Whats the big deal with praetorians?

[Nay]

Many people lament on how overpowered the Roman UU is.
Where is it overpowered?

I haev been on both sides of the fence, and the only conclusion i can draw is, that they are fairly good, but far from imba.

Axemen counter them quite ok, losing more than winning but keeping the upper hand in terms of cost and tech.

(while being 6% stronger than axemen they cost 28.5% more hammers, calculated with the formulas from this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137615&highlight=combat+formula)

Neither of the leaders is aggressive/protective/charismatic i think, so they do not even get a single auto-promotion.

Given, they are flavourless at just str. 8, but not game breaking.
(I personally would give them 20% city defense should they represent preatorians, or +25% vs. archers should they have been meant to resemble legionnaires)

So maybe i forgot some critical fact about them, if so please tell me.
Otherwise i will spearhead a campaign to stop the whining

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Im usually on the side of dont nerf Praets, but its funny how losing will change your mind. I lost a redcoat with cr 2 (upgraded obviously) to a praet! I believe the % was 91.1ish. Of course I knows there's a 9% chance of defeat, but comeon...I have freaking rifles!





Sure, a maceman could have killed me just as equally, but the difference is the praet could be built within the first two techs of the GAME. Macemen take a little more tech and time.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The fact is they are very good at Everything, they beat every unit at the same era as them

 

[Thedrin]

Axemen counter them quite ok, losing more than winning but keeping the upper hand in terms of cost and tech.

Assuming you only mean hammers when you say cost, this is true if it takes 9 unpromoted axemen to kill every 7 unpromoted praetorians*. Expand cost to include maintenance cost. Those axemen will cost 2 gold more per turn than the praetorians. This buts the non-Roman civ at an economic disadvantage before any battles have been fought.

* Even over multiple turns in the non-roman civs territory, I'm not sure they can. This means that the extra hammer and maintenance cost for sufficient axemen is even higher.

 

[Nay]

Ok, valid points.
Let me counter:

9:7 Axes/prets is correct.
Lets assume the axes stay within culture borders, they cost no more upkeep than the romans, who will, in fact, cost more since theyre away.
If you are the attacker.... you shouldnt leave home with JUST axemen.
Or do not attack the roman at the height of his power (wait for macemen).

Another point: Axes need Iron OR Copper, Prets need Iron.
Cut off his Iron, no more prets.
Cut off my Iron, i still have Axes.
Cut off both, shame on me, you deserve to give me a fair trashing.

Also, romans aint aggressive.
7 Civs on the other hand are, meaning their Axes will be superior to Prets by default.

4 more are protective (toku = both), which means their vanilla archers will stand against prets with 50% city defense, 20% defense, 25% fortify, totaling 5.85 against 8.
Thats only ONE archer (25 hammers) without culture defense bonus, walls and first strike taken in.

Then there are those UU which aint agg/pro but still can stand toe to toe with prets, considering more than just attack/defense:
Carthages Numidian Cav i say is even (+50% melee, withdraw, 2 move),
Malinese Skirmishers field 50% defense and 25% fortify for 7 strength without culture bonus, walls and 1-2 first strikes to keep prets at bay.
(yes, i calculate city defense bonus for archers, since that is what attacking prets will mostly face)

So id say 13 Civs can field units that are at least even with prets, considering those mentioned above are actually lower tech units.

The others wil lhave their revenge later when the prets are obsoleted and they have their own UUs who will destroy the roman (vanilla) counterparts.

on the subject of being better than all other units of that era:
isnt this quite the point of a UU?
i mean, from the top of my head, which UU isnt superior to its timely companions?

 

[Sisiutil]

The point has been made that Praetorians kick the AI's butt yet fare less well in a multi-player game against a human.

The reason is simple: the AI relies on Archers for early defense. Smart human players tend to rely on Axemen. If the AI spammed Axes the way it does Archers, Praets would not seem so unbalanced. Protective gives a slight advantage, but all you have to do as Rome is bee-line to Construction and Catapults after Iron Working, and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Thedrin]

If you are the attacker.... you shouldnt leave home with JUST axemen.

Yep. I find that between equally skilled players, the defending civ has the advantage. I will (and am) assume that the Romans are the invading civ. This will skew the results towards the 'praetorians are fine' camp, I believe, since it will give the non-Roman civ the advantage in unit supply and healing.

Also, romans aint aggressive.
7 civs on the other hand are, meaning their Axes will be superior to Prets by default.

8 aggresive leaders. 6 charismatic leaders. 2 Roman leaders. 2 imperialistic leaders who don't fall into any of the previous categories. That leaves 18 non-Roman leaders (out of the 36) who don't gain any trait based advantage for their axemen. This ignores protective leaders since axemen - the best common, pre-crossbow unit for dealing with praetorians - don't get any benefit from it. I am writing from the perspective of those 50% of leaders that don't get any trait based military advantage against praetorians.

Lets assume the axes stay within culture borders, they cost no more upkeep than the romans, who will, in fact, cost more since theyre away.

