What to do with the Huns?

[bonafide11]

As Deggial says: cities are smaller. But also, the speed of conquest is slower in the beginning, and the difference in strength tend to be smaller (if you are playing on a competitive difficulty. Sure, it can help in the beginning too, but the effect is bigger later on.

I still disagree. Unhappiness early on is much more of a hindrance since you have so few cities, they are small, and they need to grow, plus there are so many more ways to control happiness later on in the game than early on. Considering the Huns UU will almost certainly give city attack bonuses early on, it will be easier for them to conquer cities early, and the unhappiness from conquering cities so fast would significantly add up, even if the cities were razed. Razing the cities at twice the speed then makes a significant difference. The Huns will be difficult to slow down early on with these conquering bonuses.

 

[CYZ]

I still disagree. Unhappiness early on is much more of a hindrance since you have so few cities, they are small, and they need to grow, plus there are so many more ways to control happiness later on in the game than early on. Considering the Huns UU will almost certainly give city attack bonuses early on, it will be easier for them to conquer cities early, and the unhappiness from conquering cities so fast would significantly add up, even if the cities were razed. Razing the cities at twice the speed then makes a significant difference. The Huns will be difficult to slow down early on with these conquering bonuses.

I agree. The huns will just raze any city they don't really need, and by doing it faster they can move on to the next city faster. Plus their rush tactics will obviously be focused on horses and not on iron. It's interesting.

Though the additional production from pastures is nice as well, with enough sheep/cow/horses and a early stable they can rush some wonders as well.

 

[nokmirt]

I agree. The huns will just raze any city they don't really need, and by doing it faster they can move on to the next city faster. Plus their rush tactics will obviously be focused on horses and not on iron. It's interesting.

Though the additional production from pastures is nice as well, with enough sheep/cow/horses and a early stable they can rush some wonders as well.

They are not going to be pleasant to be next to thats for sure. The question is what are some ways to defend against them? Rush masonry, bronze working and get archers as fast as possible? There is sure to be some new and interesting strategies being developed. Then again being next to the Huns at the outset could change the direction of your entire game. It will be difficult for instance to play a peaceful game. Your simply going to have to defend yourself, and that's just my game, bring em on!

 

[Haig]

I imagine the Huns are going to be the early rusher's favorite in multiplayer.
(I never really do early rushes except with Rome, but not sure if that counts early)

I kind of love the concept that Huns have this gamble, straight up conquering from turn one, no time to keep cities, just burn them. But after that they have kind of used their UUs, so if they don't gain enough capitals quick they might get into trouble. And their style won't get them any friends, more like an alliance against them..

Spoiler :

 

[CYZ]

You could go all out defensive (I think that horses+spearmen are likely the best counter) but then you're setting yourself up for conquest. If you want to keep your possibilities open it'd be best to use diplomacy. Get them to attack someone else first, get an alliance going against them (shouldn't be hard). You'll have to do barely anything then since they'll be outnumbered. If you managed to stop them from conquering early on then there is very little to worry about later.

 

[elprofesor]

Well, they still have a tech advantage and a production advantage, plus we still don't know the specifics of their UUs, they may get special promotions that carry over to their upgrades, and they will probably get a starting bias next to ~3 "pasturable" hexes (which is pretty common anyway, compared to Russia's extra hammers).

So it's not like they're completely useless even if they don't get to use their early UUs, but they do have to capitalize on their fast start if they can't rush a neighbour. They will need to get a worker or two ASAP.

 

[anandus]

I wonder if the battering ram upgrades to the catapult/trebuchet/cannon-line or if it upgrades to pikeman/rifleman-line?

 

[Gucumatz]

They will probably be a melee unit with a bonus vs cities and a penalty in the open field.

They'd make for shock troopers if upgraded I guess.

 

[albie_123]

I'm not sure how I feel about the Huns at the moment.

I think many are ignoring the fact that Animal Husbandry and a focus on pastures helps growth and production more than anything else - and as such I expect the Huns to have large cities.

And call me crazy, but I don't think that's too accurate.

 

[Nyanko]

I'm not sure how I feel about the Huns at the moment.

I think many are ignoring the fact that Animal Husbandry and a focus on pastures helps growth and production more than anything else - and as such I expect the Huns to have large cities.

