very act of adding flavor is going to create strategies that can be exploited to a larger degree by Civ A than by Civ B and visa versa. Maybe that's not very balanced... but as long as one Civ doesn't have the inate ability to steamroll all others regardless of circumstances, I'd rather have the flavor and the unique Civ's. With the complexities of this game, I'd say Firaxis has done a remarkable job of balancing it overall.

There is not doubt... Rome's UU is powerful. It is arguably the most powerful unit in its era, and it should be. This is Rome after all. Rome's military dominance at the height of the Roman Empire isn't disputed. And if I start a new game and I just happen to share boarders with Rome, I'm prepared for this. I set up my military accordingly and I make every attempt to avoid a war with Rome until the medival period or later. However, issues arise when I play as Rome... because the AI isn't that bright. The AI doesn't understand the difference between being neighbors with Rome and being neighbors with someone else. (Especially if it's Monty... he seems to like to declare war on me even when the power ratio shows that he has no chance of winning.) Having this type of powerful advantage in the early (and most important part) of the game is huge. Playing as Rome potentially has the effect of lowering the difficulty level, however other factors, such as starting location and resources, barbarian presence, neighboring Civ's, etc... may have the same impact. We're not about to go flattening those other factors in the hopes of making the game more "balanced". If choosing to play as Rome, hopefully you're aware of this going in. Rome's UU is very powerful, but it's a basic, one dimensional unit. The fact that it's easy to use without any real weakness will effectively reduce the challenge level. There's nothing wrong with that if that's the setup you want to play.

Are Praet's powerful? Absolutely they are.
Is that a problem that needs fixing? Not really.

"What exactly is overpowered?" That's an interesting question... it seems to me that you may always have a candidate "overpowered" something until the day comes that everything on the map is exactly the same for every player... like a sort of forced fairness.

 

[Elite]

I've always seen things this way:

Overpowered means the same as noob(annoying) unless EVERYONE agrees that unit is overpowered, you might aswell call Halo players who are #1 overpowered(but they got their by skill so you'd be calling them annoying)

Noob = annoying
Newb = New
I still don't understand how some people try to get past it, I got into an argument with one of my friend's friend over what is what, and I was right we all knew it, the other guy just booted me out of his live party(on xbox live) THEN another guy said he doesn't like me because I act like I know everything(which I DO know everything on particular subjects that interest me or ese I learn about everything)

Warhammer 40,000: I know a LOT but not everything
Civilization: know quite a bit but guaranteed some/most ofyour guys know more then me.


For the most part people are just saying their either too weak to handle it or can't handle it because they lack strength and can't gain any beause they learn not how to counter it rather they evade the problem.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the most part people are just saying their either too weak to handle it or can't handle it because they lack strength and can't gain any beause they learn not how to counter it rather they evade the problem.

Actually, some high level players generally avoid using Rome because it's too easy. I know for a fact I'm not alone in that regard.