I forgot about unit supply. Good point. But every invader faces a supply cost. The aggressor can choose when to move into an enemies territory when it suits him. The defender can either maintain a normal sized defence force and rush more units upon Roman invasion or maintain a larger than usual defence force. In the first case they have equal unit maintenance costs but the defending civ will recieve considerable damage to its infrastructure via pillaging even if it doesn't actually lose border cities. In the second case the defender has greater unit maintenance costs until the Romans invade; if the Romans don't invade they'll still get an economic advantage.

on the subject of being better than all other units of that era:
isnt this quite the point of a UU?
i mean, from the top of my head, which UU isnt superior to its timely companions?

This is going off topic somewhat so I may not return to it but would like to state where I'm coming from.

If a unique unit is to be better than all other units of its era then the praetorian is the only true unique unit. The next closest is the cho-ko-nu since it draws even against longbows and horse archers (but fails to the much later knights). After that, it's the conquistador which is only beaten by elephants whose appearances are more restricted than other units. But every unique unit in the game other than the praetorian can expect to be beaten while defending open ground to some unit.

For me a unique unit should be suitable for more roles than those the common unit is usually restricted to. I still expect all units to have a natural counter.

 

[Thedrin]

Responding to the stuff I missed before:

So id say 13 Civs can field units that are at least even with prets, considering those mentioned above are actually lower tech units.

I may not have said so before but I consider a unit X's counter to be the unit that can expect to beat X when X is defending on open territory (no defensive bonuses). I don't care that there are units that can expect to win when defending a city from a praetorian. Nor do I care that a praetorian can expect to succesfully defend a forested hill tile against all units up to and including macemen. But I do take issue with the praetorian for not having a counter. That's another reason why I am ignoring the free garrison I of protective civs in this arguement.

The others wil lhave their revenge later when the prets are obsoleted and they have their own UUs who will destroy the roman (vanilla) counterparts.

Not if they're dead. That's a big enough disadvantage to overcome the benefits of any future unique unit. As a result I'll only be look at common units the praetorian can expect to face.

 

[Elandal]

If having late UU means you're dead before you get your UU, aren't Romans just as dead facing Ques or Immortals (the other two common rushing units)? And doesn't that mean that America and Germany suck because everyone has had their UU and therefore killed them before Industrialism?

Assuming praetorians are on the defense isn't really useful, as in case of attacking Rome when IW is online will mean waiting for maces / xbows, or at the very least getting cats. The ways to take out Rome are before IW and after praetorians are no longer superior.

Therfore, the only thing to do is to assume Rome is attacking someone, pre-mace (pre-xbow, probably pre-catapult as well), and the defender has axes, archers, chariots. This means that the praetorians are, most of the time, in the open terrain. Hills for +25% defense at best. And as the attacker is always at a disadvantage (defender has roads, city defense units, cities may have walls, have cultural defense, and the attacker has to slowly slog from hill to hill until he gets to a city), praetorians are just a strong unit, nothing that can't be handled.

If anyone complains about praetorian-rush in SP, they can complain about any rush. Immortals and Ques being the obvious ones, but no UU is needed for rushing, axes are just fine.

 

[Nay]

I may not have said so before but I consider a unit X's counter to be the unit that can expect to beat X when X is defending on open territory (no defensive bonuses). I don't care that there are units that can expect to win when defending a city from a praetorian. Nor do I care that a praetorian can expect to succesfully defend a forested hill tile against all units up to and including macemen. But I do take issue with the praetorian for not having a counter. That's another reason why I am ignoring the free garrison I of protective civs in this arguement.

There our definition part it seems, as my definition of counter takes into account Unit X´s primary role.

The counter for an offensive unit can be another offensive unit, as well as the defensive unit that has the primary role of standing its ground against Unit X.

Else you could say the counter to Longbowmen are Elephants since they (most probably) kill them on open ground.

Denying a unit its special abilities gained by terrain features or city occupation (which i take into account for reasons stated above) is therefor not valid in my interpretation of Counter-Units.

The Praetorian will kill any other unit of its era on open ground with odds in its favour, i give you that.
But this mode of comparison leaves out too many factors that actual gameplay will include, starting with citydefense.
Because, and i think you will agree with me on this, ultimately the reason for going to war is conquering cities, so we HAVE to take into account the defensive abilities of the Praetorians adversaries.

But every unique unit in the game other than the praetorian can expect to be beaten while defending open ground to some unit.

As can the Praetorian, to simple Axes.
5.3 to 5 (translates roughly into 53% chance i think) is FAR from a sure win, as experience will surely have shown you many times over.

 

[abuaftab]

Whenever I have played as Rome I would have my prat run away screaming from axes. And if I have played against Rome I have axes slash the prats. What is this inane and illogical bickering over the prats, as mentioned above, Conquistadors are much scarier than prats.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well one thing to do Might be to improve Ordinary Swordsmen to +15 or +20%City Attack from their +10% to make them more cost efficient as compared to the Prat

 

[Thedrin]

Because, and i think you will agree with me on this, ultimately the reason for going to war is conquering cities, so we HAVE to take into account the defensive abilities of the Praetorians adversaries.