And call me crazy, but I don't think that's too accurate.

Eh, Civ has never been what one can call accurate. Just think of the next time Washington declares war on Ramsess; or Gandhi nukes Isabella

 

[fat_tonle]

I hate almost everything about the Huns thus far...

1. Stealing city names.... probably the best solution considering the predicament to begin with. Doesn't make it good because of the quandary in the first place.

2. Animal pasture bonuses.... okay??? Another Russia basically. I guess it kinda works.

3. Siege weapon in the ancient era? Huns weren't really relevant until almost the medieval era. Just too big a bonus too early. Plays too one dimensionally.

4. Raze cities faster. Good. Makes sense.

5. Horse archer. Pretty unimaginative. Sound more like a universal unit that was left out of the game for whatever reason.

So even as a pure conquest civ, I still think it fails. Worse than Mongolia, which has a terrible UA but makes up for it with an awesome UU's.

 

[Arkangelus]

Its not a seige weapon - its just a spearman, but with a bonus vs cities instead of horses.

 

[chazzycat]

greece would be a good matchup

 

[anandus]

Its not a seige weapon - its just a spearman, but with a bonus vs cities instead of horses.

In the text it is called a siege unit, though.

 

[fat_tonle]

Anyone have a picture? Why would you call it battering ram unless there is some kind of animation that remotely resembles a battering ram?

 

[anandus]

I've got this:

 

[Gucumatz]

It looks like a battering ram. Look at the video

http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/314356244

Edit: Anandus beat me to it.

 

[MadDjinn]

but no, seriously, spears against horses. and battering rams most likely won't be ranged, so i'd go with archers.

Weakness against ranged would make most sense. Also forcing careful use of them against cities with ranged garrisons (i.e. all of them).

Weakness to ranged makes zero sense. You know what the guys running with the log have over their heads? Shields! Specifically so that they don't get shot running up to the gate.

You could go all out defensive (I think that horses+spearmen are likely the best counter) but then you're setting yourself up for conquest. If you want to keep your possibilities open it'd be best to use diplomacy. Get them to attack someone else first, get an alliance going against them (shouldn't be hard). You'll have to do barely anything then since they'll be outnumbered. If you managed to stop them from conquering early on then there is very little to worry about later.

It would likely be wiser to just make friends with them and point them at someone else. Once both are worn down, then go take a shot at them.

3. Siege weapon in the ancient era? Huns weren't really relevant until almost the medieval era. Just too big a bonus too early. Plays too one dimensionally.

5. Horse archer. Pretty unimaginative. Sound more like a universal unit that was left out of the game for whatever reason.

well, unless the ancient roman empire was considered 'medieval', I don't think the Huns had much to do with the middle ages. Rather more of a Classical Era horde that forced a lot of the Great Migration that eventually wiped out the Western side of the Roman Empire (with the East being the Byzantines/'Greek' side of the empire).

Composite bow weapons, from horse back, was a very big thing for the Huns. No one else was doing it (or had them) until later.

I've got this:

yeah, looks like a siege unit with overhead cover to me as well. Most importantly: MELEE siege unit - very unique (barely make it out in the image, but it does say melee).

 

[fat_tonle]

Just gameplaywise as far as where the tech is. It's too ez to sling shot to Bronze age. Mining to Bronze age and perhaps Statue of Zues (if you have the DLC)? Just too big too early.

I would have rather seen a civ like Assyria get that early a bonus. The problem being there isn't really another viable unit to replace it with in the ancient era because of the slim pickings to begin with. I would have moved it up to Iron working or something.... maybe a catapult replacement.

I guess the problem lies in the fact that the classical era is too damn short to begin with and ends in like 1000 BC as it is.

 

[PhilBowles]

Weakness to ranged makes zero sense. You know what the guys running with the log have over their heads? Shields! Specifically so that they don't get shot running up to the gate.

Nevertheless, ranged weapons were the most effective defences mounted against siege weapons, including rams and including later, medieval rams with roofs protecting the runners, not just shields that are effective only until the first runner falls. The problem for attackers is the length of exposure to arrow fire as they attack, combined with their slow speed relative to unencumbered troops.