No. The reason for going to war is to gain an advantage over your opponents. Conquering cities is a very good way of doing this but there are others.

I'm well aware that it's possible to defend your cities succesfully against praetorians. I have never objected to the praetorians power as a city attack unit. If the praetorian's statistics were to be changed I wouldn't object to giving it 7 strength with 15% city attack. I am 90% certain that such a unit at full health would be better at attacking cities than the current praetorian in all circumstances. City attack is not the issue.

If I'm Rome and I find the civ I invade have cities defended with plenty of axemen (and let's assume they aren't paying more in maintenance than they would if preparing for invasion from any other civ) I'll change my plan in two ways. 1) I'll give as many of my praetorians shock as possible. 2) I won't attack their cities since I will lose a lot of my units. Instead I'll destroy their tile improvements. What can my victim do to stop me without spending more resources than they would to prevent a non Roman civ from doing the same thing? That's the issue.

5.3 to 5 (translates roughly into 53% chance i think) is FAR from a sure win, as experience will surely have shown you many times over.

True, it's not a sure win. But your percentages are wrong. The axeman has a 34.1% chance of winning an attack. The praetorian has a 66.4% chance of winning of winning an attack. Those odds are much less unsure.

 

[Col.BBQ]

Im usually on the side of dont nerf Praets, but its funny how losing will change your mind. I lost a redcoat with cr 2 (upgraded obviously) to a praet! I believe the % was 91.1ish. Of course I knows there's a 9% chance of defeat, but comeon...I have freaking rifles!

Yes, but if the gunpowder goes bad as it usually does in rainy weather, they are nothing more than men with pointy sticks.

 

[Nay]

No. The reason for going to war is to gain an advantage over your opponents. Conquering cities is a very good way of doing this but there are others.

1) I'll give as many of my praetorians shock as possible. 2) I won't attack their cities since I will lose a lot of my units. Instead I'll destroy their tile improvements. What can my victim do to stop me?



The axeman attacking has a 34.1% chance of winning. The praetorian attacking has a 66.4% chance of winning. That's a big difference.

If you upgrade your prets please allow me to upgrade my Axes
Lets see, im facing the Roman who has most certainly Iron, which grants him a hard hitting melee unit..... i think ill take shock for my Axes then.

34:66? wow, didnt think that 6% difference made such a, well, difference.
But i trust your numbers (unless i can arse myself to test it in WB)

 

[Thedrin]

1) I'll give as many of my praetorians shock as possible.

If you upgrade your prets please allow me to upgrade my Axes

I mean that I'll promote them towards shock. All they'll have initially (like the axemen) is combat I until they win battles. I'll try to promote a lot of praetorians towards shock because a lot of axes will (should) be promoted towards shock.

I edited my previous post shortly before you responded to include a bit on the praetorians city attack abilities.

 

[Dracandross]

Many people lament on how overpowered the Roman UU is.
Where is it overpowered?

Simply if you give it CR 2 (+40%) it will mean +3.2 more str and 11.2 is impressive. Compared to some other UUs improvements dont give so substantial improvement compared to others (+3.2 vs st 6).

Axemen will do well with them, but you can either give combat 1+shock or just carry axeman with him.
Dont know about multiplayer, but single it really rocks over AI.
But overpowered with its new improved cost, no. Just very tough as some UUs are crap.

-Dracandross

 

[Nay]

Thats the conclusion i came to during this thread.
They are strong, but not unbreakable.

If you know theres a Roman near you, start piling up Axes and make him pay for every square with blood.

Tough but not overpowered.

I find Berserkers closer to being overpowered (in the long term) since they carry on their amphibious promotion when upgrading.

 

[gunkulator]

Simply if you give it CR 2 (+40%) it will mean +3.2 more str and 11.2 is impressive.

Only the Combat promotions increase the attacker's strength. All other attacker bonuses are subtracted from the defender's bonuses. A CR2 Pret against a fortified CG2 Archer in a city is:

8 (unmodifed because no Combat promotions)
vs.
5.25 (3 + 50% Archer unit city defense bonus + 25% Archer fortifed + 45% Archer CG1 & 2 - 45% Pret CR1 & 2)

The corresponding City Raider and City Garrison promotions always cancel each other out, regardless of the strengths of the attacker and defender.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Only the Combat promotions increase the attacker's strength. All other attacker bonuses are subtracted from the defender's bonuses. A CR2 Pret against a fortified CG2 Archer in a city is:

8 (unmodifed because no Combat promotions)
vs.
5.25 (3 + 50% Archer unit city defense bonus + 25% Archer fortifed + 45% Archer CG1 & 2 - 45% Pret CR1 & 2)

The corresponding City Raider and City Garrison promotions always cancel each other out, regardless of the strengths of the attacker and defender.

That confused me until recently. It makes perfect sense now. I always wondered why Swords with CR3 were so awesome as city killers. Base 6 strength and 75% taken away from the opponent? I stopped fog busting completely, and started sending out my swords for barb killing duty before a war. You can usually start a war with half dozen CR3 swords long before the culture defense bonus erases most of the advantage, and by then, you probably have catapults anyway.